Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 16-08-020 SUBMITTED BY THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 16-08-020 SUBMITTED BY THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION document copy is embedded. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 16.1(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby responds in opposition to the Safety and Enforcement Division’s (SED) application for rehearing of Decision 16-08-020 (Application).  SED’s Application disputes the evidentiary findings underlying the Decision or raises non-legal issues. The Application, therefore, fails to identify a “legal error” warranting rehearing by the Commission. The questions raised in the OII were thoroughly investigated over the course of nearly 18 months, including more than 400 pages of written testimony from eight fact witnesses and five experts on gas distribution recordkeeping.1 The parties submitted extensive post-trial briefing.2 SED and the City of Carmel unsuccessfully appealed the same issues raised in this Application.3 Because the Application fails to identify any legal error, it should be denied.

PG&E’s brief is organized as follows:

First, PG&E demonstrates that the Commission’s determination that PG&E’s “alternative method” for setting maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for certain distribution systems complies with the applicable regulations is supported by substantial evidence, and thus does not constitute legal error.

Second, PG&E explains that the Commission’s finding that PG&E’s distribution system is “generally compliant” is supported by substantial evidence, that the isolated instances identified by SED are not sufficient to undermine the Commission’s determination, and that this finding thus does not constitute legal error.

Third, PG&E shows that there was no legal error in setting the $12.052 million fine for the missing De Anza Division paper records because that finding is fully supported by the factual record.

Fourth, PG&E explains that a typographical, but non-substantive, error in the description of the Fresno incident is not legal error warranting a rehearing.

Fifth, PG&E attaches as an Appendix—and incorporates by reference—its response to the appeals of SED and Carmel, which provides further support for the Commission’s findings that are challenged in the Application.4
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that SED’s Rehearing Application be denied.

Pg&e Company's Response to the Application for Rehearing of Decision 16-08-020 10-11-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 10-11-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 16-08-020 SUBMITTED BY THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION