that this onesizefits-all approach to prioritizing fire-safety measures is in the public interest. Furthermore, introducing such rigidity could increase the potential for disputes (and requests for mediation) with cities and counties where the prescribed prioritization is not optimal for that particular area. For the preceding reasons, we are not convinced that requiring utilities to submit the fire-prevention plan contemplated by Laguna Beach in PR 2, in addition to the fireprevention plan required by GO 166 and the mitigation plan required by Pub. Util. Code § 8386(b), will enhance fire safety at a reasonable cost. Therefore, we decline to adopt PR 2 at this time. Proposed Regulation 3 and Alternative Proposed Regulation 4/AP1 re: GO 95, Rule 18 Summary of Proposals Rule 18 of GO 95 establishes requirements regarding the prioritization and correction of safety hazards discovered by utilities. Several provisions in Rule 18 pertain to fire hazards that are discovered in high fire-threat of Southern California on the Interim Fire-Threat Maps adopted in R.08-11-005. Previously in today’s Decision, we adopted PR 4, a consensus proposal to replace the provisions in Rule 18 that pertain to high fire-threat areas in Southern California on the Interim Fire-Threat Maps with provisions that refer to Tier 3 fire-threat areas of the High Fire-Threat District in Southern California. Here, we address two additional proposals to amend Rule 18. One of these proposals was submitted by SDG&E (PR 3), and the second by the CIP Coalition (PR 4, Alternative Proposal 1 (“PR 4/AP-1”)). Our consideration of these two proposals is limited to proposed revisions to Rule 18 that were not adopted previously in today’s Decision as part of PR 4.
that this onesizefits-all approach to prioritizing fire-safety measures is in the public interest. Furthermore, introducing such rigidity could increase the potential for disputes (and requests for mediation) with cities and counties where the prescribed prioritization is not optimal for that particular area. For the preceding reasons, we are not convinced that requiring utilities to submit the fire-prevention plan contemplated by Laguna Beach in PR 2, in addition to the fireprevention plan required by GO 166 and the plan required by Pub. Util. Code § 8386(b), will enhance fire safety at a reasonable cost. Therefore, we decline to adopt PR 2 at this time. Proposed Regulation 3 and Alternative Proposed Regulation 4/AP1 re: GO 95, Rule 18 Summary of Proposals Rule 18 of GO 95 establishes requirements regarding the prioritization and correction of safety hazards discovered by utilities. Several provisions in Rule 18 pertain to fire hazards that are discovered in high fire-threat of Southern California on the Interim Fire-Threat Maps adopted in R.08-11-005. Previously in today’s Decision, we adopted PR 4, a consensus proposal to replace the provisions in Rule 18 that pertain to high fire-threat areas in Southern California on the Interim Fire-Threat Maps with provisions that refer to Tier 3 fire-threat areas of the High Fire-Threat District in Southern California. Here, we address two additional proposals to amend Rule 18. One of these proposals was submitted by SDG&E (PR 3), and the second by the CIP Coalition (PR 4, Alternative Proposal 1 (“PR 4/AP-1”)). Our consideration of these two proposals is limited to proposed revisions to Rule 18 that were not adopted previously in today’s Decision as part of PR 4. mitigation