CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, April 18, 2017

Agenda Special Meeting 04-18-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
CLOSED SESSION 3:00 p.m.

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN & NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN

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 INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN and NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY TO  PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN document copies are embedded. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E”) hereby submits its Initial Compliance Plan in accordance with D.16-08-020, Decision Regarding Investigation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Gas Distribution Facilities Records, Ordering Paragraph 2.

PG&E’s submission is organized as follows:

Appendix A – PG&E’s Initial Compliance Plan (“Plan”).

Appendix B, PG&E’s Summary of the Meet-And-Confer Process and Efforts Undertaken

regarding the Plan.

Appendix C, Comments of Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) on the Plan.

Appendix D, Comments of Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) on the Plan.

Appendix E, Comments of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) on the Plan.

Appendix F, Comments of PG&E on the Plan and Different and Additional Remedies

Proposed by SED, ORA, and TURN.

Contemporaneously with this Notice of Availability (NOA), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is filing with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) PG&E’s Initial Compliance Plan.

Pursuant to Rule 1.9(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, PG&E is serving this NOA in lieu of electronic service of the Initial Compliance Plan due to the large size of the pleading and its attachments. These documents will be available on PG&E's website by the close of business today. To access the documents, please see instructions below:

Instructions to PG&E”s internet.

1) Go to: https://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/search 

2) Click on "Search” under Public Case Documents

3) Select {Gas Distribution Records OII} from the dropdown menu

4) Select today's date to narrow the search criteria

5) Click Search

Pg&e's Initial Compliance Plan 12-16-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 12-16-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN

Notice of Availability to Pg&e's Initial Compliance Plan 12-16-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 12-16-16
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S INITIAL COMPLIANCE PLAN

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 

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

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 PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and APPENDIX A PG&E’s Measures to Continue to Improve Gas Distribution Recordkeeping and Promote Safety and APPENDIX B  PG&E’s Responses to Proposed Remedial Measures document copies are embedded. 

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 14.4(d) of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby submits this joint response to the Appeals of the Presiding Officer’s Decision (POD)1 filed by the Safety and Enforcement Division and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Third, PG&E explains why SED’s and Carmel’s proposals for calculating higher fines for specific incidents, including the Carmel incident, are inappropriate. SED’s and Carmel’s alternative proposals largely involve a mechanical application of fines at the top of the statutory range, while giving no consideration to the fact-specific criteria that must be considered under the Public Utilities Code and Commission precedent when determining an appropriate penalty. PG&E submits that the decision in this proceeding should consider the evidence of record and the relevant criteria for assessing a penalty—including factually comparable precedents, the relative severity of the incidents, PG&E’s commitment to continuous improvement, and the objective measures demonstrating PG&E’s general compliance with regulations.

Fourth, PG&E explains how SED and Carmel misconstrue the evidentiary record and the POD’s findings in challenging the fine imposed regarding the De Anza leak repair records.
CONCLUSION PG&E has an unwavering commitment to continuously improving not only its gas distribution system recordkeeping practices but also the safety of its distribution system, and complying with all applicable rules, regulations, and statutes. PG&E is also committed to continuing to work with the Commission to pursue these important goals. The many initiatives PG&E has undertaken to build state-of-the-industry infrastructure, achieve recordkeeping best practices, and minimize the risk of incidents on its gas distribution system demonstrate the durability and sincerity of PG&E’s commitment. 

PG&E acknowledges that more work remains to be done and that, at times in the past, its conduct has not measured up to the high expectations that the Company sets for itself. PG&E intends to continue doing exactly what it has been doing—focusing on safety, finding and fixing issues as they arise, and searching for innovative, effective, and technologically advanced solutions to the challenges that remain.
For the reasons stated above, PG&E submits that the arguments advanced on appeal by SED and Carmel for increasing the penalties imposed in the POD are unsupported by or contrary to the evidence of record, inconsistent with the governing legal standards, and accordingly should be rejected by the Commission. PG&E looks forward to working cooperatively with SED and the Intervenors in the meet-and-confer process to identify and consider further opportunities to continue improving its recordkeeping and other practices to better serve the public and promote the safety of its system.

Pg&e Company's Response i.14!11!008 7-18-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-18-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Pg&e Appendix a 7-18-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

APPENDIX A

PG&E’s Measures to Continue to Improve Gas Distribution Recordkeeping and Promote Safety

Pg&e Appendix b 7-18-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

APPENDIX B
PG&E’s Responses to Proposed Remedial Measures

MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. Attorneys for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Proposed Fines of $651,000,000; California Public Utilities Commission Orders Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) To Pay Fine of $25,626,000. City Requested Reimbursement from PG&E for Its Expenses, Recommended Linking Executive Compensation to Safety Performance & Appointment of an Independent Monitor: DENIED

ABSTRACT: Between October 2014 and June 2016 (as of the latest Check Register), City legal expenditures related to the natural gas explosion in Carmel-by-the-Sea, March, 2014, and, separately, a formal penalty consideration case against PG&E relating to recordkeeping associated with the utility’s gas distribution infrastructure (BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Investigation 14-11-008), amounted to a total of $440,396.45 to MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP., resulting in a $10,850,000 Citation assessed for the Carmel incident and total fines of $25,626,000 for the systemic violations and incidents, for a the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents of $36,476,000.

TIMELINE

MARCH 3, 2014 – AUGUST 18, 2016

MARCH 3, 2014: Carmel – March 3, 2014 A natural gas explosion destroyed a house located in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Prior to the explosion, a PG&E welding crew was preparing to tie-in the gas distribution main along 3rd Avenue into the newly installed plastic main on Guadalupe Street. The crew welded a tapping tee onto a two-inch steel distribution main on 3rd Avenue, and did not know that the steel distribution main had an inserted and unmapped 1¼-inch plastic line, which was damaged by the welding and tapping process which caused the natural gas to escape the plastic main. Natural gas migrated into the residential structure and later resulted in an explosion.

OCTOBER 9, 2014 – NOVEMBER 18, 2014: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA LEGAL EXPENDITURES
Steven R. Myers Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12TH STREET,

SUITE 1500 OAKLAND CA 94607
For: Carmel-by-the-Sea
Emilie E. De La Motte Attorney At Law MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
Britt K. Strottman Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

129212 10/9/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $918.75 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

Vendor Total-> $918.75

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $10,212.70 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $7,220.28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2.014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $4,450.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

129431 11/18/2014 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP $1,870.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LEGAL

Vendor Total----> $23,752.98

TOTAL: Contract Spend $24,671.73

NOVEMBER 20, 2014: CPUC ISSUES $10.85 MILLION STAFF CITATION TO PG&E; COMMISSIONERS OPEN FORMAL CASE TO EVALUATE PG&E’S GAS DISTRIBUTION RECORDKEEPING
Docket #: I.14-11-008
SAN FRANCISCO, November 20, 2014 - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today issued a $10.85 million staff Citation to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a natural gas explosion in Carmel-by-the-Sea in March, and, separately, opened a formal penalty consideration case against PG&E relating to recordkeeping associated with the utility’s gas distribution infrastructure.
Citation Date: November 20, 2014
Citation#: ALJ-274 2014-11-001
$10,850,000.00: State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund

JANUARY 22, 2015-JUNE 30, 2016: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA LEGAL EXPENDITURES
Steven R. Myers Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12TH STREET, SUITE 1500 OAKLAND CA 94607
For: Carmel-by-the-Sea
Emilie E. De La Motte Attorney At Law MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON
Britt K. Strottman Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

129847 1/22/2015 MEY04 (MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP) $24,360.64 professional services- PG&E Incident $ 49,032.37

130324 3/19/2015 MEY04 (MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP) 1,188.44 Prof fees-PG&E $ 50,220.81

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 8,643.50 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 11,115.00 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 16,683.19 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130554 5/1/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 499.25 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES

130679 5/29/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 16,259.38 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION LEGAL/PROF SERVICES $ 103,421.13

Vendor Total -----> 53,200.32

130853 6/26/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 12,706.75 PROF FEES:PG&E GAS EXPLOSION 116,127.88

Vendor Total -----> 12,706.75

131156 8/20/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 2,178.75 FY 15-16 PROF FEES RELATING TO PGE GAS EXPLOS 6/14

131213 8/27/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 33,768.43 FY 15-16 PROF FEES RELATING TO PGE EXPLOSION 3/14 152,075.06

Vendor Total -----> 35,947.18

131505 10/2/ 2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 17,654.65 PROF LEGAL SERVICES. PG&E MATTER 3/3/14 AUG BILL

Vendor Total-----> 17,654.65

131815 11/24/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 8,765.00 PG&E EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES
131815 11/24/ 2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 787.75 PG&E EXPLOSION 3/3/14 PROF SERVICES
131815 11/24/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 41,951.44 PG&E EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES 221.233.90
Vendor Total-> 51,504.19

132052 12/29/2015 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 15,643.95 PG&E EXPLOSION MARCH2014 NOVEMBER PROF SERVICES 236,877.85

Vendor Total--·> 15,643.95

132230 1/27/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 22,612.40 PG&E GAS EXPLOSION PROF SERVICES FOR DEC2015 259.490.35

Vendor Total - - > 22,612.40

132915 5/11/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 121,031.60 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR JAN 2016

132!H5 5/11/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 38,999.77 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR FEB 2016

131915 5/11/1016 M£YERS/NAV£ PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 15,918.00 PG&E 2014 EXPLOSION-PROF SERVICES FOR MARCH 2016

Vendor Total -> 177,949.37

JUNE 1, 2016: PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION

Total fines of $24,310,000 are assessed for the systemic violations and incidents found in today’s decision. With the Citation previously assessed for the Carmel incident, the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents is $35,160,000.

133222 6/30/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 2,596.73 APRIL 2016 PROF SERVICES RE: PGE 2014 EXPLOSION

133222 6/30/2016 MEYERS/NAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP 360.00 PROF SERVICES MAY 2016 RE: PGE 2014 EXPLOSION

Vendor Total----> 2,956.73

TOTAL: $415,724.72

AUGUST 18, 2016: MODIFIED PRESIDING OFFICER’S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S GAS DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES RECORDS
Total fines of $25,626,000 are assessed for the systemic violations and incidents found in today‘s decision. With the Citation previously assessed for the Carmel incident, the total fine imposed on Pacific Gas and Electric Company for distribution system incidents is $36,476,000.

EXCERPTS;

Appeal of the Presiding Officer’s Decision

SED and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea filed appeals of the Presiding Officer‘s Decision on July 1, 2016. PG&E filed its response to both appeals on July 18, 2016. The grounds on which each party contended that the Presiding Officer Decision was unlawful or erroneous are analyzed below. Where noted in today‘s decision, the Presiding Officer‘s Decision has been revised in response to the appeals. In all other respects, the appeals are denied.

In today‘s decision, we add the omitted $50,000 Carmel fine to the total fine and revise the De Anza missing records per-day fine from $834.95 to $1,000 per day. The additional De Anza amount of $1,266,000 plus $50,000 brings the total fine to $25,626,000, as compared to the total fine of $24,310,000 in the Presiding Officer‘s decision.

5.1. Corrected Sum of Fine Assessed

SED47 contends and PG&E48 agrees that the sum of fines assessed on page 55 of the Presiding Officer‘s Decision incorrectly omits the $50,000 fine for PG&E‘s service failures to City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This error has been corrected in today‘s decision.

5.2. Total Fine Amount and Carmel Incident

SED argued that the Presiding Officer Decision erred in setting the fine too low and that the fine for the Carmel incident should be increased by $20.73 million.  As set forth above, the Commission had previously upheld a citation of $10.85 million for that incident and SED did not dispute the Presiding Officer‘s Decision holding that an additional fine of $10.8 million should be assessed against PG&E for failing to prevent recurrences of leaks caused by unmapped plastic inserts (the cause of the Carmel explosion).

SED argued the Proposed Decision erred in adopting a fine of only $21.65 million and an additional fine of $20.73 million should be imposed. PG&E stated that a total fine of $42.38 million would be “disproportionate to the harm that resulted” and “unprecedented.”

SED cited to no Commission precedent with a fine of this magnitude for similar violations nor aggravating circumstances that would justify such a departure from Commission precedent. SED has shown no error or unlawful determination in the Presiding Officer‘s Decision.

5.5. Per Incident Fines and Additional Incidents

SED argued that the maximum fine for each incident should be imposed and that additional incidents should be included.  PG&E responded in opposition that the Commission has discretion to tailor the fines to specific facts of each violation and that additional incidents are not within the scope of this proceeding.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea also contended that the Commission was without discretion to decide, based on the specific facts of each violation, whether to apply Public Utilities Code § 2108 to uncorrected violations.

In its Appeal, SED acknowledged that the Commission has the discretion to decline to impose daily fines pursuant to § 2108.55 PG&E agreed with SED and cited to D.15-04-024.56

We find that the additional incidents were outside the scope of this proceeding and that the Commission has substantial discretion to tabulate and impose fines based on the specific facts of each violation. SED and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea have demonstrated no error in the Presiding Officer‘s Decision.

5.6. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Other Requests

The City requested reimbursement from PG&E for its expenses. The Commission‘s policy choice to decline to use its equitable powers to order PG&E to reimburse governmental entities for their litigation costs was set forth in D.15-04-024 at 168-170. The City has presented no reason to depart from that policy choice.

The City also recommended linking executive compensation to safety performance; a similar proposal was also examined and found duplicative or unsupported in D.15-04-024 at 167. Finally, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea sought appointment of an independent monitor. That proposal was also considered in D.15-04-024 at 155– 60, where the Commission authorized another $30 million in reimbursement for experts for SED in addition to the $15 million awarded in Rulemaking 11-02-019, and otherwise denied the requested independent monitor.

Finally, the parties agree that the fines ordered in today‘s decision may not be included in regulated revenue requirement nor recovery sought from ratepayers in any manner.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea brought the unique perspectives of local government and first responders to this proceeding. The efforts of the City to bring forth these perspectives added greatly to the development of a complete evidentiary record and assisted the Commission in discharging its duties.

REFERENCE:
Decision on Fines and Remedies to Be Imposed 04-09-15

Date of Issuance April 9, 2015
DECISION ON FINES AND REMEDIES TO BE IMPOSED ON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION AND PRACTICES OF ITS NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PIPELINES

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 REPLY BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

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 REPLY BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY document copy is embedded.

Reply Brief of Pg&e 4-01-16

Filing Date 04-01-16
REPLY BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Appendices a C

Appendices A-C

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 OPENING BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

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 OPENING BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY document copy is embedded.

Carmel identified seven incidents that were not mentioned in either the OII or PWA’s reports, which Carmel claims show “PG&E doesn’t know what is in the ground.” Ex. 43 at 2:4 to 2:26 (Carmel Testimony, Calhoun). In fact, only one of these incidents had any relationship to PG&E’s recordkeeping. Ex. 4 at 3-35:20 to 3-40:14 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins). However, Carmel does not allege any legal violations in connection with those incidents.
PWA also claims that the relationship between the Mountain View and Carmel incidents constitutes a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.617, which requires operators to “establish procedures for analyzing accidents and failures . . . for the purpose of determining the causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence.” Ex. 1 at 40:14-18, 48 tbl.5 (PWA Report). Both because PG&E has such procedures and because this is not a recordkeeping regulation, there is no basis for finding PG&E in violation of section 192.617 here. See also Appendices B & C.
Conclusion
PG&E has an unwavering commitment to continuously improving not only its gas distribution system recordkeeping practices but also the safety of its distribution system, and complying with all applicable rules, regulations, and statutes. PG&E is also committed to continuing to work with the Commission to pursue these important goals. PG&E submits that its investments and initiatives to improve the accuracy of its gas distribution records and minimize the risk of incidents on PG&E’s gas distribution system comply with an appropriate standard of care that implements the safety mandate the Commission has held is incorporated in section 451, and is consistent with the federal and state pipeline safety regulations. While PG&E acknowledges that more work remains to be done—because, when it comes to safety, there is always work to be done—it respectfully disagrees that it has violated the statutory provisions and regulations alleged by SED.384
384 PG&E does not address the issue of a penalty in this submission because no penalty proposal has been put forward by SED or Intervenors.
PG&E supports many of the further actions recommended by PWA and has already either implemented these initiatives or is conducting the recommended investigations and analyses. PG&E looks forward to working cooperatively with the Commission and SED to identify and consider further opportunities to continue improving its recordkeeping and other practices to better serve the public and promote the safety of its employees, contractors, and the communities it serves.

Opening Brief of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2-26-16

Filing Date 2-26-16
OPENING BRIEF OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Appendices a-D 2-26-16

Appendices A-D

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 MOTION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR ADOPTION OF CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FROM EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

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 MOTION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR ADOPTION OF CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FROM EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS document copy is embedded. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) hereby moves for adoption of corrections to the transcript from the evidentiary hearings held in this matter on January 19-21, 2016. PG&E’s requested corrections are set forth in Attachment A hereto.

Motion of Pg&e Company for Adoption of Corrections to the Transcript 2-12-16

Filing Date 2-12-16
MOTION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR ADOPTION OF CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FROM EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document copy is embedded.  CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that ALJ Bushey adopt the revised proposed ruling filed with this Reply, which directs Carmel to provide responses to Questions 13 through 23 in PG&E’s third sets of data requests or precludes Carmel from raising any of its allegations in this proceeding.

Carmel also argues, wrongly, that PG&E must show that it does not have the means to obtain this information through some other source in order to overcome the official information privilege. Carmel Opp. at 9–10. No such requirement appears in the California Evidence Code or was imposed by either of the cases cited by Carmel. In fact, those cases undermine Carmel’s privilege assertion. In People v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 3d 522 (1971), the court of appeal held that a criminal defendant had the right to see the diary entries of police officers for whom he had acted as an informant, despite the prosecution’s assertion of the official information privilege. Id. at 533–34. And in Marylander v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1119 (2000), the trial court committed reversible error when it denied a motion to compel production of government documents after failing to consider the public interest in disclosure. Id. at 1128–29. 

Pg&e's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel Discovery Carmel 01-13-16

Filing Date 01-13-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

[Proposed] Ruling Granting Pacific Gas and Electric 01-13-16

Filing Date 01-13-16
[PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL

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 SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT

OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL document copy is embedded.  CONCLUSION Accordingly, even if Carmel’s invocation of the attorney work product doctrine or official information privilege had any merit before, Carmel has waived them now. For this additional reason, PG&E respectfully requests that Your Honor either direct Carmel to immediately provide the requested discovery5 or preclude Carmel from seeking to introduce evidence going to any of the related allegations in this proceeding.

Pg&e's Supplemental Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel 01-19-16

Filing Date 01-19-16

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S CLOSING STATEMENT FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

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 CLOSING STATEMENT FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING document copy is embedded.  In conclusion, PG&E regrets the incidents described in SED’s testimony and has firmly committed itself to a course of continual innovation and improvement to minimize the risk that such incidents might occur in the future. However, PG&E respectfully submits that SED has not met its burden of demonstrating that PG&E fails to safely operate its gas distribution system overall due to recordkeeping issues, or that PG&E’s industry-leading practices and performance fail to satisfy an appropriate standard of care and thus violate applicable laws or regulations.

Pg&e's Closing Statement Following Evidentiary Hearing 01-25-16

Filing Date 01-25-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S CLOSING STATEMENT FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

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 PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT document copy is embedded. Disputed issues of material fact for which evidentiary hearings may be required are: 1. What are PG&E’s gas distribution system recordkeeping policies and practices; 2. What are the industry practices with respect to gas distribution asset recordkeeping; 3. Do PG&E’s existing and planned recordkeeping practices comport with those applicable industry practices; 4. What corrective actions and complementary initiatives has PG&E undertaken; and 5. Are such actions and initiatives sufficient to ensure adequate recordkeeping practices and access to those records going forward, while adequately reducing the possibility of incidents caused by imperfect records… discovery of PG&E should focus on obtaining information relevant to PG&E’s recordkeeping practices and the risk reduction resulting from PG&E’s corrective actions and initiatives.
Discovery Schedule
The following proposed schedule is designed to allow sufficient time for all parties to complete discovery in time for the Commission to issue a final decision in this matter within 12 months of when a final scoping memo is issued

Event	Date
Last day to submit non-expert data requests	May 8, 2015
Prepared direct testimony by SED and intervenors	June 29,, 2015
Prepared direct testimony by PG&E	August 10, 2015
Rebuttal testimony by SED and intervenors	September 10, 2015
Last day to submit expert data requests	September 30, 2015

NOTE: As described in PG&E’s Initial Report in Response to OII, PG&E’s gas distribution system consists of over 42,000 miles of mains and nearly 3.3 million gas services that provide natural gas to the company’s 4.3 million residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Its gas distribution system covers 70,000 square miles—an area larger than 33 of the 50 United States. The system is comprised of 826 hydraulically independent systems, with more than 77,000 miles of underground gas lines, including mains and services. PG&E’s gas distribution paper as-built and gas service records total over 18,000 linear feet which, if stacked vertically, would equal almost three miles—the height of 15 Empire State Buildings

Pgande Prehearing Conference Statement 03-05-15

Filing Date 03-05-15

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & [PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

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 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and [PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROMINTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA document copies are embedded.

ARGUMENT 

A. The Information PG&E Requested Is Not Only Relevant, But Necessary to Clarify the Allegations Carmel Has Interjected into This Proceeding
B. No Attorney-Client Privilege Exists Between Carmel and Ms. Banach
C. Facts Learned from Ms. Banach Are Not Protected as Work Product.
D. Carmel Has Not Shown That the Official-Information Privilege Applies.
E. Carmel’s Objection Based on the “Characterization” or “Purpose” of the Subpoena Does Not Provide a Basis for Refusing to Respond

CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that ALJ Bushey adopt the proposed ruling filed with this Motion, which directs Carmel to provide responses and all responsive, non-privileged documents to Questions 13 through 23 in PG&E’s third sets of data requests not later than January 14, 2016.

Motion to Compel Discovery 12-31-15

Filing Date12-31-15
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM INTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Attachment 2 I.14-11-008 12-31-15

Filing Date 12-31-15
DECLARATION OF MARIE L. FIALA IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Attachment 3 I.14-11-008 12-31-15

Filing Date 12-31-15
[PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROMINTERVENOR THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA