The 2020-21 Budget: Governor's Wildfire-Related Proposals

The 2020-21 Budget: Governor’s Wildfire-Related Proposals GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FEBRUARY 21, 2020 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Part I: Assessing the State’s Approach to Addressing Wildfire Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Managing Wildfire Risks a Major Challenge in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Importance of Directing Resources Effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Part II: Assessing the Governor’s Budget Proposals in Absence of Statewide Strategy . . . . . . . . . 15 Governor’s 2020-21 Budget Includes Numerous Wildfire-Related Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 www.lao.ca.gov analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Executive Summary While wildfires have always been a natural part of California’s ecosystems, recent increases in the severity of wildfires and the adverse impacts on communities have increased the focus on the state’s ability to effectively prevent, mitigate, and respond to wildfire risks . This report has two parts . First, we assess the state’s approach to addressing wildfire risks in light of the complex challenges that make an efficient and effective approach difficult . Second, we evaluate the Governor’s various wildfire-related budget proposals in the absence of having a statewide strategic wildfire plan . Assessing the State’s Approach to Addressing Wildfire Risks Growing Wildfire Risks. The state has experienced some of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in its history in recent years . Several factors contribute to increasing wildfire risks, including increased development in fire-prone areas, unhealthy forestlands, climate change, and the role of utility infrastructure management . Challenges to Managing Wildfire Risks. Wildfire risks can be addressed through a variety of wildfire prevention, mitigation, and response activities . However, implementing the most effective and efficient strategies is challenging for numerous reasons . For example, there are many different entities involved—including the state, local governments, federal agencies, utilities, and private landowners—which can make coordination difficult . Moreover, these entities often face competing demands and complicated incentives that might not fully account for wildfire risks . In addition, preventing, mitigating, and responding to wildfires can be costly for governments and private landowners . Each of these challenges contributes to making it less likely that the best strategies for reducing wildfire risks are implemented . Potential for Inefficient Allocation of Resources and Broader Consequences. In the coming decades, the ongoing wildfire risks are likely to contribute to demands for the state to increase funding and resources for prevention, mitigation, and response activities . Yet, without a broad and comprehensive evaluation of wildfire risks and various risk mitigation strategies, it will be difficult for the Legislature to efficiently and effectively allocate additional funding related to wildfires . For example, in the absence of high-quality information about the cost-effectiveness of different types of risk reduction and response efforts, the state might not effectively balance funding for prevention and mitigation with funding for response capacity . Importantly, an ineffective allocation of resources could contribute to higher risks to people and properties, as well as increased costs to the state and local communities associated with recovery after wildfires do occur . Recommend Development of a Strategic Wildfire Plan. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature require the development of a statewide strategic wildfire plan . The purpose of the plan would be to inform and guide state policymakers regarding the most effective strategies for responding to wildfires and mitigating wildfire risks . In particular, the plan should include guidance on future funding allocations to ensure the highest-priority and most cost-effective programs and activities receive funding and that the state achieves an optimal balance of funding for prevention and mitigation activities with demands to increase fire response capacity . Some of the other key elements of the strategic wildfire plan would include (1) establishing risk reduction and response www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET goals as a first step in order for agencies to focus their efforts and measure progress and (2) integrating information on the co-benefits of different approaches into decision-making . Assessing the Governor’s Budget Proposals in Absence of a Statewide Strategy Governor’s Proposals. The Governor’s budget provides a total of $492 million (mostly from the General Fund) for 22 proposals for wildfire-related augmentations across multiple departments . This includes $179 million for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, $77 million for the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, $30 million for the California Public Utilities Commission, and $206 million for various other departments and multi-departmental proposals . Some Proposals Appear Reasonable, While Others Lack Justification or May Not Align With Strategic Plan. Ideally, the state would have a strategic wildfire plan in place to determine the most cost-effective approaches to mitigating wildfire risks and to identify gaps or redundancies in existing efforts . Such an approach would assist the state in allocating new funding related to wildfires to ensure funding augmentations meet the highest priorities . However, in the absence of a strategic wildfire plan, the Legislature must still make funding decisions and respond to the budget proposals put forward by the Governor . Based on our review, we classify the budget proposals in three categories . Specifically, we find (1) that even in the absence of a strategic plan, some proposals appear reasonable; (2) several proposals are promising but lack important implementation details; and (3) some proposals raise more significant concerns because they might not align with some of the key elements we think should be included in a strategic wildfire plan, they lack basic workload justification, or both . In particular, several of the proposals that raise concerns provide costly year-round resources rather than providing flexible resources to meet peak seasonal demands . Similarly, some proposals might not align roles and responsibilities to the various state and local entities best suited for specific workload . Recommendations. We offer recommendations on each of the Governor’s proposals based on our categorization described previously . (A figure listing our recommendations for each budget proposal is included at the end of this report .) First, we recommend approving proposals that appear reasonable . Second, for the proposals that appear promising but lack important implementation details, we recommend that the Legislature either provide implementation guidance or withhold action pending additional information, depending on the specific circumstances of the proposal . Third, for the proposals that raise more significant concerns, we recommend that the Legislature ensure it has sufficient details and workload justification for the proposals that we find lack this information . If the administration does not provide sufficient information to justify these proposals, we recommend that the Legislature reject them . For proposals that might not align with a strategic approach to addressing wildfire risks, we recommend modifying the proposals to limit ongoing commitments . 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET INTRODUCTION In recent years, California has experienced some to support these efforts . However, as we discuss of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in the first part of this report, the state has not yet in the state’s history . While wildfires have always developed a strategic approach to addressing the been a natural part of California’s ecosystems, complex, costly, and long-term nature of wildfire recent increases in the severity of wildfires and the risks in California . We find that developing such adverse impacts on communities have increased an approach could better ensure that limited the focus on the state’s ability to effectively funding and resources are allocated in the most prevent, mitigate, and respond to wildfire risks . In effective ways to reduce risks to life and property . response to these severe wildfires, the state has In the second part of this report, we evaluate the undertaken numerous efforts to reduce specific numerous wildfire-related budget proposals that are wildfire risks and bolster response capacity, as included in the Governor’s 2020-21 budget plan . well as provided a significant amount of funding PART I: ASSESSING THE STATE’S APPROACH TO ADDRESSING WILDFIRE RISKS MANAGING WILDFIRE RISKS to this trend of increasing risks and the state faces many challenges in addressing them . A MAJOR CHALLENGE IN CALIFORNIA Recent and Historical Wildfire Trends Wildfires are a natural part of California’s Most Destructive Wildfires Have Occurred ecosystems . Many fires are started naturally by in Most Recent Decades. As Figure 1 shows, a lightning strikes, but wildfires can also be caused majority of California’s largest and most destructive by humans . When a wildfire occurs, it can provide wildfires have occurred in recent decades . This benefits to the forest, such as burning excess vegetation and Figure 1 improving habitat for wildlife . In Most of the Largest and Most addition, wildfires can actually Destructive Wildfires Occurred in Recent Years reduce the severity of future wildfires by keeping forests 12 healthy and periodically reducing 20 Largest 10 the amount of fuels in a forest . 20 Most Destructive However, wildfires become 8 problematic when they burn in areas that threaten lives and 6 property or are much more severe 4 than what would typically occur naturally . As we discuss in this 2 section, the state has experienced some of the most destructive 1920s 1940s 1960s 1980s 2000s wildfires in its history in recent years . Several factors contribute www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET trend has been particularly acute in recent years, Wildfires Are Seasonal. Despite recent years which have seen some of the worst individual having particularly destructive wildfires and wildfires in the state’s recorded history . The 2018 concerns about wildfires becoming a year-round wildfire season included several particularly large phenomenon, the occurrence of wildfires continues and catastrophic wildfires, such as the Mendocino to have a strongly seasonal pattern—primarily Complex Fire that was the largest in recorded state occurring during the summer and fall months history at 459,000 acres . The 2018 wildfire season when weather is the driest . Figure 3 shows the also included the Camp Fire in Butte County that number of wildfires by month for the last three became the most destructive wildfire in state years compared to the ten-year average . As the history with nearly 19,000 structures destroyed and figure shows, wildfire activity is relatively low from 85 fatalities, including the near-total destruction of December through March and reaches its peak the town of Paradise . from June through August each year . While the Fewer Acres Burn in Wildfires Than Historical number of wildfires occurring each fall decreases Average. While the last few years have brought relative to the peak levels, wildfires occurring in particularly destructive wildfires, the number of the fall can be particularly severe because forests acres burned in wildfires is significantly less than are dry after little to no rainfall during the summer, the historical average . In fact, wildfires are a normal as well as because of other weather conditions, part of the natural ecosystems in many parts of especially seasonal wind patterns . California . It is estimated that in the 1700s an Factors Contributing to average of 4 .5 million acres of California forestlands Growing Wildfire Risks burned in wildfires each year . This is far greater than the average acres burned by wildfires in recent There are several reasons why wildfires have decades—about 1 million acres . Figure 2 shows become more deadly and destructive despite having acres burned by wildfires over the last 30 years fewer acres burn than was historically the case . compared to the historical average . The reduction Increased Development in Fire-Prone in acres burned by wildfires largely is due to fire Areas. Over time, as the state’s population has suppression policies that generally aim to put out increased and more development has occurred, wildfires quickly after they ignite in order to reduce larger communities have built up in forested areas risks to lives and properties . that previously had limited development . This intersection of developed areas and the wildlands is known as Figure 2 the “wildland urban interface,” Wildfire Acreage Burned Varies by Year, but Much or WUI . Continued development Less Than Historical Average in the WUI means that more people and property are located 5,000,000 in areas prone to wildfires . For Historical Average instance, between 2000 and 2012 4,000,000 (the most recent year for which data is available), the number of 3,000,000 households in fire-prone areas grew from 2 .6 million to 2 .9 million 2,000,000 (an 11 percent increase) . To the Acres Burned extent that development continues 1,000,000 in the WUI and pushes further into areas prone to wildfires, the 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 risks to lives and property could continue to grow . 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Unhealthy Forests. Much of the state’s that further exacerbate the severity of wildfires by forestlands are unhealthy, which means they providing more combustible fuels . tend to be dense with small trees and brush . Climate Change. Climate scientists project that Comparatively, a healthy forest typically has fewer climate change will contribute to hotter weather and trees that are larger and more established and also longer dry seasons in California than was previously has less brush . As described in Figure 4 (see next typical . These changes can negatively affect forest page), healthy forests tend to be more resilient health and increase wildfire risks because the and less prone to severe wildfires than unhealthy increased prevalence of droughts and warmer forests . The brush and small trees common in weather could result in longer wildfire seasons in the unhealthy forests serve as “ladder fuels” to carry future . This is because extremely dry conditions in wildfires into tree canopies, increasing their combination with high winds can result in embers spread . Healthy forests tend to have less severe from a wildfire being blown miles away from the wildfires that burn through the brush and may main fire . In such cases, wildfires have jumped leave tree canopies intact . Many forestlands are across fire breaks, roadways, and bodies of water . in an unhealthy condition as a result of historical For example, weather conditions were a major failure to implement logging best practices and factor in several of the recent wildfires that were years of suppressing naturally occurring wildfires . particularly destructive, such as the Camp Fire . In addition, the state’s forestlands have many Utility Infrastructure Management. Only about dead, dying, or diseased trees as the result of 10 percent of fires are started by utility equipment, past drought conditions and pest infestations and many of those fires result in little or no property Figure 3 Even in Recent Destructive Wildfire Years, Few Wildfires Have Occured in the Winter Number of Fires 700 600 500 2017 400 300 2018 200 2016 10 Year 100 Average January February March April May June July August September October November December www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET damage . However, some of these fires can cause in part, because some of the factors that cause significant damage as has occurred in recent years . utility ignitions—such as high winds damaging Utility powerlines caused at least 8 of the 20 most electrical lines—also contribute to a rapid spread of destructive fires (40 percent) in California’s history . fire that is difficult to control . For example, Pacific Seven of these utility-caused fires occurred since Gas and Electric (PG&E) equipment started the 2007, and six have occurred since 2015 . Wildfires 2018 Camp Fire . caused by powerlines can be particularly damaging, Figure 4 Comparing the Potential Impacts of Healthy and Unhealthy Forests HEALTHY Sporadic small trees and brush, comparatively more large and older trees, 40-60 trees per acre. • Smaller and less intense wildfires. • Increased forest resilience to pests, drought, and disease. • Greater mitigation against climate change. • Protected and potentially increased water supply. UNHEALTHY Prevalent small trees and brush, comparatively fewer large and older trees, 100-200 trees per acre. • Increased risk of severe forest fires. • Less resilient forests, large numbers of dead trees. • Loss of carbon sequestration benefits, potential increase in emissions. • Threats to water supply and quality, and to hydropower generation. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Key Challenges to own the remaining 3 percent (1 million acres) of Managing Wildfires in California forestlands . The complex ownership structure of forestlands in the state presents challenges, such Wildfire risks can be addressed through as with coordinating and implementing forest health (1) prevention—reducing the likelihood that a wildfire projects that can span multiple different landowners . will start, (2) mitigation—lessening the damage In addition, electric utilities have a critical role to that wildfires cause when they do occur, and play in wildfire prevention by reducing the number (3) response—suppressing fires after they start . As of fires started by powerlines . Utilities can take we discuss in this section, the state faces numerous many different actions to reduce the risks, including challenges in addressing wildfire risks because of clearing trees located near powerlines (vegetation the number of different entities involved, competing management), upgrading poles and wires, burying demands and incentives, high costs of wildfire powerlines underground, and de-energizing activities, and the uncertain nature of wildfires . powerlines during high-risk weather conditions Many Different Entities Involved. There is no (referred to as public safety power shutoff [PSPS] single entity with responsibility over wildfire issues events) . in the state . On the contrary, there are numerous entities involved, including various state and federal departments Figure 5 responsible for forest management Major Entities Involved in Wildfire Management and wildfire response in different State Agencies jurisdictions, local agencies responsible for fire protection California Department Suppresses wildfires on wildlands within “State Responsibility of Forestry and Fire Areas” (which includes over 31 million acres of mostly and land use planning, private Protection privately owned forestlands). Administers forest health and landowners, and electric utilities . fire prevention programs. Each of these entities often Office of Emergency Coordinates planning, response (including mutual aid), and has a somewhat narrow role in Services recovery efforts related to wildfires and other types of wildfire-related issues, such as disasters. focusing on only certain prevention, California Military Mobilizes California National Guard resources to assist with Department wildfire mitigation, response, and recovery-related activities. mitigation, or response activities . California Public Utilities Regulates investor-owned electric utilities and oversees utility Figure 5 summarizes the key Commission wildfire mitigation plans. wildfire responsibilities of certain Federal Agencies state, local, federal, and private entities . U.S. Forest Service Manages and suppress wildfires on federal lands in California. Owns and manages forests. Oversees activities related to This challenge is illustrated in the resource development, land conservation, and recreation. fact that the state does not own Bureau of Land Owns and manages forests. Oversees activities related to or have direct control over most of Management resource development, land conservation, and recreation. the 33 million acres of forestlands Local Agencies in California . As Figure 6 (see Local fire districts Suppress wildfires in local responsibilities areas. Participate in next page) shows, the federal state’s mutual aid system. government owns 57 percent Cities and counties Operate planning departments that make land use and zoning (nearly 19 million acres) of California decisions related to development in the wildland urban forestlands . The next largest share, interface. covering 25 percent (8 million acres) Other Entities of forestlands, belongs to private Electric utilities Manage electrical infrastructure (such as powerlines) and nonindustrial landowners . Private undertake various actions to reduce risks of wildfires started industrial landowners—primarily by their equipment. timber companies—own 14 percent Private landowners Own forestlands for various purposes including timber harvesting, residential, commercial, future development, (4 .5 million acres) of forestlands . and open space. State and local governments www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Competing Demands and Complicated decisions . However, the increase in development Incentives. Another challenge relates to competing in these areas can expose more properties and demands and potentially misaligned incentives . people to wildfire risks . For example, privately owned lands (in particular, An example of complicated incentives is nonindustrial forestlands) are managed to meet California’s current legal structure of “inverse different purposes, including for residential and condemnation,” which makes utilities liable for business development, and open space . Some of all property damage associated with fires started these uses may not align with forest management by their equipment, regardless of whether or not best practices that reduce wildfire risks . For they acted negligently . This structure of paying instance, forestlands can be attractive sites for for wildfire costs started by utilities allocates a development, in part because of the lower cost significant amount of risk to utilities—including of land compared to other regions of the state . both ratepayers and shareholders . As a result, they Because local governments do not face most have a substantial incentive to invest in activities to costs associated with wildfires and because they reduce the risk of fires caused by their equipment typically consider a range of factors when making through such things as vegetation management development decisions, they might not fully and equipment improvements . On the other hand, account for wildfire risks in their land use planning the legal structure limits some of the financial risk borne by property owners who live in high-risk fire areas—and insurers who cover those properties— Figure 6 because they can recover costs from utilities that Majority of Forestlands in California started the fire, regardless of whether the utility Owned by Federal Government was negligent . As a result, these owners have somewhat less of a financial incentive to invest in Local Governments fire prevention activities to protect their home, such 1% State 2% as defensible space . Private Another example of complicated incentives is the Industrial role of property insurance . Property insurance rates 14% reflect, to some extent, the risk of damage related to wildfires (and other factors) . The differences Private in rates could provide a financial incentive for Nonindustrial homeowners to build and purchase properties in 25% lower-risk regions, or potentially invest in different risk reduction activities (such as home hardening) . However, insurers must comply with various laws and regulations in setting the rates they will charge for property insurance policies . These regulations generally require insurers to consider historical losses and strictly limit their ability to consider Federal 57% expectations about future risk . This likely reduces the degree to which property insurance rates serve as an effective mechanism to encourage wildfire risk reduction . Moreover, insurers are not required to offer property insurance coverage . As a result of the growing wildfire damage in recent years and some of the limits on the ability to adjust rates in a way that reflect expectations about future risk, major insurers are increasingly declining to offer 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET insurance coverage for high-risk properties located The state’s wildfire response efforts, while in the WUI . necessary, are also quite expensive . As we discuss Wildfire Activities Are Costly. Wildfire in more detail later in this report, the state pays prevention, mitigation, and response activities can roughly $2 billion annually from the General Fund be costly . For example, utility wildfire mitigation for the California Department of Forestry and Fire activities can be expensive and are ultimately Protection’s (CalFire’s) wildfire response activities . paid by electricity ratepayers . Estimated total Extreme Wildfire Events Can Strain Response ratepayer costs of 2019 investor-owned utility Capacity. While the state generally can plan wildfire mitigation plans were $3 .5 billion . (Most around the known wildfire season, it is difficult to of these costs are still subject to California Public plan for extreme wildfire events . For example, in Utilities Commission [CPUC] review and approval in 2017 and 2018, the state experienced particularly future years .) Furthermore, utility wildfire prevention destructive wildfires that placed significant strains activities can have broad regional economic and on the state’s capacity to respond . In 2017, roughly public safety impacts for households, businesses, 6,000 requests for fire engines (out of a total of communication providers, health care facilities, and about 17,000 requests) went unfulfilled through the other public services from the loss of electricity state’s mutual aid system . We describe the state’s during PSPS events . In response to recent legislative typical process for addressing the seasonal and direction and PSPS events, CPUC has expanded somewhat unpredictable nature of wildfires through and modified the Self-Generation Incentive Program, the use of flexible resources (including the mutual which traditionally provides funding for alternative aid system) in the box on page 10 . energy . The program now provides over $100 million annually (ratepayer funds) in electricity storage IMPORTANCE OF DIRECTING incentives for residential customers and critical RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY facilities in certain high fire risk areas or who have been affected by more than one PSPS event . There is significant funding spent each year Similarly, making significant improvements to related to wildfires, particularly by the state, the health of the state’s forestlands is estimated as well as private utilities and federal and local to cost billions of dollars and would have to occur governments . This includes recent funding over many years . This is because of the magnitude augmentations and policy changes made by the of unhealthy forestlands in the state, as well as the Legislature and the Governor . While these recent long-term nature of improving forest health . For steps have addressed urgent concerns, ongoing example, conducting a forest health project in an challenges with addressing wildfire risks make area does not result in that forestland immediately it important that the state prioritize resources becoming healthy . Instead, multiple projects in efficiently and adopt effective policy changes . the surrounding areas would be needed to reduce Current Funding Provided for Wildfire the risk of severe wildfires affecting the project site . Moreover, these projects would need to Prevention and Response be maintained over decades—such as through State Provides Significant Baseline Funding periodic use of prescribed fire to reduce fuels and Related to Wildfires. In the current year, the allow for the growth of larger trees to develop . state has budgeted about $2 .5 billion for wildfire Property owners can also undertake activities prevention and response activities for CalFire . This to mitigate the risks of wildfire damage by taking includes roughly $1 .8 billion of baseline resources certain steps, such as maintaining defensible space for fire suppression, including year-round and by removing vegetation and other flammable items seasonal firefighters . In addition, the budget from around their buildings, as well as “hardening” includes a set-aside—the Emergency Fund structures, such as by using nonflammable roofing (E-Fund)—that provides additional funding as and siding . In some cases, taking these steps can needed for emergency wildfire response . E-Fund be costly to property owners . expenditures are generally in the range of a few www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET hundred million dollars annually, although the Recent Funding Augmentations and Policy amount varies widely depending on the severity of Changes. In response to growing wildfire risks each wildfire season . CalFire’s budget also includes and the particularly severe 2017 and 2018 wildfire funding for forest health and fire prevention projects seasons, the state has augmented funding for (such as constructing fire breaks) . The current various wildfire-related activities, as well as enacted level of funding for these purposes is $364 million, policy changes to increase fire response capacity, which reflects limited-term augmentations made in improve forest health, protect communities, and the last couple of years . (CalFire’s budget typically prevent utility-started wildfires . Figure 7 shows the has included about $100 million annually for these key funding augmentations made in recent years . purposes .) As the figure shows, funding augmentations have The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services’ been provided for both mitigation efforts (such as (OES’) current budget includes $122 million for grants to improve forest health) as well as increased emergency management services, which includes fire suppression resources (such as CalFire staff, coordination of disaster activities—including, but fire engines, air tankers, and helicopters) . As shown not limited to, wildfires—as well as homeland in the figure, these funds were provided both on an security . The amount of funding OES ultimately ongoing and limited-term basis . spends responding to wildfires, as opposed to In addition, the Legislature has passed numerous other disasters, depends on the severity of each bills to change state policies and programs in wildfire season, as well the extent to which the recognition of increasing wildfire risks . For example, state experiences other disasters . Chapter 626 of 2018 (SB 901, Dodd) included a Key Approaches to Providing Flexible Wildfire Response Resources The need for firefighting resources to protect communities is relatively high during the peak fire season and relatively low during the winter . The state implements several strategies to provide flexible resources to align with the variation in need throughout the year and from one year to the next . This includes both directing resources to active wildfire events and also prepositioning resources to high-risk areas (such as areas forecasted to experience severe wind events) . Two primary types of flexible resources include the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) seasonal resources and the state’s mutual aid system . CalFire Seasonal Resources. One way that the state currently addresses this challenge is for CalFire to hire seasonal firefighters that can work for up to nine months out of the year . CalFire also maintains a fleet of 53 reserve fire engines to provide for “surge capacity” to respond to the higher number of wildfires that occur during the peak season . (For comparison, the department operates 356 fire engines on a regular basis, including 65 year-round engines .) Mutual Aid System. In addition, the state relies on a system of mutual aid to augment firefighting resources during critical periods . The state’s mutual aid system, which is coordinated by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, relies on communities helping each other during times of high need . Specifically, when a fire (or other disaster) is large enough that it overwhelms a community’s capacity to respond, it can request additional resources—such as fire engines or other equipment—from other governmental entities through the state’s mutual aid system . In turn, these communities are expected to reciprocate and to provide assistance to others, when requested and reasonably available . The state supports the mutual aid system in a number of ways, such as providing state-funded fire engines to local communities . The mutual aid system plays a critical part of the state’s capacity to respond to large wildfires and generally is considered successful . 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Figure 7 Key State Wildfire-Related Funding Augmentations in Recent Years California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) 9 Blackhawk Helicopters. $315 million one time (General Fund) over a few years beginning in 2018-19 to replace all 12 of CalFire’s helicopters, and $14 million ongoing to support increased maintenance and staffing associated with the helicopters. 9 Forest Health and Fire Prevention Grants. $165 million annually (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund [GGRF]) for five years beginning in 2019-20 for forest health and fire prevention grants (required by Chapter 626 of 2018 [SB 901, Dodd]). 9 13 Year-Round Fire Engines. About $40 million (mostly General Fund) in 2019-20 to purchase and staff 13 additional fire engines on a year-round basis. Includes $8.3 million (one time) to purchase the fire engines and $32.6 million ongoing for 131 positions. 9 Prescribed Fire Crews. $35 million annually (GGRF) for five years beginning in 2019-20 for ten dedicated prescribed fire crews (required by SB 901). 9 Innovative Procurement. $15 million one time (General Fund) in 2019-20 for CalFire to work with vendors to test proofs of concept for various potential firefighting technology solutions. 9 Air Tankers. $13 million ongoing (General Fund) beginning in 2019-20—increasing to $50 million upon full implementation in 2023-24—for contract funding for flight crews, maintenance parts and logistics, and 50 additional positions to operate and maintain seven C-130 air tankers that CalFire expects to receive from the federal government. 9 Heavy Fire Equipment Operator Staffing. $10.6 million ongoing (General Fund) beginning in 2019-20 for 34 additional heavy fire equipment operators to operate bulldozers. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) 9 California Disaster Assistance Act Funding. Various one-time and ongoing General Fund augmentations in recent years. For example, the state provided an $88.1 million augmentation in 2018-19—$64.4 million one-time and $23.5 million ongoing—and $28.8 million on a one-time basis in 2019-20. 9 Public Safety Power Shutoff Mitigation. $75 million one time (General Fund) in 2019-20 for state and local agencies to plan for and mitigate the effects of investor-owned utility-led power shutdowns implemented to reduce the risk of wildfires sparked by utility-owned equipment. 9 Mission Tasking Fund and Other Disaster-Related Support. $27.5 million ($26.6 million General Fund and $874,000 federal funds) in 2019-20 to support various disaster and emergency-related purposes. Includes $20 million one time to create a mission tasking fund for state agencies that have been tasked by OES to perform response and recovery activities for declared disasters and $7.5 million ongoing to support 88 positions to administer the mission tasking fund and provide staff augmentations across the department. 9 110 Fire Engines. $25 million one time (GGRF) in 2018-19 to purchase 110 additional fire engines, and $1.1 million ongoing to maintain and fuel the additional engines. 9 Fire Engine Prepositioning. $25 million annually to pre-position mutual aid fire engines and other related equipment in order to decrease local response times to potentially destructive wildfires and other disasters. This funding was provided on a one-time basis in 2017-18 (GGRF) and in 2018-19 (General Fund). Funding was extended on an ongoing basis in 2019-20 (General Fund). 9 Emergency Operations and Critical Support. $20.4 million (General Fund) and 54.5 positions in 2016-17 to support a variety of activities across OES. Includes $10 million (one time) to provide additional fire engines to local fire departments, as well as ongoing funding for various activities, such as disaster coordination, fire-related staffing, and information technology. 9 Disaster Recovery and Hazard Mitigation Workload. $14.4 million annually ($11.6 million in Federal Trust Fund authority and $2.8 million General Fund) for three years starting in 2018-19 for additional workload related to disaster recovery and hazard mitigation. 9 Emergency Response Operations. About $1.6 million ongoing (General Fund) and eight positions starting in 2018-19 to support local agencies and coordinate emergency response activities. Other Departments 9 Public Outreach on Disasters. $50 million one time (General Fund) in 2018-19 for OES and the Office of Planning and Research to administer an outreach effort known as the California For All Emergency Preparedness Campaign. 9 Administrative Resources for Response Activities. $1.7 million ongoing (General Fund) and eight positions for the California Military Department to maintain, improve, and expand use of military air and ground administrative resources for emergency response activities, including fires. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET variety of policy changes intended to help reduce to higher risks to people and properties, as well as wildfire risks, including additional requirements for increased costs to the state and local communities utility wildfire mitigation plans and streamlining the associated with recovery after wildfires do occur . processes for removing trees to create defensible Much of state and local government costs space around structures in high fire threat associated with the most severe wildfires are areas and establish fire breaks . Subsequently, eventually reimbursed by the federal government . Chapter 79 of 2019 (AB 1054, Holden) and However, even when federal reimbursements are Chapter 81 of 2019 (AB 111, Committee on available, the state has to make upfront payments Budget) established additional utility oversight before receiving reimbursements, and it still requirements, including establishing the Wildfire usually has to pay a share of the total costs . As an Safety Division within CPUC—which will become example of the costly nature of wildfire recovery, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety within the state has made upfront payments of over the California Natural Resources Agency on July 1, $2 billion to remove debris resulting from the Camp 2021—to review wildfire mitigation plans and other Fire; 90 percent of these eligible costs will be aspects of utility safety . reimbursed by the federal government . Legislature Has Taken Steps to Begin Potential for Inefficient Resource Informing a Strategic Approach. The Legislature Allocation and Adverse Consequences has taken steps to begin collecting additional information that would facilitate a more strategic Lack of Strategic Approach Increases approach to addressing wildfire risks . For example, Risk of Inefficient Resource Allocation. In the as part of the 2019-20 budget package, the coming decades, the state will likely continue to Legislature required CalFire and OES to conduct an face increased risks related to severe wildfires, assessment of existing wildfire response capacity as well as demands to increase funding and through state and mutual aid resources to identify resources to respond to wildfire risks . Without a gaps in capacity, cost-effective approaches, broad and comprehensive evaluation of wildfire and fire response goals . This report is due on risks and mitigation strategies it will be difficult April 1, 2020 . (Given the limited amount of time for the Legislature to efficiently and effectively and resources available to the administration allocate additional funding related to wildfires . to complete this report, the Department of For example, in the absence of high-quality Finance indicates that the report will not include information about the cost-effectiveness of different responses to several of the requirements .) Other types of risk reduction and response efforts, the recent legislative changes also could be helpful state might not effectively balance funding for in informing the state’s approach to addressing prevention and mitigation with funding for response wildfire risks, such as requirements to compile capacity . Along those same lines, not having good information on low-cost and cost-effective home cost-effectiveness information can make it difficult hardening solutions and the creation of the Wildfire to prioritize resources for specific strategies, Safety Advisory Board to compile information on including how to choose among different mitigation best practices and advise the state . options . Similarly, if the state does not maintain good information about the regions where different strategies could be most effective, the state might RECOMMENDATIONS commit forest health or other prevention and In order to build on recent augmentations mitigation resources to regions that should be of and policy changes and to ensure resources are lower priority . allocated effectively, we recommend that the Consequences of Poor Resource Allocation. Legislature require the development of a statewide We note that even the most efficient allocation of strategic wildfire plan . The purpose of the plan resources will not allow the state to completely would be to inform and guide state policymakers avoid damaging wildfires in the future . However, regarding the most effective strategies for ineffective allocation of resources could contribute 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET responding to wildfires and mitigating wildfire identify more specific goals . These goals should risks . This could include guidance on future include ones for mitigation and prevention efforts, funding allocations to ensure the highest-priority as well as response . With respect to prevention and most cost-effective programs and activities and mitigation goals, these should be ones that receive funding and that the state achieves an illuminate the underlying factors contributing to optimal balance of funding for prevention and increasingly severe and destructive wildfires, such mitigation activities with demands to increase fire as measurements of forest health and levels of response capacity . A strategic wildfire plan could community preparedness . The plan also should help address many of the challenges we identified develop goals and specific targets for fire response above, such as how best to coordinate the efforts capacity, such as response times and the state’s of the numerous entities involved in prevention ability to handle multiple large disasters at the same and mitigation activities, the most efficient ways time . to quickly augment response capacity in extreme Identifying the Most Cost-Effective wildfire events, and the most cost-effective Approaches. We recommend that the strategic strategies for reducing wildfire risks . wildfire plan include an assessment of the In addition, we recommend that the Legislature cost-effectiveness of various strategies . This will task a state entity with creating the strategic likely require efforts to obtain data and identify wildfire plan and provide clear direction on the research on the cost-effectiveness of different development of the plan . (Although, as we discuss programs and activities . In addition, these later in this report, there is no existing state entity cost-effectiveness assessments should consider that is clearly best suited .) The development of the different types of costs and benefits—including wildfire strategic plan would be an iterative process both fiscal and non-fiscal effects—as well as of synthesizing research, identifying need for new how these costs and benefits are distributed research, and translating available research into an among state, local, federal, and private entities . actionable plan . Developing the initial plan will likely The data and research collected could then be take a couple of years and require some additional used to assist the state in targeting resources in resources, but should result in longer-term savings ways that have the greatest potential to maximize to the extent that it results in more cost-effective benefits, including the reduction of wildfire risks . and targeted allocation of resources . To the extent that there are gaps in the research on cost-effective strategies, this should lead to Require Development of Statewide recommendations within the plan regarding where Strategic Wildfire Plan research funding could best be directed to inform future policy and resource allocation decisions . We recommend that the Legislature approve Determining the Amount of Resources to budget trailer legislation to require the development Achieve Goals. The strategic plan also should of a statewide strategic wildfire plan including evaluate the amount of resources—including certain key elements and information . funding, personnel, and equipment—that would Establishing Risk-Reduction and Response be required to achieve each of the identified Goals. An effective strategic wildfire plan should prevention, mitigation, and response goals in a start by establishing the key risk-reduction goals cost-effective manner . For example, the plan should for the state to achieve . Developing these goals is address the need for flexible wildfire response a critical first step because they would establish capacity due to the seasonal nature of wildfires, targets towards which agencies could focus including both year-round resources, as well as their efforts and against which progress could be resources for surge capacity during peak wildfire measured . Moreover, clarifying the state’s goals season . For goals that may take several years would better articulate the level of risk tolerance the to achieve, the plan should identify a multiyear state has regarding wildfires . While the overarching funding and implementation plan for how to achieve objective of the state’s wildfire strategy should the identified goals . In addition, the plan should be about improving public safety, the plan should www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET evaluate the availability and appropriateness of of the recent, very destructive wildfires . However, various potential funding sources . This should improving the underlying health of forestlands in the include which types of costs are best paid for state could be found to have greater longer-term by different entities, including the state, local benefits and cost savings . governments, utilities, and private landowners . Ensuring Effective Governance Structures. Measuring Co-Benefits of Different Lastly, we think the strategic plan should assess Approaches. We also recommend that the whether the state has effective governance strategic plan identify the key co-benefits of various structures to implement wildfire-related programs wildfire mitigation or response strategies, as well as and activities . For example, this assessment the best ways of measuring those co-benefits and should include determining the entities best suited integrating that information into decision-making . to performing certain activities, identifying any For example, improving the health of forestlands duplication of efforts, and identifying effective in the state can have an array of ecosystem coordination strategies across the various entities benefits, such as improving watershed health, with wildfire-related responsibilities . In evaluating improving wildlife habitat, reducing air pollutants, governance structures, the strategic wildfire plan and sequestering carbon . Developing ways to should also assess whether public and private consistently measure and integrate these types incentives are appropriately aligned and identify of nonfiscal benefits into decision-making could ways to address misaligned incentives . For be beneficial, particularly when trying to compare example, the plan might make recommendations on forest health projects to other types of wildfire how to better incentivize private forestland owners risk-reduction activities . As another example, to implement forest management best practices or providing resources to local fire departments that encourage lower-risk development patterns in the can assist the state during peak wildfire season WUI . through the mutual aid system would benefit not Task State Entity With only the state’s response capacity, but also local fire departments by bolstering their resources . Development of Plan We think consideration of co-benefits will be Various Existing Entities Could Be Tasked. particularly important given that the state has No existing state entity is obviously best suited limited information on the cost-effectiveness of to develop the strategic wildfire plan we describe various strategies . earlier . Most of the state entities that work Balancing Demand for Resources Within and on wildfire-related issues have expertise or Across Stages—Prevention Through Response. responsibilities related to only part of the spectrum Given the complexities and costs associated of wildfire prevention, mitigation, and response with addressing wildfire risks, the state very likely activities . Recognizing that even though there is no will face a situation where the level of resources clear best fit, the Legislature could task an existing identified to achieve the goals of the strategic state entity with responsibilities related to wildfire wildfire plan exceeds available funding . Accordingly, risk reduction or governmental planning (such as it would be important for the strategic wildfire the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board or Office of plan to include an assessment of how to prioritize Planning and Research) with the development of a limited resources and balance available resources statewide strategic wildfire plan . Alternatively, the across competing priorities, such as based on Legislature could consider creating a temporary additional information on cost-effectiveness and commission of subject matter experts, with input co-benefits . This could include recommendations from various state and local entities, such as was of how best to balance the allocation of resources done with the SB 901 commission to address to actions that address near-term risks versus certain utility wildfire cost allocation issues . actions with the potential for longer-term benefits or Timing and Resources Needed. Regardless savings . In particular, there might be high demand of which entity is tasked, the development of now to increase fire response capacity because the strategic plan will likely require some staff 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET resources—costing perhaps in the range of a few the plan; (3) the timing of the final and any interim hundred thousand dollars annually for a couple of reports; and (4) how various entities should be years . Having dedicated staff will likely be needed involved in the development of the plan, including to synthesize and identify gaps in existing research, state agencies, local representatives, and academic coordinate with departments and stakeholders, and researchers . Given the complexities of developing develop written reports . a statewide strategic wildfire plan, we recommend Provide Clear Direction on Strategic Plan. that the entity tasked with its development be We recommend that the Legislature adopt budget required to provide interim reports at least annually trailer legislation to provide clear legislative to share the research and information that has been direction for completion of the strategic wildfire identified and to assist the Legislature with making plan, including (1) which entity is responsible for budgetary decisions over the coming few years the plan; (2) the specific content to be included in until a statewide strategic wildfire plan is complete . PART II: ASSESSING THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET PROPOSALS IN ABSENCE OF STATEWIDE STRATEGY Ideally, the state would have a strategic Figure 8 (see pages 16 and 17) . This includes wildfire plan to determine the most cost-effective $178 .7 million for CalFire, $76 .5 million for OES, approaches to mitigating wildfire risks and $30 .2 million for CPUC, and $206 .2 million for responding to wildfires when they occur and to various other departments and multi-departmental identify gaps or redundancies in existing efforts . proposals . (In addition, the budget assumes Such an approach would assist the state in $750 million for forest health and wildfire prevention allocating new funding related to wildfires to from the proposed climate bond, which we discuss ensure funding augmentations meet the highest in our recent report The 2020-21 Budget: Climate priorities, as well as reallocating existing resources Change Proposals .) Many of the Governor’s if necessary . However, in the absence of a strategic proposals provide ongoing resources, such as plan, the Legislature must still make funding permanent state staff, to augment programs and decisions and respond to the budget proposals increase the state’s fire response capacity . put forward by the Governor . In this part of the report, we review the Governor’s various 2020-21 ASSESSMENT wildfire-related budget proposals, and provide our evaluation of proposals based on the individual We evaluate each of the Governor’s various merits of each proposal, how consistent they are wildfire-related proposals and find that (1) even in with legislative priorities, whether proposals raise the absence of a strategic plan, some proposals questions about how well they might fit into a appear reasonable; (2) several proposals are strategic wildfire plan, and how proposals impact promising but lack important implementation ongoing General Fund commitments . details; and (3) many proposals are difficult to evaluate because they lack basic justification, GOVERNOR’S 2020-21 BUDGET raise questions about whether they would fit into a strategic approach, or both . INCLUDES NUMEROUS WILDFIRE-RELATED PROPOSALS Despite Absence of Strategic Plan, Some Proposals Appear Reasonable The Governor’s budget provides a total of $492 million (mostly from the General Fund) for Some of the Governor’s proposals appear to various proposals across multiple departments have merit, despite not being able to evaluate them for wildfire-related augmentations, as shown in in the context of a statewide strategic approach www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET to wildfires . This is because the proposals appear Various Capital Outlay Projects (CalFire). The justified based on workload and demonstrated Governor’s budget includes $11 .9 million from the programmatic demands . Further, we think that General Fund in 2020-21 to begin four major capital the resources requested in these proposals are outlay projects—the replacement or relocation of unlikely to change substantially even if the state two helitack bases, one conservation camp, and develops a strategic approach to wildfires as we an auto shop and warehouse—and several minor recommend previously . In total, we find that nine projects . While the full costs of these projects will of the Governor’s wildfire-related proposals appear be substantial, we find that the new projects serve reasonable . critical infrastructure needs for the department because they address aging facilities that are no Figure 8 Summary of Governor’s Wildfire-Related Budget Proposals Proposal Funding Requested Description Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) Relief staffing $93.4 million in 2020-21, increasing to 294 positions in 2020-21, increasing to 555 positions $142.6 million ongoing, mostly General Fund ongoing, for (1) additional firefighting staff, (2) increased training academy staff, and (3) 14 fire engines for training purposes. Various capital outlay projects $39.4 million General Fund Four new capital outlay projects and various minor projects ($11.9 million) and continue previously approved projects ($27.5 million). New projects include replacing two helitack bases, a conservation camp, and an auto shop. Mobile equipment replacement $19 million General Fund for two years Replace CalFire vehicles and mobile equipment. Direct mission support— $16.6 million ongoing ($10.8 million General 103 administrative positions. administrative staffing Fund and $5.8 million reimbursements) Wildland firefighting research $5 million one-time General Fund Grant to fund firefighting research related to protective grant equipment and safety. Hired equipment staffing $2.9 million in 2020-21 and $2.4 million ongoing Ten positions to operate a program to contract for General Fund firefighting equipment from private vendors. Mobile equipment staffing $1.7 million in 2020-21 and $1.5 million ongoing Nine positions related to processing and procurement of General Fund vehicles and mobile equipment. Building standards and $689,000 Building Standards Administration Two positions for the Office of the State Fire Marshall to defensible space education— Special Revolving Fund implement provisions of Chapter 404 of 2019 (SB 190, SB 190 Dodd) related to defensible space inspections and fire safety building standards training. Office of Emergency Services (OES) Community power resiliency $50 million one-time General Fund Support for state or local costs associated with preparing and responding to power shutoff events. California Disaster Assistance $16.7 million one-time General Fund Financial assistance to local governments for costs Act incurred as a result of disasters, including fires. Disaster planning, preparedness, $9.4 million in 2020-21 ($9.2 million General 50 positions to support many areas across the and response Fund and $255,000 Federal Trust Fund department, such as finance and administration and authority), increasing to $10.4 million ongoing response-related activities. State Operations Center $377,000 General Fund Preliminary plans and working drawings phases of a improvements project to modify the State Operations Center. (The total project cost is estimated to be $9.5 million.) (Continued) 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET longer compliant with current building codes or on a limited-term basis to replace existing have operational challenges . We also raise no CalFire vehicles that are past their useful life has concerns with $27 .5 million included in the budget merit . Even in a scenario where a strategic plan for the next phases of previously approved CalFire recommended that CalFire needed fewer vehicles in capital outlay projects . the future, the replacement vehicles in this proposal Mobile Equipment Replacement (CalFire). would still likely be needed in the coming years . The budget provides $19 million (General Fund) Wildland Firefighting Research Grant annually for two years to replace CalFire vehicles (CalFire). The budget includes $5 million (one and mobile equipment (such as fire engines and time) from the General Fund for wildland firefighting bulldozers) . According to CalFire, 593 (21 percent) research related to protective equipment and out of approximately 2,800 of its fleet of vehicles safer firefighting techniques . It is reasonable for and mobile equipment meet the department’s the department to obtain research on current replacement criteria . Therefore, providing funding Proposal Funding Requested Description California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Wildfire safety and process $27.6 million PUCURA includes (1) $17.6 million 93 positions and contracting resources to implement reform ongoing and (2) $10 million annually for three recent legislation. Activities related to (1) reviewing and years overseeing utility wildfire mitigation plans, (2) reviewing other utility applications for cost recovery and securitization, and (3) reforms to CPUC processes. Public Advocates Office wildfire $2.6 million ongoing PUCPAOA 14 positions to implement recent legislation, including safety implementation reviewing utility applications related to wildfire safety and financing. Multi-Department and Other Departments Home hardening pilot program— $110.1 million including (1) $100 million one time Implement Chapter 391 of 2019 (AB 38, Wood). Provides AB 38 (OES/CalFire) ($75 million federal funds and $25 million 33 positions. Includes establishing a $100 million home- General Fund); (2) $8.3 million in 2020-21 hardening grant program, conducting defensible space (GGRF), decreasing to $6.1 million ongoing; inspections related to real estate transactions, training and (3) $1.8 million General Fund, decreasing defensible space inspectors, hiring mobile equipment to $1.6 million annually for next four years. positions, and purchasing a new fire engine. LiDAR data (CNRA) $80 million one time General Fund Contract for the collection of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data of the entire state. Wildfire Forecast and Threat $9 million General Fund and PUCURA, Establish a weather forecasting intelligence and Intelligence Integration Center— decreasing $6.3 million ongoing integration center required by Chapter 405 of 2019 SB 209 (CalFire, CPUC, CMD, (SB 209, Dodd). and OES) Emergency preparedness and $3.2 million General Fund in 2020-21 and 21 positions to provide operational, logistical, response (CMD) $3 million ongoing administrative, and fiscal support for troop deployments. Center for Public Preparedness $3 million ongoing General Fund Establish a Center for Public Preparedness at (UC) UC San Diego. Regional disaster medical health $365,000 ongoing General Fund Hire three medical health specialists. response (Emergency Medical Services Authority) Support for statewide emergency $295,000 ongoing Service Revolving Fund Two positions to enhance DGS’ ability to provide management functions (DGS) expenditure authority support—such as procurement of critical resources— during emergencies, such as fires. Administration and research $210,000 ongoing Environmental License Plate Two positions to conduct various workload required by support (Forest Management Fund executive order. Task Force) PUCURA = Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account; PUCPAOA = Public Utilities Commission Public Advocates Office Account; GGRF = Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CMD = California Military Department; and DGS = Department of General Services. www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET technology, equipment, and techniques to improve support—such as procurement of critical safety for firefighters . resources—during emergencies, such as wildfires . Building Standards and Defensible Space The proposal appears justified, and the need for Education—SB 190 (CalFire). The budget includes DGS support is unlikely to change significantly $689,000 for additional staff at the Office of the depending on the specifics of a strategic approach . State Fire Marshall within CalFire to develop (1) a Several Proposals Are Promising, but model defensible space program, and (2) WUI fire Lack Implementation Details safety building standards compliance training for local agencies . This proposal appears consistent We find that several of the Governor’s proposals with the requirements of Chapter 404 of 2019 seem reasonable in concept because they appear (SB 190, Dodd) . to address legislative priorities or involve the use California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) of promising new technology that could help Program (OES). The budget includes a one-time to mitigate the impacts of wildfires . However, General Fund increase of $16 .7 million (for a the proposals provide a significant level of total of $79 .3 million) for financial assistance to discretion to the administration to determine key local governments for costs incurred as a result implementation details, or in a couple of cases, of disasters, including wildfires . The proposed the most effective approaches will depend on funding level is consistent with anticipated costs for litigation that is not yet resolved . Consequently, it is providing assistance for past disasters, and thus difficult for the Legislature to determine whether the appears reasonable . implementation of the proposed activities would be State Operations Center Improvements (OES). cost-effective, consistent with legislative priorities The budget includes $377,000 (General Fund) for for limited state funds, and focused on collecting the preliminary plans and working drawings phases data on program outcomes to ensure that key of a project to modify the State Operations Center, information is available to inform future decisions . which OES uses to coordinate resource requests We describe the key information we find to be and manage disasters, including wildfires . (The total lacking for six of the Governor’s wildfire-related project cost is estimated to be $9 .5 million .) The proposals . proposed project appears reasonable to support Community Power Resiliency (OES). The OES’ continued use of this key state facility . budget includes $50 million (one time) from the Wildfire Forecast and Threat Intelligence General Fund to support state or local costs related Integration Center—SB 209 (CalFire, OES, to preparing for and responding to power shutoff CPUC, and CMD). The budget includes $9 million events, such as purchasing generators for state to establish the Wildfire Forecast and Threat facilities, providing grants to local governments to Intelligence Integration Center . The proposal help them plan for shutoff events, and helping local appears consistent with the requirements of governments or food banks secure backup power Chapter 405 of 2019 (SB 209, Dodd) . for key facilities . While it is reasonable for the state Regional Disaster Medical Health Response to address the important public health and safety (Emergency Medical Services Authority). The implications of PSPS, the proposal lacks some budget includes $365,000 from the General Fund key information . First, the basis for the proposed to support three regional disaster medical health funding level is unclear, particularly given that the specialists . The proposal appears justified based on state dedicated $75 million to these activities in an assessment of tasks and workload not currently 2019-20, and most of these funds have not yet being performed . been allocated to specific projects . Second, there is no specific information on the department’s Support for Statewide Emergency plans for utilizing these additional funds, such as Management Functions (DGS). The budget how much of the funds would go to state entities, includes $295,000 to enhance the Department local governments, or other entities (such as of General Services’ (DGS’) ability to provide foodbanks); how much of the funds would be spent 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET on the specific types of activities (such as planning hardening homes and other structures and activities or backup generators); or how the specific increasing community resilience . While the proposed activities might interact with existing legislation requires the financial assistance to be rate-payer-funded programs . cost-effective, the proposal does not indicate Wildfire Safety and Process Reform (CPUC). how the program will ensure this . In fact, the The budget provides $27 .6 million (Public Utilities proposal indicates the program could fund large Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account) to grants—up to $50,000 each—for individual homes CPUC to implement recent legislation, including to replace roofs and siding . This appears to be SB 901 and AB 1054 . Most of the proposed a more expensive approach than focusing on funding would go toward oversight of utility wildfire low-cost retrofits that are more likely to achieve mitigation plans, including developing evaluation community-scale benefits . For example, retrofitting criteria and metrics, reviewing and approving most buildings in a subdivision is more likely to plans, monitoring compliance, and conducting reduce the spread of wildfire than retrofitting a enforcement . We find that the CPUC request is smaller number of buildings spread throughout a reasonable and consistent with recent legislation, community . In addition, providing larger grants will which has clearly resulted in a substantial result in fewer grants in total, which the Legislature increase in workload at CPUC to conduct greater might find problematic given the significant number oversight of utility wildfire mitigation . However, of homes—particularly older homes—in the WUI the state’s largest utility, PG&E, is in federal that do not comply with current building standards Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as a result for fire safety . of the liability associated with fires started by its In addition, while it is not related to the equipment . As a result, the future structure of the implementation details of the proposal, we have company is in question . The Governor’s Budget identified a couple of concerns with the justification Summary states that the administration will seek a for one component of the proposal . Specifically, state takeover of the utility, if necessary . Although most of the remaining funding requested as part the ultimate outcome of the bankruptcy is unclear, of this proposal is related to performing defensible such a change to PG&E could have a substantial space inspections for real estate transactions, as effect on CPUC workload . required by AB 38 . We find most of this requested Public Advocates Office Wildfire Safety funding to be reasonable . However, we have Implementation (CPUC). The budget includes concerns with portions of this proposal related $2 .6 million (Public Utilities Commission Public to three training positions, two mobile equipment Advocates Office Account) for the Public Advocates program positions, and one additional fire engine . Office to review utilities’ wildfire mitigation plans, The budget includes three ongoing positions to utilities’ requests for rate increase changes to train defensible space inspectors despite the pay for the wildfire mitigation plans, and utility fact that the training workload will occur on a applications to securitize costs—in accordance one-time basis when the new inspectors are with SB 901 and AB 1054 . We find the request hired . Similarly, the budget includes ongoing reasonable and consistent with recent legislation . mobile equipment program positions related to the However, similar to the CPUC request, there is one-time procurement of 22 sport utility vehicles uncertainty related to the PG&E bankruptcy that for the defensible space inspectors . The budget makes future workload unclear . also includes the purchase of an additional fire engine for training purposes that does not appear Home Hardening Pilot Program—AB 38 warranted . Given that it can take up to a couple (OES and CalFire). The budget includes a of years to complete the purchase of a new fire total of $110 .1 million (various fund sources) for engine due to the state’s procurement process and OES and CalFire to implement the requirements the length of time needed for the manufacturer to of Chapter 391 of 2019 (AB 38, Wood) . One build these customized vehicles, it is questionable component of this proposal is $100 million for whether the fire engine would arrive soon enough financial assistance to local jurisdictions for www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET to be used to train the defensible space inspectors . development opportunities in forestlands . The Further, at the time this analysis was prepared, the Legislature also has required the task force department had about 30 usable fire engines that to develop specific reports, such as on ways the department is planning to sell because new to streamline the regulatory approval process replacement engines were recently purchased . It for forest health projects . Given the current appears likely that many of these older fire engines workload of the task force, the two positions are still functional and align with engine types used appear reasonable . However, the Legislature has in the field by the department and could therefore not established the task force in state law as a be appropriate to repurpose for training purposes . permanent entity of state government . Adopting Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Data. a statutory framework for the task force would The budget includes a one-time $80 million General allow the Legislature to define the scope of Fund augmentation for the California Natural responsibilities and intended outcomes of the task Resources Agency (CNRA) to collect LiDAR data force and ensure legislative priorities are reflected . for the entire state, which could be used to better Some Proposals Might Not Fit Well understand the geological and forest structures Into a Strategic Approach or of various landscapes, including identifying fuel loads in forests and structures underneath tree Are Not Justified canopies . While the use of improved technology We have more significant concerns with the has the potential to significantly improve state remaining proposals because it is unclear how they decision-making by providing better information, would fit into a strategic statewide approach, they this specific proposal lacks an implementation lack basic workload justification, or both . While plan to ensure that the state and others would it is difficult to assess proposals in the absence use the data . For example, it is unclear whether of a strategic plan, some might not align with departments are prepared to make programmatic some of the key elements we think are needed in changes necessary to incorporate the use of a strategic approach . In particular, several of the LiDAR data and how the new data would be used proposals provide costly year-round resources to improve decision-making . For example, the rather than providing flexible resources to meet administration has not specified how CalFire would peak seasonal demands . Similarly, some proposals use LiDAR data to inform allocation of forest health might not align roles and responsibilities to the grants . In addition, potential long-term costs of various state and local entities best suited for the technology are unclear because there could specific workload . In addition, certain proposals, or be additional out-year costs to keep updating the components of proposals, lack basic justification, LiDAR data after the initial investment . Without such as quantifying staffing needs based on actual a commitment to fund those out-year costs, it is workload . unclear how useful much the data would be to In addition, unlike most of the proposals state programs in the long run if the LiDAR data is described previously, many of these proposals not regularly updated . would commit ongoing General Fund resources . In Administration and Research Support (Forest the absence of a strategic wildfire plan, it is difficult Management Task Force). The Governor’s budget for the Legislature to know whether it makes sense includes $210,000 (Environmental License Plate to commit to these ongoing spending proposals, Fund) to support the Forest Management Task or if some of them might ultimately be determined Force, which was created in 2018 through an to be a lower priority for state wildfire-related executive order . The task force currently has a spending in the future . In many cases these director who is appointed by the Governor and no proposals would be difficult to undo in the future other staff . The executive order required the task because they commit to hiring permanent state force to research and make recommendations on staff positions, which cannot be easily eliminated . various issues related to forest management, such Relief Staffing (CalFire). The budget includes as ways to improve forest health and economic $93 .4 million (General Fund) and 294 positions— 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET increasing to $142 .6 million ongoing and Fourth, we have concerns with the portion of 555 positions—primarily to provide additional this proposal for $11 .2 million to purchase 14 new staffing to bolster CalFire’s wildfire response fire engines for the department’s training academy . capacity, which could reduce how often front-line While additional training engines would be needed staff have to work back-to-back shifts during to train a large cohort of new fire response staff, peak fire season . Broadly, we have four potential purchasing 14 new fire engines does not appear concerns with this proposal . First, while it is cost-effective . Similar to the concerns raised important for the state have sufficient fire response previously with purchasing a new fire engine to train resources—including for staff to take time off— defensible space inspectors, it is unclear whether determining whether this proposal for hundreds the new engines would arrive in time to be used of additional staff provides CalFire with the most to train many of the positions requested in the appropriate staffing level is very difficult in the proposal . Moreover, the need for training engines absence of a strategic wildfire plan . Similarly, even could be met by repurposing older fire engines that under a scenario where a strategic wildfire plan the department would otherwise sell . identified a need for additional response staffing, Direct Mission Support—Administrative it is unclear whether the most cost-effective Staffing (CalFire). The budget provides approach would be to provide those resources to $16 .6 million for 103 new administrative positions . CalFire versus other state and local entities, such Figure 9 shows the proposed administrative as to support the mutual aid system . Second, the staffing augmentations compared to the currently proposal might not align with the elements we have authorized number of positions . As indicated in identified as important to developing a strategic the figure, the proposed increase in positions is approach to wildfires . Specifically, the proposal sizable compared to the base level of staffing for provides year-round permanent staff, rather than these units, with some units nearly doubling in providing additional flexible resources during the size . The proposal does not appear to be based peak season when they are most needed . Third, on a quantitative assessment of actual workload . the estimated number of positions does not appear While CalFire has provided some information to be fully justified on a workload basis because attempting to quantify workload, the workload the proposal (1) is based on a staffing ratio that justification provided at the time of this analysis assumes that employees take all of their vacation was incomplete and generally does not justify the and sick leave each year, which is inconsistent with need for many of the positions . This is because patterns of actual leave taken by state employees, the information provided generally does not and (2) provides ongoing positions for the one-time identify the specific tasks that the department is workload associated with training new staff . not able to accomplish with its existing level of Figure 9 Governor’s Budget Significantly Increases CalFire Administrative Positions— Direct Mission Support Current Level Augmentation New Level Percent Increase Executive Office support 2.0 1.0 3.0 50% Legal Office 18.5 1.0 19.5 5 Office of Program Accountability 6.0 1.0 7.0 17 Headquarters Administration 24.0 7.0 31.0 29 Departmental Accounting Office and ERBU 80.6 29.0 109.6 36 Budget Office 12.5 10.0 22.5 80 Business Services Office 32.0 29.0 61.0 91 Region and Unit Administration 129.0 25.0 154.0 19 Totals 304.6 103.0 407.6 34% ERBU = Emergency Response Billing Unit. www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET positions . (We note that a few of the positions nearly complete and thus require much less time requested do appear reasonable .) In addition, to evaluate and process before being released to most of the units requesting additional positions the field than many of the vehicles the department currently have a number of vacant positions, which has recently purchased—meaning future workload further raises questions about the need for the for processing new vehicles will likely be somewhat additional positions requested . For example, the lower . Business Services Office had 9 vacancies out of Disaster Planning, Preparedness, and 33 authorized positions in 2018-19—a vacancy rate Response (OES). The budget provides $9 .4 million of 27 percent . and 50 positions to augment 20 different Hired Equipment Staffing (CalFire). The operational and administrative areas of OES, Governor’s budget includes $2 .9 million (General with over two-thirds of the positions for finance Fund) and ten positions for CalFire’s hired and administration (19 positions) and response equipment program, which manages agreements operations (17 positions) . We find that this proposal with contract operators of wildfire equipment . (The lacks sufficient workload justification . In particular, it program currently has one authorized position .) is generally not clear from the proposal (1) what are While the proposal identifies some workload—such the current staffing levels to support the activities as audits of contract agreements—that is not described, (2) what specific workload backlogs being completed to indicate the need for some or gaps in service exist because of inadequate increased positions, it does not clearly justify why staffing, and (3) why the specific number of the ten positions requested is the correct number additional staff requested are justified . Additionally, to address the workload . we note that OES has received resources for many Mobile Equipment Staffing (CalFire). The similar activities in recent years . Most recently, OES budget provides $1 .7 million (General Fund) in received $7 .5 million in the current year to support 2020-21, and $1 .5 million ongoing, to support 88 new positions in many of the same categories nine positions for the Davis Mobile Equipment currently proposed for funding . It is unclear how the Facility . (The facility currently has 14 authorized previously approved resources have been used and positions .) This proposal lacks sufficient workload why the proposed level of additional resources are justification . The Davis Mobile Equipment Facility needed to supplement them . has handled an increased level of workload due Emergency Preparedness and Response to one-time augmentations provided in each of (CMD). The budget includes $3 .2 million (General the last couple of years to replace vehicles and Fund) and 21 positions to provide operational, other mobile equipment (such as fire trucks and logistical, administrative, and fiscal support bulldozers) . Based on our conversation with the for troop deployments . The California Military department, despite the increased workload and Department (CMD) indicates these additional having a couple of vacant positions, the facility did resources will be needed to address disasters of not appear to develop any backlog of workload increased magnitude, frequency, and complexity to receive and process new CalFire vehicles . that it anticipates encountering in the coming As discussed previously, the budget includes decade . We find, however, that the level of future $19 million for two years to replace additional workload related to fires and other disasters for CalFire vehicles and mobile equipment . This level CMD is uncertain . This is in part because, absent of funding is roughly the same as the funding a strategic wildfire plan, it is unclear how much of level for vehicle replacement in recent years . In a role CMD should play in future disaster-related addition, the department plans to focus the next activities compared to other entities . For example, phases of equipment replacement on replacing a major activity that CMD has undertaken recently front-line equipment such as fire engines and crew is the clearing of vegetation in support of CalFire . transports . Because most of these vehicles are built However, we find that CMD may not be the most according to specifications developed by CalFire, cost-effective entity to conduct this type of work, the vehicles are delivered by the manufacturer and the state might ultimately want to rely more 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET heavily on other entities that might be less costly, we recommend (1) approving those proposals such as inmate crews . that appear reasonable, (2) providing additional Center for Public Preparedness (UC). The guidance on the implementation of certain budget includes $3 million (General Fund) for the proposals, (3) withholding action on certain University of California (UC) San Diego to create proposals, and (4) modifying or rejecting proposals the Center for Public Preparedness . The specific that might not align with a strategic wildfire plan activities that would be funded under the proposal or lack justification . (We also summarize our remain unclear . The proposed provisional language recommendations—organized by department—in a in the budget describes the proposal as a research table at the end of this report .) initiative affecting multiple UC campuses . However, Approve Proposals That Appear the budget plan UC submitted to us focuses Reasonable primarily on conducting public outreach campaigns at K-12 schools and other community sites . We recommend that the Legislature approve the Subsequently, the Department of Finance indicated wildfire-related proposals that appear reasonable, to us that the administration is still confirming the including proposals for (1) various CalFire capital use of the funds . The Legislature cannot evaluate outlay projects, (2) CalFire mobile equipment the merit of this proposal without further clarity replacement, (3) CalFire wildland firefighting regarding its goals and intended activities . research grant, (4) CalFire building standards and In addition, our review of UC’s initial plans defensible space education—SB 190, (5) OES identified three concerns . First, UC’s proposed CDAA funding, (6) OES State Operations Center outreach activities appear to be duplicative with improvements, (7) the Wildfire Forecast and Threat existing state programs . For example, the 2018-19 Intelligence Integration Center—SB 209, (8) regional Budget Act provided $50 million for OES and the disaster medical health response (Emergency Office of Planning and Research to administer Medical Services Authority), and (9) DGS support an outreach effort known as the California For for statewide emergency management functions . All Emergency Preparedness Campaign . The Approving these proposals will meet clearly administration has not provided the Legislature established workload related to wildfires that evidence that this existing program is insufficient is unlikely to change even if the state develops or oversubscribed . Furthermore, it is unclear how a strategic approach to wildfires . In addition, this new UC program would coordinate or align some of the proposals will help provide additional with existing state efforts . Second, despite the information to better inform a strategic approach . proposal providing entirely ongoing funding, UC’s Provide Additional Guidance on initial plan included certain one-time costs, such as a renovation of an existing building to house the Implementation of Certain Proposals program . UC could not clarify how it would spend We identify three proposals for which we the associated ongoing funding in future years recommend that the Legislature approve with once the renovation is completed . Third, UC’s plan additional guidance on how they would be budgets around one-third of the proposed funding implemented in order to ensure that they are for campus overhead costs . Given the relatively consistent with legislative priorities . These are high amount for campus administration, we proposals that we generally find to be reasonable question whether the state has more cost-effective because they implement legislative priorities or are options to improve public awareness statewide . otherwise promising, yet lack key implementation details . Our recommendations include: RECOMMENDATIONS • Clarify Community Power Resiliency (OES). Based on our assessment, we recommend We recommend that the Legislature adopt that the Legislature take a mix of actions on the budget bill language to further define how Governor’s various wildfire proposals . Specifically, the proposed funds for community resiliency www.lao.ca.gov 23 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET could be used . For example, the Legislature • Establish Statutory Framework for Forest may want to specify how much of these Management Task Force. While this proposal funds are to be spent on state projects, seems reasonable based on the workload local government projects, or projects of the task force, the Legislature has not undertaken by other entities . Additionally, the established the task force in state law . We Legislature may want to specify that these recommend, to the extent that providing the funds be prioritized for certain types of eligible requested positions aligns with legislative activities, such as providing certain types of priorities, that the Legislature approve budget backup power . This direction would provide trailer legislation to establish the Forest additional clarity regarding the proposed Management Task Force in statute . We use of the funds and ensure that they would recommend that this trailer legislation define be spent according to legislative priorities . the goals and responsibilities for the task force We further recommend that the Legislature to ensure that it will meet legislative priorities, require OES to provide a report on how as well the priorities specified in the executive funds provided in 2020-21 were used, as order that initially created the task force . well as what outcomes were achieved . This information—which would be similar to the Withhold Action on Certain Promising information OES is required to provide for the Proposals That Would Benefit From PSPS funding provided in 2019-20—would Additional Information facilitate legislative oversight of OES’ efforts and their effectiveness at mitigating the effects For proposals that appear consistent with of PSPS events . legislative priorities, but for which we think the • Provide Greater Specificity for Home Legislature needs additional information before Hardening Pilot Program—AB 38 (OES and taking action, we recommend withholding CalFire). We recommend that the Legislature action pending receipt of additional information . take steps to ensure that OES and CalFire Specifically, we recommend withholding action on limit eligible grants to the most cost-effective the following proposals: home hardening and community resiliency • Wildfire Safety and Process Reform measures as required by AB 38 . For example, (CPUC). We recommend the Legislature the Legislature could consider approving withhold action on the CPUC proposal budget trailer legislation placing a cap on the until there is more information about how total grant amount per home or requiring the the PG&E bankruptcy will be resolved . As majority of the funds to be used for low-cost previously discussed, the outcome of the retrofits, which we believe would likely be bankruptcy proceeding could affect CPUC more cost-effective than higher-cost retrofits . workload . Given the time lines established in In addition, similar to other recommendations AB 1054 that requires PG&E complete the we make, we recommend making certain bankruptcy process under certain conditions components of the defensible space program by June 30, 2020 in order to access the limited term—specifically, the three training newly created Wildfire Fund, we expect more positions and two mobile equipment program clarity by mid-May—before the Legislature’s positions—to align with actual workload . We constitutional deadline for passing a budget . also recommend rejecting the one additional • Public Advocates Office Wildfire Safety training fire engine requested because CalFire Implementation (CPUC). Similar to the CPUC has not demonstrated that it is needed or proposal, we recommend the Legislature will be purchased in time for use as a training withhold action on the Public Advocate’s engine for the 21 new defensible space Office proposal until there is more information inspectors . about how the PG&E bankruptcy is resolved, which could affect workload . 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET • LiDAR (CNRA). We find that the proposed Public Preparedness proposals, we recommend use of LiDAR technology appears to have modifying them to limit ongoing budgetary very promising applications for the state— commitments, as discussed in the next section of including both related to wildfires, as well as this report . other uses . However, the high cost and lack Modify Proposals to Limit Ongoing of important implementation details makes Commitments. For each of the proposals the proposal potentially premature . We listed in this section, we recommend that the recommend withholding action and requiring Legislature—should it choose to approve them— CNRA to provide a detailed implementation consider various modifications to limit permanent plan that (1) addresses programmatic changes commitments that would be difficult to change in necessary for departments to integrate LiDAR the future . This is because these proposals might data into their operational decision-making, not align with future wildfire funding priorities (2) describes the uses and benefits of the data depending on the outcome of the development of and how often it would need to be updated a strategic wildfire plan . Similarly, these proposals in order to continue the proposed uses, lock in General Fund spending that could be and (3) estimates future costs to support difficult to reduce in the future . Specifically, we ongoing data collection . If CNRA is unable recommend that the Legislature consider potential to provide a more detailed implementation modifications to limit permanent budgetary plan, we recommend rejecting the proposal increases related to the following proposals: and directing CNRA to bring the proposal • Relief Staffing (CalFire). First, for the CalFire back in a year after the development of an relief staffing proposal, we recommend implementation plan . To the extent that CNRA that the Legislature provide limited-term is able to provide some implementation resources for any new training positions . details, such as regarding uses for forest Even if the Legislature were to approve the health evaluation, the Legislature may wish to other components of the request, most provide partial funding in order to pilot test the of the training staff only would be needed use of LiDAR data . temporarily to handle a one-time influx of new staff . Second, to the extent the Legislature Modify or Reject Proposals That wants to increase CalFire’s fire response Might Not Align With a Strategic staffing, we recommend approving seasonal Approach or Lack Justification positions rather than permanent state staff . This approach would provide additional Ensure Legislature Has Sufficient Details resources for up to nine months out of the on Each Proposal. As we discuss previously, year, which would cover the majority of the fire there are a few proposals for which departments season and provide additional support during have not provided sufficient workload justification the peak season when it is most needed . to justify the level of resources being requested . Third, we recommend rejecting the purchase This includes CalFire’s proposals for direct of new fire engines for training purposes mission support—administrative staffing, hired and instead direct the department to use equipment staffing, and mobile equipment surplus engines for training . If adopted, these staffing; OES’ disaster planning, preparedness, recommendations would result in ongoing and response proposal; and UC San Diego’s budget savings likely in the low tens of millions proposal for the Center for Public Preparedness . of dollars, though the exact amount would If the administration does not provide sufficient depend on the specific actions taken . information to justify these proposals, we recommend that the Legislature reject them . If the • Mobile Equipment Staffing (CalFire). If Legislature receives sufficient workload justification CalFire is able to provide workload justification for the mobile equipment staffing and Center for showing the need for additional resources to www.lao.ca.gov 25 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET process the procurement of a greater number of a strategic wildfire plan . Providing funding of new vehicles and other mobile equipment on a limited-term basis would enable the proposed with the augmented funding Legislature to revisit the appropriate amount provided for two years to replace additional of ongoing support for the department with vehicles, then the proposal for associated the benefit of additional information on the staffing should be provided on a limited-term state’s wildfire plan . basis, because the higher level of workload • Center for Public Preparedness (UC). To would be temporary . the extent the administration and UC clarify • Emergency Preparedness and Response its intent and submits a detailed plan for (CMD). We recommend approving funding for how the proposed funds would be spent, we CMD’s proposal on a three-year, limited-term recommend only funding portions of the plan basis, rather than on an ongoing basis as that do not duplicate existing state efforts, are proposed by the Governor . This is because, aligned with UC’s mission (primarily research), while the department has significant and eliminate out-year funding for any costs workload currently related to wildfires, it is that are for one-time activities or projects . not clear how its role might change in light CONCLUSION Various factors are contributing to the state In addition, we find that in the absence of facing growing risks of destructive wildfires, which such a strategic wildfire plan, the Governor’s could continue in the decades to come . Given the 2020-21 budget proposals are difficult to evaluate long-term and complex nature of wildfire risks— and in some cases might not align with some of as well as the challenges and costs associated the key elements we think might be included in a with effectively addressing those risks—we find it strategic approach . Consequently, it is possible that is important for the state to develop a statewide under the Governor’s budget plan, the state could strategic wildfire plan . The purpose of the plan would be committing to wildfire strategies that are not be to inform and guide state policymakers regarding the most effective or efficient . Therefore, until the the most effective strategies for responding to state has developed a strategic wildfire plan, we wildfires and mitigating wildfire risks . This could recommend that the Legislature consider limiting include guidance on future funding allocations to certain ongoing budget commitments that would ensure the highest-priority and most cost-effective be difficult to change in the future . In so doing, programs and activities receive funding and that the state would better maintain budget flexibility to the state achieves an optimal balance of funding for implement the most effective and efficient wildfire prevention and mitigation activities with demands to risk reduction strategies recommended by the increase fire response capacity . strategic wildfire plan . 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (In Millions) Proposed 2020-21 Proposal Amount Recommendation Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) Relief staffing $93.4 • Make funding for training staff limited term. • Provide additional seasonal staffing rather than permanent staff. • Reject funding for training fire engines. Various capital outlay projects 39.4 • Approve. Mobile equipment replacement 19.0 • Approve. Direct mission support—administrative staffing 16.6 • Require additional workload justification; reject if sufficient information not provided. • If justification is provided, align proposal with positions that are justified. Wildland firefighting research grant 5.0 • Approve. Hired equipment staffing 2.9 • Require additional workload justification; reject if sufficient information not provided. • If justification is provided, align proposal with positions that are justified. Mobile equipment staffing 1.7 • Require additional workload justification; reject if sufficient information not provided. • If justification is provided, approve staffing on limited-term basis. Building standards and defensible space education— 0.7 • Approve. SB 190 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Community power resiliency $50.0 • Approve with additional implementation guidance and reporting. California Disaster Assistance Act 16.7 • Approve. Disaster planning, preparedness, and response 9.4 • Require additional workload justification; reject if sufficient information not provided. State Operations Center improvements 0.4 • Approve. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Wildfire safety and process reform $27.6 • Withhold action pending additional information about Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) bankruptcy. Public Advocates Office wildfire safety implementation 2.6 • Withhold action pending additional information about PG&E bankruptcy. (Continued) www.lao.ca.gov 27 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Proposed 2020-21 Proposal Amount Recommendation Multi-Department and Other Departments Home hardening pilot program—AB 38 (OES/CalFire) $110.1 • Approve majority of proposal with additional implementation guidance. • Provide funding for training and mobile equipment staff for CalFire only on a limited-term basis. • Reject funding for additional fire engine. Light detection and ranging data (CNRA) 80.0 • Withhold action and require CNRA to provide a detailed implementation plan. • If no plan is provided, reject the proposal. • Consider funding a pilot project. Wildfire Forecast and Threat Intelligence Integration 9.0 • Approve. Center—SB 209 (CalFire, OES, CPUC, and CMD) Emergency preparedness and response (CMD) 3.2 • Approve funding on a three-year, limited-term basis. Center for Public Preparedness (UC) 3.0 • Require additional workload justification; reject if sufficient information not provided. • If information is provided, (1) fund only research, not outreach and (2) modify proposal to eliminate out-year funding for one- time costs. Regional disaster medical health response 0.4 • Approve. (Emergency Medical Services Authority) Support for statewide emergency management 0.3 • Approve. functions (Department of General Services) Administration and research support 0.2 • Approve and establish a statutory framework for the task force. (Forest Management Task Force) SB 190 = Chapter 404 of 2019 (SB 190, Dodd); AB 38 = Chapter 391 of 2019 (AB 38, Wood); SB 209 = Chapter 405 of 2019 (SB 209, Dodd); CMD = California Military Department; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; and UC = University of California. LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Jessica Peters, with assistance from Helen Kerstein and Ross Brown, and reviewed by Brian Brown and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE