Why Manual Data is the Weakest Link in Your Wildfire Mitigation Plan
How utilities keep GIS and asset records aligned with the field
Your Wildfire Mitigation Plan depends on your asset records being right. But over time, what’s on your map doesn’t always match what crews find in the field. If your Geographic Information System (GIS) map has not been physically verified in months, you may be managing high-risk areas with records that are outdated.That matters because when you submit your annual Wildfire Mitigation Plan, you’re making a commitment to regulators and insurers. So the question becomes pretty simple: do you know what’s on each circuit, where it is, and when it was last checked?
Automated asset discovery helps between field checks. It doesn’t replace inspections. It helps you avoid truck visits that are only needed to confirm what the record should already show. It surfaces mismatches and missing fields early, so field checks are more targeted and reviews are easier.
What This Solves
Wildfire scrutiny is rising in many regions, not just California. This article explains why utility asset records fall behind the field and how that slows mitigation work. You’ll learn how to flag mismatches across GIS, work orders, and inspection notes, and how to focus field verification on the records that truly need it.
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Records Are Only as Current as Your Last Field Check
Record drift is not a process failure. It’s what happens when normal grid work gets recorded in different systems at different speeds.
By the time field notes and work orders make it into GIS, the equipment in service can already be different again.
By “asset records,” we mean the information you track for poles, transformers, switches, reclosers, communications gear, and sensors. That includes location, labeling, last-verified date, and the settings or notes you rely on in high-risk areas.
For many utilities, those records are a snapshot in time. To meet regulatory requirements, teams send crews into designated high fire-risk areas (often called High Fire Threat Districts) to confirm what is installed. But the moment inspections end, normal operations continue and the system of record starts aging again.
Changes happen as part of everyday work. New customer connections, including rooftop solar and battery systems, can drive updates to protection settings, transformers, and communications gear on high-risk circuits. If those changes are not captured consistently across systems, documentation can fall out of step with what is installed and how it is configured.
Storm response creates similar drift. Equipment is often swapped quickly to restore service, including transformers, reclosers, switches, and communications devices. Vegetation programs add inspections and work orders that may live in separate tools. When GIS, work orders, and inspection notes don’t update together, keeping records consistent becomes harder.
This matters during review. When regulators, insurers, or internal teams ask what equipment was in service at a specific location, conflicting IDs, missing last-verified dates, or duplicated records make it harder to show a defensible answer. Your Wildfire Mitigation Plan may be based on records that were accurate on inspection day, but do not match what is in service today.
FAQs
What is included in a utility Wildfire Mitigation Plan?
A Wildfire Mitigation Plan typically describes how a utility reduces ignition risk in high-risk areas. That includes inspection and maintenance programs, vegetation work, corrective actions, and documentation showing what equipment is in service and when it was last verified. The exact requirements vary by region, but the common theme is defensible records.
Why doesn’t the GIS map match what crews see in the field?
Because the field changes faster than updates make it into systems. Equipment gets swapped during storm restoration, settings are adjusted for new connections, and work gets recorded in different tools. By the time notes are entered and maps are updated, the “system of record” can already be behind what is actually installed.
How do utilities reduce verification truck rolls in high-risk areas?
The goal is to target field checks instead of using crews to confirm basic details. Utilities can start by reconciling GIS exports, work orders, and inspection outputs to find where records conflict or are missing key fields. Then truck visits can be reserved for the specific locations and assets that truly need verification.
What makes asset records “defensible” in a review or audit?
Defensible records are consistent across systems and tied to evidence. They clearly show what equipment was in service at a location, where it was, and when it was last verified. They also avoid common issues like duplicates, missing IDs, and conflicting descriptions between GIS, work orders, and inspection notes.
How can utilities reconcile GIS, CMMS, and inspection notes?
Start with exports from the systems you already use and compare them for mismatches, duplicates, and missing fields. Focus on the record elements that create the most friction during reviews, like location, asset identifiers, and last-verified dates. As integrations are enabled in WanAware, you can move from one-time snapshots to ongoing updates that help keep records aligned with the field.
