Executive Summary
California’s utilities—water, power, gas, telecommunications, and pipelines—form the backbone of disaster response and recovery. When these systems fail, public health, economic stability, and community safety are immediately at risk. Yet coordination between utility providers and government agencies remains inconsistent, siloed, and overly dependent on informal relationships rather than standardized frameworks.
Despite alignment with FEMA’s Community Lifelines construct, the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), and evolving regulatory mandates such as CPUC’s R.15-06-009 Phase II, there is no unified reporting or documentation structure guiding how utilities communicate operational status during emergencies.
This gap results in delayed situational awareness, inconsistent public messaging, inefficient resource deployment, and prolonged recovery timelines—particularly during complex, multi-sector incidents such as wildfires, earthquakes, or cyber events.
This paper proposes the development of a unified, cross-sector reporting and documentation framework that integrates utilities more effectively into emergency management systems. By establishing shared terminology, standardized reporting templates, digital interoperability, and preparedness maturity benchmarks, California can move from reactive coordination to integrated resilience.
The opportunity is clear: strengthen alignment now to reduce confusion later. A unified framework will enable faster decision-making, improved restoration timelines, and stronger partnerships between utilities and government agencies—ultimately protecting the communities they serve.
Introduction
In times of disaster, coordinated resilience across all utilities—water and wastewater, electricity, gas, telecommunications, and petroleum pipelines—is essential to public health, community stability, and emergency operations. Despite their foundational role in societal function, coordination between utility providers and government agencies during disaster events remains reactive and inconsistent.
Historically, emergency management frameworks have centered on public sector coordination, often viewing utilities primarily as private stakeholders rather than fully integrated operational partners. This perception overlooks the fact that thousands of California utilities are municipally or publicly owned. The resulting disconnect has contributed to fragmented communication, delayed situational awareness, and inefficient resource deployment—particularly during complex emergencies where multiple utility sectors are impacted simultaneously.
This gap is reflected in the operationalization of Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) and Recovery Support Functions (RSFs), where utility stakeholders are sometimes excluded from planning processes or denied access to critical operational information. Even as California’s regulatory environment increasingly recognizes the need for enhanced utility engagement, the absence of standardized communication and reporting mechanisms continues to hinder effective coordination.
To address these challenges, utilities and government agencies must establish shared expectations, consistent documentation practices, and interoperable communication protocols. Doing so will strengthen partnerships, accelerate recovery, and build long-term resilience across California’s infrastructure landscape.
Problem Statement
Despite the essential role utilities play in disaster response, no consistent or standardized framework governs how they communicate with government agencies during emergencies. Each sector—water, electric, gas, telecommunications, and pipelines—operates under distinct protocols, terminology, and reporting systems. This siloed structure creates barriers to coordination, particularly during fast-moving or multi-jurisdictional events.
In some cases, utilities are excluded from Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) or incident command structures due to a lack of clarity about their operational role. During the 2025 Eaton Fire response, utility representatives were asked to leave the local EOC during the initial operational period. The absence of direct utility engagement contributed to inaccurate public messaging and misaligned response priorities.
Small water agencies face particular challenges. Many lack standardized tools to report infrastructure damage and operational status in formats that emergency managers can rapidly interpret and act upon. During the Eaton Fire recovery, water system restoration was not recognized as part of the critical path of recovery—largely due to inconsistent documentation and reporting standards. This delayed decision-making, hindered situational awareness, and slowed recovery efforts.
Senate Bill 552 (SB 552), enacted in 2021, requires small water suppliers—serving fewer than 3,000 connections—to incorporate drought planning elements into emergency response plans. While this legislation represents progress, many small systems still lack the operational frameworks needed to effectively engage with EOCs and state agencies during crises.
These issues are not rooted in a lack of willingness to collaborate, but in the absence of shared tools, common language, and defined expectations. Without a unified approach, utilities and government agencies remain vulnerable to miscommunication, inefficiencies, and preventable risks to public safety.
Proposed Solution
To close the coordination gap, California must establish a unified reporting and documentation framework across utility sectors. This framework would define clear expectations for how utilities communicate operational status, infrastructure impacts, and restoration timelines during emergencies.
The solution draws from established emergency management principles—such as the Incident Command System (ICS)—and adapts them to the utility environment. Rather than imposing rigid standardization, the framework would provide structured interoperability while respecting sector-specific operational realities.
A Proven Model: Hospital Incident Command System (HICS)
An instructive example of sector-specific adaptation within a standardized framework is the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). Healthcare represents one of the most critical Community Lifelines, with operational demands that differ significantly from other public safety entities. Recognizing these unique needs, hospitals developed HICS as a methodology for effectively applying the Incident Command System (ICS) within a healthcare environment.
HICS maintains alignment with ICS, NIMS, and SEMS principles while tailoring structure, terminology, and functional roles to reflect hospital operations. It improves emergency management planning, response, and recovery capabilities for both planned and unplanned health and medical emergencies. Importantly, HICS does not replace ICS—it operationalizes it within a sector-specific context.
In California, HICS has been broadly adopted across hospitals statewide. This consistency enhances interoperability, strengthens situational awareness, and allows healthcare facilities to integrate seamlessly into Emergency Operations Centers and multi-agency coordination structures. Its effectiveness is reinforced by ongoing support and recognition from the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and local Departments of Emergency Management (DEMs), ensuring alignment between sector-specific practices and statewide emergency management systems.
The success of HICS demonstrates that sector adaptation and statewide standardization are not mutually exclusive. A structured, widely adopted utility coordination framework—such as the model proposed in this paper and supported by the UMAC Guide—could achieve similar alignment. By embracing a common methodology tailored to utility operations, California’s utility sectors can enhance interoperability while preserving the operational flexibility required for diverse infrastructure environments.
Building on this precedent, the proposed utility framework must translate shared principles into practical tools that are scalable, sector-informed, and widely adoptable.
Two foundational components are recommended:
- A Shared Glossary of Terms to establish consistent terminology across agencies and utilities.
- A Preparedness Maturity Model to help utilities assess and strengthen readiness over time.
The broader framework would include standardized reporting templates, defined communication protocols, secure digital platforms for real-time data exchange, and cross-sector training and exercises to build operational familiarity.
Initial implementation should begin with regional pilot programs and existing collaborative bodies, including the California Utilities Mutual Assistance Working Group and the Southern California Critical Lifelines Work Group. These forums provide practical environments to refine applications and ensure adaptability across sectors.
The Role of the UMAC Guide
As part of advancing a standardized coordination framework, the California Utilities Emergency Association (CUEA) is developing a Utilities Multi-Agency Coordination (UMAC) Guide. The Guide is intended to provide structured, practical direction for how utilities engage within multi-agency coordination systems during disaster response.
The UMAC Guide addresses a persistent integration challenge: while utilities frequently operate under internal incident management structures, their participation in Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Groups, and state-level coordination mechanisms remain inconsistent. The Guide seeks to clarify roles, define communication pathways, and establish documentation expectations that align with NIMS and SEMS.
Core elements of the UMAC Guide include:
- Defined activation thresholds for utility engagement in EOCs and MAC Groups
- Standardized reporting templates aligned with Community Lifelines
- Recommended information-sharing protocols between utilities and government agencies
- Guidance on situational awareness reporting and restoration projections
- Clarification of utility representation within ESFs and RSFs
Rather than imposing uniform operations, the Guide reinforces interoperability while recognizing sector diversity. It translates policy intent into field-level application, ensuring utilities are integrated as essential operational partners rather than engaged reactively during crisis.
As development continues through stakeholder engagement and regional collaboration, the UMAC Guide provides a scalable vehicle for piloting the broader unified reporting framework proposed in this paper. Through phased implementation and continuous feedback, it can serve as a foundational tool in institutionalizing structured utility-government coordination across California.
Implementation Considerations
Successful implementation requires structured governance, inclusive collaboration, and phased execution.
A joint task force led by CUEA, Cal OES, and the CPUC—with representation from utility sectors and local governments—could serve as the central coordinating body. A steering committee model with rotating leadership and sector-specific subcommittees would ensure balanced participation and accountability.
Sector diversity must be acknowledged. Working groups should tailor templates and protocols within a unified structure to ensure interoperability without unrealistic uniformity. Small and rural utilities must be supported through technical assistance and funding access.
Technology integration will require adaptation of platforms such as WebEOC and Cal COP, alongside strong data governance and cybersecurity protections. Training—through annual exercises and cross-sector drills—must reinforce operational familiarity across agencies.
Policy alignment and funding mechanisms should incentivize adoption, particularly through grant eligibility requirements and resilience programs. Finally, measurable performance indicators and structured after-action review processes must ensure continuous improvement.
Conclusion
California’s disaster landscape is growing more complex, not less. Utilities are operational lifelines that determine the speed and success of recovery.
Without standardized reporting, shared terminology, and integrated communication protocols, coordination will continue to depend on relationships rather than systems. That model is not sustainable in an era of increasingly frequent and complex disasters.
Developing a unified cross-sector framework—supported by initiatives such as the UMAC Guide—is both achievable and urgent. Through governance, pilot programs, regulatory alignment, and targeted funding, California can institutionalize utility-government coordination instead of improvising it during crisis.
The expertise exists. The urgency is undeniable. The systems are within reach. The remaining variable is commitment.
By acting now, California can transform fragmented coordination into integrated resilience—reducing response times, protecting public health, and strengthening community recovery for years to come.
Author: Sarah Canchola – Assistant Director, Response, CUEA