SMAP decision.” In response to this statement, Joint Utilities reply, and “SDG&E SoCalGas appreciate Joint Intervenors’ understanding of the difficulties involved in putting together the firstever RAMP filing, and fully support the proposal above.” Discussion Consistent with the findings and recommendations in this decision so far, and parties’ comments regarding the RAMP process itself, it is appropriate to make the following changes highlighted in italics: Ten Components of RAMP Filings Recommended by SED (Modified) Step Description Overall, the utility should show how it The goal of the SMAP proceeding is to will use its expertise and budget to make California safer by identifying the improve its safety record. To do so, each mitigations that can optimize safety utility should: Identify its top risks Includes those risks ranked 4 or higher on the 7x7 matrices (Sempra only). Because the utilities may be moving away from the 17 scales for impact dimension and frequency, they should be poised to receive further direction pending the outcome of a Phase Two decision in this proceeding. Creates a baseline for understanding how Describe the controls or mitigations currently in place safety mitigation improves over time Present its plan for improving the Includes analysis of execution feasibility, mitigation of each risk affordability, and any constraints. Present two alternative mitigation D.1412025 calls for the presentation of two that it considered alternative plans. Present an early stage Pilot calculations are attempting to “risk mitigated to cost ratio” or related measure this item, although they are in an reduction per dollar spent.” early stage (Sempra only) “risk Depending on the outcome of the Two drive” of risk reduction calculations and “test risk mitigated to cost rankings, calculations
SMAP decision.” In response to this statement, Joint Utilities reply, “SDG&E and SoCalGas appreciate Joint Intervenors’ understanding of the difficulties involved in putting together the firstever RAMP filing, and fully support the proposal above.” Discussion Consistent with the findings and recommendations in this decision so far, and parties’ comments regarding the RAMP process itself, it is appropriate to make the following changes highlighted in italics: Ten Components of RAMP Filings Recommended by SED (Modified) Step Description Overall, the utility should show how it will use its expertise and budget to improve its safety record. To do so, each utility should: The goal of the SMAP proceeding is to make California safer by identifying the mitigations that can optimize safety Identify its top risks Includes those risks ranked 4 or higher on the 7x7 matrices (Sempra only). Because the utilities may be moving away from the 17 scales for impact dimension and frequency, they should be poised to receive further direction pending the outcome of a Phase Two decision in this proceeding. Describe the controls or mitigations currently in place Creates a baseline for understanding how safety mitigation improves over time Present its plan for improving the mitigation of each risk Includes analysis of execution feasibility, affordability, and any constraints. Present two alternative mitigation that it considered D.1412025 calls for the presentation of two alternative plans. Present an early stage “risk mitigated to cost ratio” or related “risk reduction per dollar spent.” Pilot calculations are attempting to measure this item, although they are in an early stage (Sempra only) Depending on the outcome of the Two “test drive” of risk reduction calculations and risk mitigated to cost rankings, calculations
165862363.docx