California utility regulators have moved to strengthen protections for customers facing power shutoffs during dangerous heat waves, ruling this week that major electric companies failed to deliver on requirements to better shield vulnerable residents from disconnection when temperatures soar.
The decision comes as another punishing heat wave grips much of the state, underscoring the real-world stakes of the debate. In rural areas, losing electricity can also mean losing access to water, since many wells rely on electric pumps. In cities, going without air conditioning or fans during a prolonged hot spell can pose serious health risks, and in extreme cases, prove fatal.
More than a year ago, the California Public Utilities Commission determined that existing safeguards against shutoffs during extreme heat were inadequate and directed the state’s largest utilities to come up with stronger rules. But when those companies submitted their proposal in December, regulators found it did little to change the status quo.
In a unanimous 4-0 vote Thursday, commissioners rejected the utilities’ plan, saying it failed to provide “sufficient health protections for customers.” The panel had originally set May 1 as the deadline for new rules to take effect. When utilities missed that deadline, consumer advocates filed emergency motions demanding action.
With the latest heat wave bearing down on California, the commission responded by lowering the temperature threshold at which utilities must halt shutoffs for unpaid bills, from 100 degrees to 90 degrees. Regulators also ordered utilities to adopt a more precise, region-specific heat standard within six months.
The fight over how to define dangerous heat dates back two years, to what was recorded as California’s hottest July on record. During that scorching stretch, the consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network asked the commission to reconsider its definition of extreme heat, arguing in an emergency petition that heat kills more people directly than any other weather-related hazard.
Existing rules already barred utilities from shutting off residential power over nonpayment when forecasts called for temperatures above 100 degrees within a 72-hour window. But advocates argued that a single statewide threshold ignored how differently Californians experience heat depending on where they live.
Regulators declined to treat the request as an emergency at the time, but did direct utilities to develop a revised threshold in coordination with consumer advocates and other stakeholders.
Utilities responded by proposing to use CalHeatScore, a newly developed state tool that rates heat risk by ZIP code on a scale of 0 to 4, drawing on local health data and historical impacts, along with factors such as proximity to cooling centers and the presence of children and older residents, who tend to be more vulnerable to extreme heat.
The sticking point: utilities wanted the shutoff protection to kick in only at Level 3 on that scale, a higher bar than advocates sought, and wanted to keep the 100-degree threshold as a backup whenever the index data wasn’t available. Consumer groups pushed back, calling for protections to begin at the lower Level 2 and for a backup threshold of 90 degrees instead.
Utilities said they couldn’t meet the original deadline because the CalHeatScore data system, managed by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, wasn’t yet ready to support their compliance. Advocates countered that utilities offered little justification for insisting on keeping the higher 100-degree cutoff.
By May, with utilities still lagging, The Utility Reform Network joined forces with the San Diego-based Utility Consumers’ Action Network, the National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Accessible Technology to formally ask the commission to step in.
This week, regulators sided decisively with consumer advocates, rejecting the utilities’ approach as essentially unchanged from prior practice. The commission’s resolution noted that the extreme-heat threshold already sits below 100 degrees in 41 of California’s 58 counties.
A 90-degree day might be unremarkable in dry inland cities such as Bakersfield or Fresno, but that same temperature can pose unusual danger in coastal or mountain communities, where fewer homes have air conditioning and residents are less acclimated to heat. In San Francisco, for instance, extreme heat is defined as anything above 85 degrees. In Del Norte County, in the state’s far northwest corner, the threshold is any temperature above 76.8 degrees, according to the commission.
“A single temperature threshold is needed to better protect residents in areas of the state that are not accustomed to high temperatures,” the commission wrote in its ruling.
Although utilities had pushed for narrower protections, company representatives now say they intend to comply fully with the stricter standard. Last December, the state’s major private electric providers jointly argued that expanding protections to cover lower heat-index levels would trigger shutoffs too frequently, increase unpaid customer debt and add costs without a corresponding health benefit. In a January filing, according to a PG&E spokesperson, the companies described the 90-degree threshold as overly broad.
These protections apply only to shutoffs triggered by nonpayment. They do not prevent outages caused by equipment failures, wildfire prevention shutoffs or other emergencies. Still, advocates say the safeguards matter enormously for vulnerable households.
“When a home loses power, it can set off a cascade of problems for tenants,” said Jason Zeller, an attorney with the Utility Consumers’ Action Network. “Without electricity, tenants can face eviction, and if they have children, they can even risk losing custody.”
Ahead of Thursday’s vote, all three major utilities said they were prepared to fall in line with the commission’s new standards. Southern California Edison said the resolution would strengthen protections during extreme heat events and that it was ready to revise its disconnection policies. San Diego Gas & Electric said it supported the added safety measures and would implement whatever final requirements the commission adopted.
“At PG&E, service disconnection is always a last resort, used only after multiple attempts to reach customers and offer payment plans and assistance programs,” said company spokesperson Adrienne Moore. Region-specific rules are expected to be finalized within six months.
The commission’s independent Public Advocates Office had pushed for stronger protections throughout the process, formally opposing the utilities’ original plan. Office director Linda Serizawa said the vote would give consumers protection “that kicks in when they need it most.”
Original source: CalMatters
