[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-189704-105":53,"doc-detail-189704-en":121},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":114,"head_meta":116,"extra_data":118,"updated_unix":120},105,"en","wmp-discovery-2026-2028_dr_turn_002-q001","WMP-Discovery 2026-2028_DR_TURN_002-Q001","","Discovery response log for the 2026-2028 WMP, focusing on PG&E’s risk methodology and assessment. It addresses how Potentially-Impacted Customers (PICs) were selected and initially identified, what consequences PICs could have that were not included in the 12-year customer lookback, and the rationale for statements about historical coverage limits. It also explains the data basis for claims about potentially affected customers and clarifies that PICs are no longer modeled due to low incremental risk values.",{"@graph":63,"@context":113},[64,80,96],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":46,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/paper-templates/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/wmp-discovery-2026-2028_dr_turn_002-q001/189704/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"author":82,"headline":59,"publisher":85,"fileFormat":88,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":89,"datePublished":90,"encodingFormat":88,"isAccessibleForFree":91,"interactionStatistic":92},"DigitalDocument",{"name":83,"@type":84},"Sophia Brooks","Person",{"url":68,"name":86,"@type":87},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-06","2026-09-03",true,{"@type":93,"interactionType":94,"userInteractionCount":9},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":95},"ViewAction",{"@type":97,"mainEntity":98},"FAQPage",[99,105,109],{"name":100,"@type":101,"acceptedAnswer":102},"How were Potentially-Impacted Customers (PICs) selected and initially identified?","Question",{"text":103,"@type":104},"PICs were selected using PG&E distribution planning models under a scenario where every distribution line in HFTD/HFRA is de-energized. Potentially impacted customers were then identified through those same distribution planning models.","Answer",{"name":106,"@type":101,"acceptedAnswer":107},"Why does the document state that not every customer who could experience a PSPS event is captured in the historical backcast?",{"text":108,"@type":104},"The explanation is that the lookback is based on historical weather conditions that met PSPS thresholds to initiate a PSPS event. This does not mean locations that never met PSPS thresholds could not experience an event in the future; it indicates a low-probability coverage gap for those locations.",{"name":110,"@type":101,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does PG&E no longer account for PICs in its PSPS consequence model?",{"text":112,"@type":104},"The document states PICs are no longer included because the incremental risk values associated with customers not included in the lookback are low, and the page 57 statement is therefore historical in nature.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":115,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":86,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":117,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":119,"site_id":56},189704,1788398651,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":122},{"doc_id":119,"user_id":123,"nickname":83,"user_avatar":124,"doc_module":9,"category_id":45,"category_name":46,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":125,"file_id":126,"file_url":127,"file_type":128,"file_size":129,"view_count":9,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":130,"language":131,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":132,"faqs":133,"seo_title":134,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":120,"read_time":8},962084925636,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","| Link to Discovery Responses: [https://www.pge.com/en/outages-and-safety/safety/community-wildfire-safety-program.html](https://www.pge.com/en/outages-and-safety/safety/community-wildfire-safety-program.html) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Count | Party Name | Data Set | Data Request | Question\u003Cbr>No. | Supp/Rev | Question ID | Question Text | Responses | Requestor | Date Rec'd | Final Due\u003Cbr>Date | Date Sent | Links | Number of\u003Cbr>Atchs | NDA Required | 2025 WMP Section | Category | Subcategory |\n| 1 | TURN | 002 | TURN_002 | 1 | No | TURN_002_Q1 | Section 5.2. 1, page 57 states, “starting in January 2023, PG&E\u003Cbr>incorporated additional customers who could be impacted into the PSPS\u003Cbr>consequence model and classified them as Potentially-Impacted\u003Cbr>Customers (PIC) .”\u003Cbr>a. How were the PIC selected?\u003Cbr>b. How were they initially identified?\u003Cbr>c. What types of consequences do they have that were not included in\u003Cbr>the 12-year customer lookback?\u003Cbr>d. Please explain the basis for PG&E’s belief that “not every\u003Cbr>customer who could experience a PSPS event is captured in the\u003Cbr>historical backcast.”\u003Cbr>e. Regarding the statement on page 57 that “this enables the\u003Cbr>calculation of roughly double the potentially-affected customers\u003Cbr>…”, please provide the specific data on which this statement is\u003Cbr>based. | Please note that, PG&E no longer accounts for Potentially Impacted Customers (PICs) in its PSPS consequence model due to the low incremental risk values associated with customers that were not included in our lookback. Thus, the statement on page 57 of the 2026-2028 WMP is historical in nature.\u003Cbr>a. The selection criteria for PICs were created by using our distribution planning\u003Cbr>models under the scenario of “what if” every distribution line in HFTD/HFRA is\u003Cbr>required to be de-energized.\u003Cbr>b. Potentially impacted customers (i. e. all customers who would impacted by the\u003Cbr>theoretical de-energization of every HFTD/HFRA distribution line) were identified\u003Cbr>through our distribution planning models.\u003Cbr>WMP-Discovery 2026-2028_DR_TURN_ 002-Q001 Page 2\u003Cbr>c. The inclusion of PICs results in an increased risk associated with customers in\u003Cbr>locations where PSPS thresholds were not met in our historical lookback, but have\u003Cbr>exposure to PSPS risk based on HFTD/HFRA location and system configuration.\u003Cbr>This evaluation does not include the addition of new consequences.\u003Cbr>d. The meaning behind this statement is that this is a low probabilistic event, and the intent was to assign risk exposure to customers that are not accounted for in\u003Cbr>PG&E’s traditional lookback. This is because our lookback is based on historical\u003Cbr>weather conditions that have met PSPS thresholds to initiate a PSPS event. This is\u003Cbr>not to say that locations in HFTD that have never met PSPS thresholds could not\u003Cbr>see an event in the future.\u003Cbr>e. This statement is based on the idea that all customers that would be impacted by the theoretical de-energization of every HFTD/HFRA distribution line, minus the unique\u003Cbr>customers included in our lookback. | A Mireille Fall-Fry | 4/7/2025 | 4/10/2025 | 4/10/2025 | [https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/outages](https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/outages)\u003Cbr>and-safety/outage-preparedness-and\u003Cbr>[support/2026-2028-TURN_002.zip](support/2026-2028-TURN_002.zip) | 0 | No | 5 | Risk Methodology & Assessment | 5.2.1 |\n| 2 | TURN | 002 | TURN_002 | 2 | No | TURN_002_Q2 | Section [5.2.2.1](5.2.2.1) page 63 provides the formula for PSPS likelihood. Please\u003Cbr>explain why 5 years was selected as the denominator? | PG&E’s lookback is used to estimate PSPS consequence and includes 2018-2022 data (5 years) . This is to align with the initiation and execution of PSPS events in\u003Cbr>2018. PG&E’s enterprise risk model also includes an additional 2 years of data (2023- 2024) that was not inclu","cbCaiil9I91407W7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiil9I91407W7","pdf",1283935,32,"English","# Risk Methodology & Assessment\n## PSPS consequence model and PIC rationale\n## PSPS likelihood methodology","[{\"question\":\"How were Potentially-Impacted Customers (PICs) selected and initially identified?\",\"answer\":\"PICs were selected using PG\\u0026E distribution planning models under a scenario where every distribution line in HFTD/HFRA is de-energized. Potentially impacted customers were then identified through those same distribution planning models.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the document state that not every customer who could experience a PSPS event is captured in the historical backcast?\",\"answer\":\"The explanation is that the lookback is based on historical weather conditions that met PSPS thresholds to initiate a PSPS event. This does not mean locations that never met PSPS thresholds could not experience an event in the future; it indicates a low-probability coverage gap for those locations.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does PG\\u0026E no longer account for PICs in its PSPS consequence model?\",\"answer\":\"The document states PICs are no longer included because the incremental risk values associated with customers not included in the lookback are low, and the page 57 statement is therefore historical in nature.\"}]","WMP-Discovery 2026-2028_DR_TURN_002-Q001 | PDF"]