APPENDIX B - go95-rc.com

B-i SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

APPENDIX B

Multiple Alternative Proposals (“MAPs”)

Only eight proposed rule changes were neither withdrawn nor approved by the workshop

participants. Those PRCs moved to MAP, the Multiple Alternative Proposal process. The

proponent of each PRC prepared a rationale, a strikeout and underline version of the rule being

revised, and a final version of the rule. Any party who wished to propose an alternative to a PRC

that entered the MAP process, including leaving the rule unchanged, was able to do so. Unlike

the rationales for the consensus PRCs, which were agreed upon by all of the workshop

participants, the rationales for the MAPs were prepared solely by the MAP proponents. Each of

the MAP proposals and their alternatives is contained in this Appendix.

B-ii SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MAP No. 1 – PRC No. 17 – GO 95, Rule 12.2, and GO 128, Rule 12.2 .................................. 1

A. Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 1

B. Alternative Proposal – No Change ............................................................................... 7

MAP No. 2 – PRC No. 59 – GO 95, Rule 35 .......................................................................... 11

A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 11

B. Alternative Proposal - No Change ............................................................................... 22


A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 28

B. Alternative Proposal – No Change ............................................................................. 30


A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 34



A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 39


MAP No. 6 – PRC No. 63 – GO 128, Rule 17.4...................................................................... 43

A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 43


MAP No. 7 – PRC No. 64 – GO 128, Rule 17.7-A ................................................................. 48

A. Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 48



A. Proposal No. 1 ............................................................................................................. 53

B-iii SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

B. Proposal No. 2.............................................................................................................. 62

C. Proposal No. 3 ............................................................................................................. 64

D. Proposal No. 4 ............................................................................................................. 65

B-1 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 1 – PRC No. 17 – GO 95, Rule 12.2, and GO 128, Rule 12.2

A. Proposal Supported by William Adams, CCTA, Frontier, IBEW 1245, PG&E, City of Redding, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, TID and Verizon

Rationale

This PRC is proposed to clarify how utilities “conform” to the requirements of GO 95 and GO 128 after construction and installation of facilities. Some rules within the general orders specify that facilities may degrade to a certain point before requiring replacement or reinforcement. (See Rule 44.2 of G.O. 95). However, many others are silent on how utilities are to maintain the facilities once they are constructed and installed. The supporters of this PRC believe that in the absence of specific replacement/reinforcement requirements, good utility practice should the standard for determining compliance with GOs 95 and 128. Good utility maintenance practices include both preventive and corrective maintenance activities, as well as routine inspection cycles. This PRC would codify good utility maintenance practices as the standard for maintaining overhead and underground distribution facilities in California.

This new language enhances Rule 12.2 and confirms that (1) failure of various components of distribution facilities is not always predictable; and (2) maintenance of electric distribution facilities should be accomplished through either preventive maintenance practices, or corrective maintenance practices, whichever is most appropriate for the type of facility. The use of corrective maintenance activities does not result in a violation of General Order 95 or General Order 128, as long as the level of deterioration or degradation identified for corrective action does not violate requisite safety factors and is in keeping with good utility practice. Supply, Communication, and Trolley operators under the Public Utilities Commission’s jurisdiction would also continue to address and restore non-conformances in an orderly manner, consistent with good industry practice, and are willing to partner with the CPSD in the development of maintenance guidelines and rule interpretations (see, the TELRP (version A, in appendix C of this workshop report), which includes a procedure for resolution of disputes regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the General Orders).

I. Evidence of Need

The proponents of PRC 17 are asking the Commission to recognize the need for flexibility and clarity in these GOs. The current GOs provide less than ideal direction regarding maintenance of facilities after they are constructed and the CPSD does not have a defined process for providing interpretations of the GOs.1 Although the GOs contain many specifications on how to construct facilities, there are only a few sentences in each GO that discuss facility maintenance. PRC 17 provides much needed direction regarding ongoing maintenance of

1 Indeed, the CPSD has refused to provide interpretations to the utilities upon request, and does not support the provision in the TELRP version A because it would require the CPSD to provide such interpretations while rulemaking proceedings are pending.

B-2 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

facilities post-construction, and reflects utility maintenance practices in the rest of the United States.

CPSD’s claim that PRC 17 makes enforcement more difficult for the CPSD is unsupported. CPSD is concerned that PRC 17, if adopted, would require them to also investigate whether the utility complied with its own inspection schedule before concluding that a violation occurred. However, such review is appropriate, and is part of many of CPSD’s current audit activities. CPSD routinely requests from the utilities inspection and maintenance records for the facilities being inspected or audited. The tools to facilitate the additional step or steps to finding a violation are already routinely provided to and reviewed by CPSD as part of its scheduled inspections and field audits.

The supporters of this PRC further suggest that corrective maintenance activities are accepted good practices for electric transmission as well as gas distribution facilities in California. For example, electric utilities are routinely required to supply documentation of specific maintenance and repair activities for their transmission lines in conjunction with pre-scheduled CAISO audits. In these cases a system element or line segment that has been repaired, or is currently out of service, is not automatically considered to be a maintenance violation due to either preventive or corrective maintenance causation. Indeed, it is accepted by the CAISO that transmission owners will identify conditions in need of repair and prioritize and schedule those conditions for repair consistent with their approved maintenance program. Similarly, the Commission is well aware that gas utilities within California routinely inspect gas facilities for leaks, and schedule any identified leak for repair based on an established prioritization system. GO 95 and 128 should acknowledge this same good utility maintenance practice for overhead and underground electric distribution facilities.

Contrary to CPSD’s assertion that this proposed rule change would “disincent” utilities from finding nonconformances, PRC 17 simply recognizes a practice that is universal throughout the utility industry: that corrective, as well as preventive, maintenance is an essential means to ensure safe, reliable, and compliant electric distribution systems. Indeed, if it were true that this PRC would create such disincentives, these same disincentives would exist at every other electric utility (and communications, gas, and water utilities) because every utility practices corrective maintenance. Further, inspection and maintenance is accomplished in the field by qualified represented labor. These workers, and the companies that employ them, are greatly incented to keep their own work place safe. CPSD’s argument is not only illogical in light of this reality, it ascribes to represented labor a laxity which is, frankly, unjustified. Qualified represented labor is subject to severe discipline, including termination, for failing to perform diligent inspections.

II. GO 165

The events leading up to the adoption of GO 165 as well as the wording of that order all indicate that the Commission intended it to standardize the type, frequency and reporting of utility inspections as well as monitoring the pace of “corrective action” in response to such inspections. CPSD suggests that GO 165’s reference to “corrective action” means action taken to prevent a nonconforming condition from ever occurring. Such an interpretation is not consistent with the plain meaning of “corrective action,” which assumes a condition that is nonconforming.

B-3 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

III . GO 95, Rules 12.2, 44.1 and 44.2

Rule 12.2, which is titled “Maintenance of Lines,” cross-references to the “safety factors” of Rule 44.2: “All lines and portions of lines shall be maintained in such condition as to provide safety factors not less than those specified in Rule 44.2.”

Rule 44.2 (Replacement) and Rule 44.1 (Installation and Reconstruction) (as referenced in 44.2) list general safety factor reductions that are permissible for certain distribution system components compared to the safety factor required at the time of installation. While neither of these rules provide an applicable scientific or technical specification with which to judge reduced but still acceptable safety factors (for example, the various levels of wood product deterioration, insulator contamination or metallurgic corrosion), Rule 44.2 clearly anticipates and explicitly allows the deterioration of important components such as wood poles, cross-arms compared to their original, new construction safety factor as specified in Rule 44.1. The supporters of PRC 17 believe that Rules 44.2 and 44.1 support the notion that corrective maintenance activities are an appropriate practice for utilities to maintain their electric distribution facilities.

Clearly, it was not, and still is not, economically feasible for utilities to constantly rebuild lines or portions of lines so that facilities are maintained in “as new” condition at all times. Such a standard would be unprecedented, counterproductive and unachievable.

By conceding that natural and manmade materials utilized in overhead and underground construction will degrade after installation, the Commission does not mitigate a utility’s responsibility to comply with these Orders. In fact, the opposite occurs.

IV . I.01-08-029 Presiding Officer’s Decision

CPSD’s claim that the proposed change to Rule 12.2 is inconsistent with the Presiding Officer’s Decision (POD) in I.01-08-029 is misplaced on several counts, and should be disregarded. First, the POD is not an official decision of the Commission, and it is neither authority nor legal or regulatory precedent.

Second, several parties to that OII (including CPSD) filed appeals of the POD; it is, therefore, subject to potentially significant change. SCE, as well as several other parties, identified numerous serious legal and factual errors in that decision. Barring a final decision by the Commission regarding the issues in the POD that have been appealed, not to mention possible court appeals -- CPSD’s sweeping assertion that conformity to every provision of General Orders 95 and 128 is required at all times, without exception, is premature.

Third, even if the POD had precedential value (which it does not), CPSD’s claim that PRC 17 is inconsistent with the POD completely misses the point of the past two years of industry-wide negotiations in which CPSD has participated, which is: that General Orders 95 and 128 are the creation of the Commission, and the Commission has the power and the discretion to change and to clarify these general orders. The OII in which the POD was issued addresses SCE’s alleged GO 95 and 128 violations during a past 3-year period (1998 – 2000). Regardless of the outcome of that OII, there is no reason in law or regulatory policy why the Commission should not consider and adopt changes to these GOs. Reasonable parties may dispute whether,

B-4 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

in a given instance, good cause has been shown to make, or refrain from making, a proposed GO change.

However, insisting – as CPSD is doing -- that a single decision on allegations regarding past conduct must dictate policy on a going-forward basis effectively makes rulemakings such as this a waste of time. Assuming for the sake of argument that the POD remains unchanged and is adopted, there is nothing prohibiting the Commission from changing a policy or instituting a new rule prospectively which clarifies the requirements of Rule 12.2.

V. Summary

The plain fact is that all lines, portions of lines and system elements, described in Rule 12.2, will inevitably degrade after initial construction and that prior to reconstruction, compliance with this Rule is – and has been for decades -- accomplished by utilities, municipalities and entities under the CPUC’s jurisdiction through the implementation of maintenance programs in which work is scheduled according to safety- and reliability- significance. These programs have been developed and deployed within the context of the CPUC’s regulatory environment and they generally conform to “good utility practice” standards.

The proponents of PRC 17 maintain that this proposal is consistent with and supportive of the workshop’s declared intent: …“strengthening General Orders 95 and 128”, through an organized and equitable consensus process.

This version is also consistent with General Order 165, and if adopted, would add clarity to Rule 12.2 by requiring all entities to design, construct and maintain their facilities effectively and safely, while they continue to upgrade and carry out existing preventive and corrective maintenance programs.

B-5 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Current Rule

GO 95, 12.2 Maintenance of Lines

All lines and portions of lines shall be maintained in such condition as to provide safety factors not less than those specified in Rule 44.2. Lines and portions of lines constructed or reconstructed on or after the effective date of this Order shall be kept in conformity with the requirements of this Order.

The restoration of clearance originally established prior to the effective date of this Order, where the original clearance has been reduced by additional sagging or other causes, is not considered to be reconstruction and the reestablished clearance shall conform to the requirements of the rules in effect at the time the original clearance was established. The changing of clearance for any other purpose is reconstruction and clearances so changed shall comply with the rules of this Order applicable to reconstruction.

Strikeout/Underline


All lines and portions of lines shall be maintained in such condition as to provide safety factors not less than those specified in Rule 44.2. Lines and portions of lines constructed or reconstructed on or after the effective date of this Order shall be kept maintained in conformity with the requirements of this Order. Facilities shall be maintained through preventative or corrective type maintenance activities.

The restoration of clearance originally established prior to the effective date of this Order, where the original clearance has been reduced by additional sagging or other causes, is not considered to be reconstruction and the reestablished clearance shall conform to the requirements of the rules in effect at the time the original clearance was established. The changing of clearance for any other purpose is reconstruction and clearances so changed shall comply with the rules of this Order applicable to reconstruction.

Proposed Rule


All lines and portions of lines shall be maintained in such condition as to provide safety factors not less than those specified in Rule 44.2. Lines and portions of lines constructed or reconstructed on or after the effective date of this Order shall be maintained in conformity with the requirements of this Order. Facilities shall be maintained through preventative or corrective type maintenance activities.

The restoration of clearance originally established prior to the effective date of this Order, where the original clearance has been reduced by additional sagging or other causes, is not considered to be reconstruction and the reestablished clearance shall conform to the requirements of the rules in effect

B-6 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

at the time the original clearance was established. The changing of clearance for any other purpose is reconstruction and clearances so changed shall comply with the rules of this Order applicable to reconstruction.

Current Rule


Systems shall be maintained in such condition as to secure safety to workmen and the public in general. Systems and portions thereof constructed, reconstructed, or replaced on or after the effective date of these rules shall be kept in conformity with the requirement of these rules.

Strikeout/Underline


Systems shall be maintained in such condition as to secure safety to workmen and the public in general. Systems and portions thereof constructed, reconstructed, or replaced on or after the effective date of these rules shall be kept maintained in conformity with the requirement of these rules. Facilities shall be maintained through preventative or corrective type maintenance activities.

Proposed Rule


Systems shall be maintained in such condition as to secure safety to workmen and the public in general. Systems and portions thereof constructed, reconstructed, or replaced on or after the effective date of these rules shall be maintained in conformity with the requirement of these rules. Facilities shall be maintained through preventative or corrective type maintenance activities.

B-7 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 1 – PRC No. 17 – GO 95, Rule 12.2, and GO 128, Rule 12.2

B. Alternative Proposal – No Change Supported by CPSD

Rationale

CPSD opposes PRC #17, and recommends no change to the existing Rule 12.2. Rationale: The proponent of this rule change (Southern California Edison) proposes to insert the following additional language into Rule 12.2 Maintenance of Lines: “Facilities shall be maintained through preventive or corrective type maintenance activities.” Addition of “corrective type maintenance” would allow conditions that are in violation of G.O. standards to exist until they are discovered and corrected by utilities, which may take several years. The proponent has stated that this rule change is needed because of the impossibility of complying with the G.O.s at all times. In this Order Instituting Rulemaking, the Commission seeks to provide a forum for all parties to review G.O.s 95/128 in order to bring clarity to the rules and to update rules that have become out-of-date. However, this proposed rule change is inconsistent with the Presiding Officer’s Decision in I.01-08-029, does not add clarity to Rule 12.2, undermines safety standards, and renders inspection and enforcement more difficult. Additionally, the proposed rule change may create a disincentive for utilities to inspect and discover violations because, if the proposed rule change is adopted, the utilities would not be in violation of the GOs so long as they are not “aware” of the violations. PRC #17 is inconsistent with the Presiding Officer’s Decision in I.01-08-029. Edison, the proponent of PRC #17, argued in OII 01-08-029 that utilities do not have to maintain their systems in compliance with the Commission’s G.O.s. The POD in I.01-08-029 (issued June 19, 2003) flatly rejected this argument. The POD holds: “Utilities are required to comply with relevant safety statutes, Commission GOs, and decisions, and the Commission has the statutory obligation to require utilities to do so.” PRC #17 relieves the utilities from their obligation to comply with G.O.s at all times. PRC #17 would create the concept of a “nonconformance” that does not constitute a violation of the G.O.s until it goes uncorrected. Wisely, the POD holds that “A utility’s failure to comply with these statutes, GOs and decisions means a utility has violated them.” Currently, as pointed out by the POD, “(n)othing in the language of GO 95, 128, or 165 provides a specified grace period within which to comply with these GOs, or provides that failure to comply is a “nonconformance”…” PRC #17 would reverse this holding. The POD recognizes that in the “real world” some deterioration of the system will occur. However, the POD points out that “because some system deterioration is inevitable, it is to a

B-8 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

large extent generally predictable.” As discussed below, the workshop participants have addressed situations where full compliance is difficult but that deterioration is predictable, by building flexibility into the G.O. standards so that full compliance achievable. The existing G.O.s and proposed revisions were drafted with full compliance in mind. The proponent’s concern that 100% compliance is an “unprecedented and counterproductive standard” is simply not true, and ignores the enormous amount of time and effort expended when the G.O.s were drafted and during this OIR to create standards that are reasonable to comply with. During these workshops, the participants have spent a great deal of time reviewing and re-drafting rules, considering the necessity, feasibility, affordability, and practicality of proposed rule changes. The existing and the proposed revised G.O.s have been drafted with full compliance in mind. Moreover, the existing G.O.s reflect minimum safety standards, which must be maintained at all times; they do not require that the utilities’ system be maintained “as new” at all times. Such a standard is not contemplated by the existing G.O.s.

Where 100% compliance is difficult to achieve, rules have either been revised or eliminated. The G.O.s have been written so that total compliance is possible, building in flexibility when necessary. Below are examples of PRCs that address problems by creating flexibility in the rule itself, so that full compliance is reasonable and attainable.

For example, PRC #14 allows 5% clearance reductions for wires crossing or along

thoroughfares. Previously, variance from the standard was only allowed for reasons relating to temperature and loading. The rationale for PRC #14 states: “Because it is not always possible or practical to determine the cause of a clearance reduction, the existing rule results in inconsistent interpretation and enforcement. The existing rule also results in unnecessary expenditures by utilities. These reduced clearances are acceptable and safe for all conditions regardless of the cause of the reduction.”

In another example, PRC #19 addresses the problems inherent in ground wire moulding,

which will unavoidably expand, shrink, crack and warp over time as the elements slowly take their toll. PRC #19 permits minor deformities to develop and exist after initial construction or reconstruction of facilities.

PRC #23 addresses the problems in maintaining the proper depth for wood poles. PRC

#23 recognizes that maintaining the proper depth is not always feasible or necessary. Poles set on a hillside, where soil erosion has resulted in a few inches less pole depth than specified, may not be in danger of falling over. But it would be costly to reset the poles only a few inches deeper into the soil. Therefore, PRC #23 allows for a 10% reduction in pole depth due to normal soil movement.

Existing G.O. 128, Rule 34.3-B did not allow any gap to exist in compartments that

contain live wires to prevent a person from passing a wire into such compartments. After initial construction, a very small gap will eventually develop between the pad and the housing of the equipment, so PRC #29 changes the existing rule to allow a gap equivalent to a bare number 18AWG wire to exist between the pad and the housing of the equipment.

B-9 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Thus, new rules have been drafted and existing rules have been changed, so that compliance is economically feasible and practical. PRC #17 would only serve to undercut the work done by the workshop participants to create meaningful standards that can be complied with at all times.

PRC #17 does not add clarity to the existing rule. The proposed change would make the existing rule less clear about what is a violation. In order to determine when a condition violates the rules, there would be three required elements; 1) an item becomes non-compliant; 2) the utility becomes aware of the non-compliance; 3) the utility fails to take corrective action. Under the current rules, a violation occurs when an item becomes non-compliant. Under the proposed rule change, the utility would not be in violation until the utility became aware of the problem, and then failed to take corrective action. Thus, the definition of a violation would change depending on which utility was involved, which circuit was involved, what the inspection cycle was for that area, etc. Questions arise: What steps would be required in order to ensure that the utility was aware of violations? How soon would the utility have to take the appropriate corrective type maintenance? What is an acceptable inspection schedule? What is an acceptable maintenance program? It would be difficult for utilities to determine how to comply with the new rule. Thus, the proposed rule change raises many additional questions and does not provide clarity. PRC #17 undermines minimum safety standards. While certain rules contain safety factors that allow for facilities to deteriorate, pursuant to Rule 44.2, CPSD believes the proposed rule change would impermissibly allow companies to ignore the existing safety factors, undermining safety. The proposed rule change does not account for the fact that even a seemingly trivial violation can be a serious safety concern. For example, if a ground wire is exposed, an employee working in the vicinity may receive severe injuries from contact with the ground wire. This presents a serious danger, but, under the proposed rule change, utilities may give such violations a low priority and only replace broken ground moldings when the opportunity arises because other work is being done. Moreover, the proposed rule change contains no deadline for taking corrective action, even if the situation is dangerous. The utility would not be required to correct the potentially dangerous violation immediately. Instead, the utility could undertake corrective type maintenance on its own schedule, which may be immediately, after a few days, a few years, or whenever it had the opportunity to do so. The utility could give dangerous violations a low priority and would not have to correct violations when directed to do so by the Commission staff or when requested by a member of the public. Thus, the proposed rule change does not enhance safety; in fact, it would allow violations that could be potentially dangerous to go uncorrected for an indefinite length of time. PRC #17 would make inspection and enforcement more difficult. The Commission’s staff inspectors would have a more difficult time determining if a violation has occurred and enforcing compliance with the rules. Staff inspectors would have to take extra steps to determine whether a utility was out of compliance. For example, it would not be enough for the inspectors to note that ground wire was exposed. The inspector would have to determine whether the utility was aware of the problem and whether it had undertaken corrective measures. The inspector would have to re-inspect the violation to ensure that corrective measures had been taken, because only when the utility failed to take corrective action would a violation occur. Apparently, if

B-10 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

corrective action did not occur for several months or even years, no violation would occur so long as a corrective type maintenance program was being followed. Thus, inspection and enforcement would require additional steps. Moreover, the proposed rule change would not be in line with the utility practices in the rest of the United States, which generally follow the NESC, which contains significantly different standards than those in California. Additionally, the proposed rule change would fundamentally change the nature of the Commission’s enforcement program, reducing staff’s enforcement to merely reviewing the existing utilities’ maintenance program and eliminating the ability of staff to require that violations of G.O. 95 and 128 avoided. If the proposed rule change is adopted, the utilities would only be in violation when they become “aware” of a violation; thus, the rule change may disincent the utilities’ from discovering violations. PRC #17 is motivated by the proponent’s litigation strategy in I.01-02-029. It appears that the sole purpose of the proposed rule change is to alleviate the possibility that utilities may be held responsible for violations, which is the situation presented in the Edison OII, I.01-02-029. However, relieving all utilities of the burden of possible fines could have the effect of causing overall compliance to decrease, because utilities would have less incentive to comply. Moreover, it might be less expensive for the utilities to undertake corrective maintenance in lieu of preventive maintenance, which could encourage utilities to allow potentially dangerous violations to occur instead of preventing them beforehand. Also, the problem that this PRC seeks to address, that full compliance with certain rules is not economically feasible or practical, has been addressed by the workshop so that the rules have been revised or removed.

PRC #17 would have serious consequences, reversing the POD in I.01-02-029, decreasing clarity in the rules, undercutting safety standards, and making enforcement more difficult. Therefore, CPSD opposes the proposed rule change.

B-11 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 2 – PRC No. 59 – GO 95, Rule 35

A. Proposal Supported by William Adams and City and County of San Francisco

Rationale

INTRODUCTION

My PRCs – 59, 60, 61, and 62 – also contain my rationale for the proposed changes.

Those parties in the workshops who opposed my proposals offered comments on my rationale and rule changes. Their comments are offered in the WORKSHOP REPORT as their rationale for their Alternative Proposals to leave the rule – or the pertinent parts of the rule (Rule 35) – unchanged.

Their comments were drafted largely by Steven Cieslewicz, formerly a manager in PG&E’s Vegetation Management Department, and now a principal in CN Utility Consulting.

Commission rules regularly provide for comments and replies to comments. I will be offering my replies as part of this WORKSHOP REPORT.

MAP No. 2 – PRC No. 59, 60, GO 95, Rule 35

Make Utilities Responsible for Trimming Service Drops. Safety Issue. Remove Conflict or Ambiguity Between Rule 35 and Electric Rule 16 – Service Extensions (a Tariff Rule) as to Whether Utility or Customer Is Responsible for Trimming Utility’s Service Drop. Customer Not Qualified or Trained – May Damage Wire or Be Injured.

A. Proposal

Rationale Submitted by William Adams and City and County of San Francisco

1. INTRODUCTION

Low voltage service drops, utility owned, are often not trimmed by the utilities, but the utilities require the customer to trim or pay to have the utility trim the utility’s own service drop. The requirement placed on the customer is contained in Electric Rule 16 – Service Extensions (a tariff rule) where each electric utility has filed a tariff with the CPUC that says its service drop in many cases must be trimmed by the customer if it shows clearance infractions, i.e., strain or abrasion from tree contact, or else pay the cost to relocate the drop wires. All this is referred to as “corrective measures” in Rule 16.

B-12 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

This PRC would change that requirement and place responsibility back on the utility to trim vegetation or otherwise clear its own service drops. All the rules of GO 95 apply to the utilities and line owners and operators, but in this instance they, or some of them have made an exception for themselves without many people knowing about it. Not even the Commission, or staff, for the most part.

It is not safe to require a customer, or induce a customer, to trim vegetation growing around a low voltage electrical drop wire. Safety and reliability of service demand that damage to any drop be prevented. The utility is expert in its maintenance, and knows the hazards associated with it.

The utility should be trimming its drops. No self respecting expert line operator would want lay persons, not qualified or training working on its facilities with sharp pruning shears or saws.

PG&E appears not to devote much effort to record keeping on costs of service drop maintenance per se, because it seems to be a truly small item in the big picture. The work gets done along with other inspection or maintenance items.

I am presenting both Rule 35 and Rule 16 with proposed changes. Rule 35 should say that the utility will correct strain and abrasion. Rule 16 should have an exception that keeps the customer from having to trim a drop that the utility says needs to be cleared, or else be charged for it.

Current Rule

Rule 35 (last sentence of third paragraph)

When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

Strikeout/Underline


When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less, and owned by a utility or line operator, shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by the utility or line operator by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

Proposed Rule

B-13 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Rule 35 (last sentence of third paragraph).


An EXCEPTION to provide tree trimming around service drops at no cost to the customer should be placed following existing Rule 16F3c.

Existing Rule

ELECTRIC RULE 16 – SERVICE EXTENSIONS

F. EXISTING SERVICE FACILITIES

3. IMPAIRED ACCESS AND CLEARANCES.

c. CORRECTIVE ACTION. Applicant or owner shall, at Applicant’s or owner’s expense, either correct the access or clearance infractions or pay [the utility] its total estimated cost to relocate its facilities to a new location which is acceptable to [the utility]. Applicant or owners shall also be responsible for the expense to relocate any equipment which Applicant owns and maintains. Failure to comply with corrective measures within a reasonable time may result in discontinuance of service.

Strikeout/Underline



3. IMPAIRED ACCESS AND CLEARANCES

c. CORRECTIVE ACTION. Applicant or owner hall, at Applicant’s or owner’s expense, either correct the access or clearance infractions or pay [the utility] its total estimated cost to relocate its facilities to a new location which is acceptable to [the utility]. Applicant or owner shall also be responsible for the expense to relocate any equipment which Applicant owns and maintains. Failure to comply with corrective measures within a reasonable time may result in discontinuance of service.

B-14 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

EXCEPTION. Where tree trimming around Service Lateral facilities is necessary as determined by [the utility], the trimming will be performed by [the utility] at no charge to the Applicant or owner. [The utility] will confer with Applicant or owner on method and amount of trimming to clear the lateral for safety and access.

Proposed Rule



3. IMPAIRED ACCESS AND CLEARANCES

c. CORRECTIVE ACTION. Applicant or owner shall, at Applicant’s or owner’s expense, either correct the access or clearance infractions or pay [the utility] its total estimated cost to relocate its facilities to a new location which is acceptable to [the utility]. Applicant or owner shall also be responsible for the expense to relocate any equipment which Applicant owns and maintains. Failure to comply with corrective measures within a reasonable time may result in discontinuance of service.

EXCEPTION. Where tree trimming around Service Lateral facilities is necessary as determined by [the utility], the trimming will be performed by [the utility] at no charge to the Applicant or owner. [The utility] will confer with Applicant or owner on method and amount of trimming to clear the lateral for safety and access.

Additional Rationale

2. DATA REQUESTS TO PG&E AND DATA RESPONSES ON SERVICE DROP MAINTENANCE

I have obtained through data requests from PG&E certain information about how it handles service drop maintenance. I submitted the data requests, ANNEX 1 in the PG&E General Rate Case (GRC), A 02-11-017, with the intention of raising not only economic impacts, but also reliability and safety issues in the GRC. At PG&E’s request parts of my prepared testimony in the GRC were stricken by ALJ Cooke. RT, A02-11-017, GRC, PHC-2, May 21, 2003, Pg. 106:14-17 and 106:27-107:6. The portion related to the tariff rule issue – which I term the safety issues – was stricken.

I am enclosing my prepared testimony, now redacted, that I prepared for the PG&E GRC. See ANNEX 2. I will refer to some of the materials in it.

B-15 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

I am enclosing PG&E’s Data Responses, ANNEX 4.

Data Responses 1, 2, 3, 4.a., 4.c., 4.f., 4.g., 4.h. and 5 I discuss because they relate to the dimensions of the task of service drop maintenance, including safety. No specific information is given in any part of the data responses as to costs.

Answer 1 provides total numbers of meters served from the overhead distribution system, which, for purposes of this rationale, I will equate to numbers of overhead drop wires.

Answer 2 states that hours spent specifically inspecting service drops is not available.

Answer 3 states that the condition of service drops is monitored in detailed inspections conducted at least once every five years. Vegetation conditions requiring action are entered into the Electronic Preventive/Corrective Maintenance (EPCM) database as a Grade 2 notification. See Grade 2 Tags Identified in attachment to Answer 4.c. Also in Answer 3, other information on service drops comes from customers and utility field personnel. It is assessed by a troubleman. If strain and/or abrasion is present, the troubleman removes the cause and repairs the facilities as needed, and notifies the customer if further work is required on the customer’s part.

Answers 4.1. and 4.c. provide data on service drop trims whether or not the customer was charged for the work. The utility’s record system does not track amounts charged or whether charged at all under provisions of Electric Rule 16.

Answers 4.f., 4.g., and 4.h. deal with customer refusals to allow drops to be trimmed. The utility has no data on that, but points out that Rule 16 does provide that service may be shut off if the customer fails to comply with corrective measures.

Answer 5 states that the utility does not provide customers with specific instructions for safely trimming around service drops – only a collection of brochures regarding customer tree management and cautions about high voltage, not low voltage lines.

In my opinion, there can be no adequate specific instructions to be given to a customer on how to safely trim around service drops. The customer is a lay person, not to be considered competent to do that work. The only safe approach is for the customer to keep away – let the utility do it! Yet the utility orders customers to clear drops or induces them to do it with an estimated charge for the utility to do it or a threat to shut off service if it is not done. Rule 16.

3. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

The utility rightly expects the customer to plant landscaping shrubs and trees away from the route of the drop wire going from its pole to the customer’s home. Utilities issue brochures to help design landscaping. Four of expert quality were enclosed with Answer 5. (ANNEX 1)

And yet the customer, who is a part time gardener and landscaper, who may really try to watch out for those wires overhead, may misjudge what a tree or shrub will do. Problems arise. People don’t always notice when their landscaping grows too much or gets out of hand.

B-16 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Helpful as the utility may be, it tends to be heavy handed with requirements on the customer to correct tree trimming infractions around its service drop. The utility has the expertise. The customer does not. The customer may damage the wires and not know it, or may cut into the wire insulation with catastrophic consequences.

(A) General Order (GO) 95 Applies to Owners of Electric Systems

The rules of GO 95 “. . . apply to all electrical . . . lines which come within the jurisdiction of [the] Commission . . .” GO 95, Rule 12.

(1) Requirements for All Lines – GO 95 Rules Apply to All Classes of O.H. Lines Under All Conditions

The “. . . rules apply to all classes of overhead lines under all conditions.” GO 95, Rule 31.

(2) Owners of Electrical Systems Shall Exercise Due Care

“The owners and employees of [electrical supply] systems shall at all times exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees, to the public and other utilities due to the presence of overhead wires.” GO 95, Rule 31.1, paragraph 2.

(3) Tree Trimming Around Electrical Wires Is the Utility’s Responsibility

“When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidence abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s). GO 95, Rule 35.

(B) Electric Rule 16 – Service Extensions (Tariff Rule)

This rule, filed with the Commission, is a tariff rule applied to service extensions, service drops. The rule imposes financial responsibility on the customer when none was contemplated at GO 95, Rule 35. No rule anywhere in GO 95 imposes financial responsibility on anyone, but is implied on the line owner. Never on the customer.

The issues was raised in I.94-06-012. D.97-10-056 in that tree trimming proceeding did not explicitly state that tree trimming around utility drops would be at utility expense. Ordering Paragraph (OP) 4, in the decision provides:

4. Any respondent electric utility whose Electric Rule 16 (Service Extensions) requires revision in order to conform to Rule 35 of GO 95 shall file within 20 days an advice letter revising Electric Rule 16 (Service Extensions) to conform with Rule 35 of GO 95, and shall serve a copy of its advice letter upon other parties

B-17 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

in this proceeding. The advice letter shall require a resolution of the Commission for approval.

As might have been expected, the utilities merely wrote to the Commission, saying that the two rules are consistent. Inexplicitly the staff attorney for the Utilities Safety Branch had also said there was no inconsistency.

I had begun working with the Energy Branch in 1997 to either reopen the case or otherwise get the utilities to stop charging from trimming. I am enclosing a packet of correspondence where I mentioned, and showing utility thinking. ANNEX 3. It includes a PG&E form letter re: Customer trimming.

(1) Rule 16 (Paragraph A2) Establishes Ownership of Facilities and Maintenance Responsibilities

The rule (Paragraph A3. OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES) says, “Service facilities installed under the provisions of this rule shall be owned, operated and maintained by [utility] if they are . . . (b) installed by [utility] on Applicant’s premises for the purpose of the delivery of electric energy to the Applicant . . .” Rule 16A3. Emphasis added.

(2) Another Section of Rule 16 Places Responsibility for Tree Trimming Around Service Drops on the Customer

Flying in the face of Rule 35 (. . . utility has . . . knowledge . . . condition shall be corrected . . .), flying in the face of Rule 16 (paragraph A3 . . . maintained by [utility] . . .), now comes another section of Rule 16 (Paragraph F3c) states: Applicant or owner shall . . . either correct . . . or pay [utility] . . . [to trim drop wire] . . . Emphasis Added.

(3) If Utility Disconnects Drop Wire While Customer Trims Tree, May Have No Service for a Day or More – Safety Issue

Some utilities offer to come out, disconnect, either leave wire up or take it down and roll it up. Customer or contractor, if he has one, trims trees. Utility, if schedule permits, comes back out, same day in a, say, half day window, or next day, and reconnects drop wire. If the wire were left up but not hot, the customer may have nicked it in a few places. Another safety issue is having the power out for hours, or a day.

(4) Serious or Lethal Safety Hazard When Lay Person Works Around Live Conductors and Possibly Damaged Conductors

A customer is out in the yard with her metal ladder and sharp pruning shears and all metal camp saw to do what the utility told her she must do: Prune around that drop wire going through those trees. She has no money to pay, so will do it herself.

First she sees a way to poke the latter into the cypress canopy way up there – it will barely extend to where that one pretty good sized branch looks like it’s rubbing on the wire. It’s extended as far as it will go so she climbs it and can barely reach the limb. She thinks, this is crazy, what if I cut that wire? But she goes on and sure enough does nick it just a little – and

B-18 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

gets a tingle. That wasn’t much of a shock, she though, I’ll change the angle, and go ahead. The limb dropped and hooked the wire, giving it quite a yank. But didn’t seem to hurt anything.

Two pieces of luck: The wire did not get pulled off the house and it was only a mild shock. But how lucky? The saw cut on the wire and the loosened house attachment: The drop cable will always be compromised. It may fail. The luckiest part? The customer is alive: 120 volts often kills.

Next day, Customer’s brother comes over. Borrows a longer fiberglass ladder. At least I won’t get shocked. Goes up with the long handled pruning shear. It’s really dense up there. I can hardly see what I’m cutting. There’s the transformer only 15 feet or so away. It’s got a 50 on the side of it. I better not get this pruner on that wire and chomp down on it. I just about did a couple of times, this stuff is so thick up here. I recall when Mac and Sis put on the second story and the pool they got a No. 1 drop wire – we kidded about No. 1, and that was 10 years ago. I wish the utility had done this. Here’s a rub mark almost into the metal. I’ll tell ‘em about it.

Anything special here? Several. Brother is 15 ft. from a 50 kVA transformer trimming dense foliage around a 1 SWG aluminum cable. If he does chomp on that cable with that pruner that close to that size transformer he would get about a 10,000 ampere short circuit arc flash in the face or near it. If he survived, he’s be in a hospital burn unit. May never see again. To say nothing of the worn thin spot. That could arc over and give the same 10,000 amp flash.

See the Short Circuit Current Table in ANNEX 4.

Drawn a conclusion? Customers are completely naïve here; they know nothing of the danger they have been exposed to. One has survived and we hope the other will. The utility is the completely knowledgeable technical expert, and yet it will induce people to do precisely what I’ve described. It is at least criminal negligence – such utility policy.

(C) The Small Size of the Problem: Only 1 in 15,000 Service Drops Have an Annual Vegetation Related Tag Identified for Maintenance

ANNEX 5 indicates the relatively small number of service drops scheduled to be trimmed in relation to the total number of drops: 1 in 15,000.

It would appear that there has always been a good deal of huffing and puffing by the utilities who are charging for trimming around service drops when:

• there never have been relatively very many to trim

• the hassle and inconvenience to the customers returns little but ill will

• the customer is faced with, say, a $35 to $75 trim charge or else an all day service disconnect to do the work himself, so is thus induced to refuse the utility and do the work on his own at safety risks

B-19 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

• the utility makes several trips to the site, plus letters and calls, all at more expense than may ever be recovered

• most utilities most of the time do the work at no charge.

4. CONCLUSION

Both Rule 35 and Rule 16 should be revised to eliminate the inconsistency between them. The two say what they say: 35 does not say a customer shall trim; 16 says a customer shall trim. Rule 35, as do all other rules in GO 95, implies that a utility shall perform what the rule requires. And not the customer.

The whole argument over this has always been absurd. As nonsensical as the conversation at the Mad Tea Party (with apologies to Lewis Carroll).

There is a serious side to the absurd debate. Safety. An innocent person may be killed doing what Rule 16 clearly requires. Latent damage by an unskilled layman with sharp pruning tools may compromise the drop. Why would a utility want its property to be serviced by such a person?

The rules must be amended.

Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric have, by and large, quit imposing the Rule 16 trim by customers. Pacific Gas and Electric, by its Data Responses, relegates trimming drop wires to merely part of its detailed inspection program with no specific mention of charging for it.

B-20-Annex SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

A N N E X 1 -- Data Requests to PG&E and its Data Responses

2 – Prepared testimony – Adams – Redacted – in PG&E GRC A.02-11-017

3 – Packet of Commission staff correspondence and Utility correspondence re: Inconsistency between Rules 35 and 16

4 – Table of short-circuit currents in amperes at various distances from a distribution transformer

5 – Number of service drops compared to annual service vegetation related tags identified for maintenance

B-21 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Current Rule


When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

Strikeout/Underline



Proposed Rule



B-22 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


B. Alternative Proposal - No Change

Supported by Citizens, CNUC, CPSD, Davey Tree, Frontier, IBEW 1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, TID and Verizon

Rationale

[While CPSD supports the no rule change proposals, it does not endorse the following discussion.]

Introduction and General Comments Regarding PRCs 59, 60, 61 and 62

Prior to addressing the specific issues and problems with William Adams’ proposals (PRCs 59, 60, 61 and 62), the proponents of the “no change” alternative to each of these proposals would like to offer general comments and background information about this important Rule and the negative impact of adopting any of these proposed changes at this point in time.

During the workshops, the participants spent a great deal of time reviewing many issues related to the proposed changes to Rule 35. The participants compared Rule 35 and California Utility Vegetation Management practices to industry standards, discussed the history and development of the current standard, and debated the actual impacts of the proposed changes to this Rule. Several important general issues surfaced:

1. Rule 35 is the nation’s strictest mandated clearance requirement and vegetation management rule. In fact, no other state commission has adopted more rigorous requirements for utility companies regarding utility vegetation management programs and activities.

2. Rule 35 differs from most other Commission Rules in that any changes to the rule will directly impact a wide variety of issues, including private property rights, local and state tree ordinances, environmental laws and regulations, and the health and sustainability of urban and rural forests in California. 3. The current version of Rule 35 was adopted in 1997, only six years ago, after 18 months of workshops, several rounds of comments and reply comments, hearings, and briefs.

4. In the previous proceeding which resulted in modification to Rule 35, representatives from electric and communications utilities, municipalities, state agencies, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

B-23 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

(IBEW), the Audubon Society, tree trimming companies, cities and counties, and other intervenors actively participated.

5. Three of these four proposals have already been fully explored and ultimately rejected by the Commission in prior proceedings. In 1994, the Commission opened an Order Instituting Investigation (“OII”) into SDG&E’s tree trimming practices (I.94-06-012). That investigation expanded to include a comprehensive, system-wide review of the Commission’s tree trimming rules. The subject matter of the proposals submitted here as PRCs 59, 60, and 61 have already been evaluated and correctly rejected by the Commission in those proceedings.

6. Rule 35 is not yet mature. While utilities appear to be complying with all the requirements, interpretation and implementation issues continue to arise. Since the adoption of the existing Rule 35 in 1997, utilities have continuously worked toward a complete understanding of how the language translates to implementation. The Commission staff is also performing ongoing reviews to evaluate compliance with this new rule.

Given these facts, and the fact that Rule 35 was so recently modified after years of deliberation, the “no change” proponents recognized that any change to this important Rule should have to address an “actual” identified problem or opportunity, be well substantiated, and most importantly, be developed with the recognition that implementation of any change in this complex and wide-ranging rule is not a simple matter. The potentially negative ramifications of any changes to Rule 35 can include significant increases in utility and ratepayer expense, unnecessary conflicts between organizations and agencies charged with tree preservation, and the appearance that utilities and the Commission are enforcing an unreasonable standard on the owners of private property. These are the precise reasons why so much time and effort went into crafting and adopting the original language in 1997.

After a thorough review of these PRCs, the “no change” proponents have concluded that the proponent has not come close to meeting this reasonable standard for making changes to Rule 35. He has not demonstrated a need to make these changes, nor has he considered the impacts of his changes on the other stakeholders. We strongly encourage the Commission to reject these PRCs.

PRC 59 – Rationale for No Change

It should be noted that this particular version of PRC 59 is not the version that was originally proposed, reviewed, discussed, and ultimately rejected by the vast majority of workshop participants. The Proponent of PRC 59 significantly changed his proposal and resubmitted it at the very end of the workshop process. This newly submitted PRC retains the original concepts that were rejected by the participants, but also adds a new proposal to modify current tariffs. We do not believe that it is appropriate to “replace” the original PRC at the end of the workshop process, and do not believe it was the intent of the Commission to open this proceeding up to tariff changes.

With respect to PRC No. 59, the “no change” proponents offer the following rationale in support of their position that the proposal should not be adopted by the Commission.

B-24 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

A. The Commission already entertained and rejected this very same proposal in 1997

Currently, the tariffs mandate that property owners are responsible for providing a clear path for a utility’s service wires. During the tree trimming OII (I. 94-06-012) conducted between 1994 and 1997, the concept of requiring utilities to assume this burden was discussed at length and ultimately rejected by the Commission. Now, this PRC’s author is proposing a rule change which ignores the collective wisdom of the participants in the prior tree trimming OII, ignores a prior Commission decision, invites a clear conflict with the tariffs, imposes an unnecessary burden on ratepayers, and asks that the Commission compromise system safety and reliability. The proposal should be rejected.

During the previous OII in which Rule 35 was examined and ultimately modified, the author of this current PRC proposed similar changes to Rule 35. In response to those proposals, the Commission stated:

“The Commission’s staff has asked that the issue of trimming around utility service drops be addressed in this proceeding. Adams and Sevier suggest that there is a potential for ambiguity in Rule 35 relative to the responsibility for trimming around service drops, and that the rule should be clarified. We do not find this to be the case. As adopted in D.97-01-044, Rule 35 imposes upon the utility the responsibility to slacken or rearrange the drop, trim the tree, or place mechanical protection on the conductors whenever it has actual knowledge (through normal operating practices or notification) that the drop shows evidence of strain or abrasion from tree contact. We will not impose an additional duty of inspection of each service drop upon the utility beyond what our current regulations require, as we believe that routine observation and maintenance of landscaping to prevent the occurrences of hazards is more within the customer’s control, and the problem is more reasonably addressed through efforts to create public awareness by such measures as including brochures and flyers with bills. We also expect that the utilities’ efforts in this regard will be directed toward public education, as developed by Subcommittee III, to enable customers to prevent hazards and determine when they should call upon the utility to rectify a potentially unsafe condition.” (D. 97-10-097, mimeo, p. XX (emphasis added)).

In that proceeding, the Commission also addressed the issue of “alleged” conflicts between Rule 35 and Rule 16 Tariffs by requiring all respondent utilities to modify their Electric Rule 16 if any conflict existed.

In light of the relatively recent comprehensive analysis and extensive evidentiary record developed in support of the current Rule 35, we oppose this PRC. The PRC’s author is attempting to substitute his knowledge and judgment for that of the many parties that participated

B-25 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

in the original tree-trimming OII and this OIR, and his efforts, while well-intentioned, should be rejected.

B. Tariffs appropriately require customers to maintain clearance around service wires

In addition to this PRC being redundant, there are also several specific reasons why this proposal should not be implemented. First, the tariffs governing electric service provided by the four California IOUs place responsibility for providing a clear and unobstructed route for individual service wires on the property owners. Second, tree pruning is only one of many methods used to mitigate tree and service line conflicts. Third, it would create a disincentive for the property owners to comply with “Right-tree Right-place” provisions found in fire codes and tree ordinances. And fourth, the proponent of PRC 59 has inaccurately portrayed the possibility that these types of accidents can occur as a result of current Rule 35 language and utility practices.

We must look to the tariffs to determine who is responsible for tree trimming around service wires. Electric Rule 16, found in the tariffs of all four IOUs, requires property owners to correct “clearance infractions” or pay the estimated cost of restoring the appropriate minimum clearance. The rule clearly requires property owners, not utilities, to take responsibility for correcting impaired clearances, including those caused by trees growing too close to service wires. Why is this a good idea? First, the property owner caused the condition; second, the property owner is best situated to observe the impaired clearance; and third, the burden of selecting the proper tree and tree planting location is placed on the person who actually makes those decisions.

While utilities have the legal right to enter private property for the purpose of trimming vegetation where necessary for public safety, it is not unusual to encounter property owners who disagree with the utility’s assessment, refuse to provide access or who decline to leash potentially dangerous animals. In those cases, the utility must negotiate for access, a time-consuming and expensive process. It is far more sensible and logical to place the burden of maintaining clearance around services on the homeowner. It is certainly not the case that homeowners are left to their own devices when confronted with a tree that has grown too close to a line. Detailed information about tree trimming is provided by all of the utilities.2 Further, if the property owner desires that a utility do the trimming, the utility will do so at the property owner’s expense, or the property owner may retain his/her own trimming contractor.

C. This PRC undermines state and local efforts to encourage property owners to plant the right tree in the right place

By discouraging property owners from taking responsibility for trees adjacent to service lines, this proposal would undermine industry efforts to encourage people to plant the right tree

2 For example, see http://www.pge.com/004_safety/veg_mngmt.shtml on the PG&E website, as well as http://www.safetree.net/, a safe tree program sponsored by PG&E. See also http://www.sce.com/sc3/003_safety_first/003d_tree_trimming/default.htm on the SCE website. SDG&E offers a pamphlet entitled “Plant the Right Tree in the Right Place.”

B-26 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

in the right place. Not only would property owners be less likely to carefully manage the trees already on their property, but they may be more inclined to plant the wrong type of tree directly under or adjacent to lines on their property. This proposal would encourage property owners to disregard tree-planting guidelines knowing that any problems arising out of the choice of improper trees or locations would be remedied by the utility. This proposal also totally disregards new laws and regulations geared toward preventing these problems in the first place. For example, the Urban-Wildland Interface Fire Code3 states:

4.10 Planting vegetation under or adjacent to Energized Electrical Lines:

No vegetation shall be planted under or adjacent to energized power lines which, at maturity, shall grow within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the energized conductors.

Similar language is found in tree ordinances in various cities and towns in California. For example:

Sebastopol Tree Ordinance: Section 7 Tree Planting Near Power Lines

“ Any tree that will reach a height greater than 20 feet at maturity shall not be planted within 20 feet (measured horizontally) of any electric overhead power lines without the prior approval of the City.”

Santa Rosa Amendment to the Uniform Fire Code: Ordinance No. 4095 Section 13-57

“No tree reaching a height greater than twenty (20) feet at maturity shall be planted within twenty (20) feet, measured horizontally from the nearest conductor, of any existing or proposed overhead electric utility distribution or transmission lines without the approval of the director of permit and resource management after consultation with the electric utility company having jurisdiction.”

This PRC will disrupt an industry-led effort to educate people about proper planting choices. More importantly, the adoption of PRC59 would put the utilities in the position of having to mitigate violations of law which they did not cause. This proposal would in essence “create” a conflict between GO 95 Rule 35 and other state and local laws.

D. The safety concerns raised by proponent are unsubstantiated

The proponent also spends a great deal of time presenting “hypothetical” accidents in support of his position. He has however avoided the fact that, while homeowners do indeed routinely work on landscaping, this does not typically involve climbing trees and pruning limbs above ground. Commercial and residential arborists typically do this work. These arborists are trained and qualified to work around service drops per applicable Cal-OSHA requirements. In addition to existing safety requirements for arborists, the utility companies in the state routinely provide training and assistance whenever a question of safety around power lines exists.

3 The International Fire Code Institute developed this Model Code with support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is administered by the California Governor’s office of Emergency Services through the Office of the California State Fire Marshal.

B-27 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Finally, the proponent does correctly point out that the likelihood of required pruning around a service drops is remote. In most cases any conflict can be, and is, resolved based on a site-specific assessment of what would be the most appropriate mitigation. It could involve re-routing the service, putting up mechanical protection, pruning a limb, and yes, in very rare cases, requiring the tree owner to pay for the cost of correcting a self-made problem. The current language of Rule 35 recognizes that there are variables (many of which are out of the control of the utilities), which must be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis. The proponent of PRC 59 seeks to take away the flexibility to do the job correctly.

For all of these reasons, PRC 59 should be rejected.

B-28 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


A. Proposal Supported by William Adams

Rationale

(1) Exception 2 should not, in a blanket manner, provide that Rule 35 requirements do not apply if a customer refuses to allow trimming, and a good faith effort to get the customer’s permission fails, then the exception essentially provides that the utility may then simply walk away. Nothing is said about safety and that the tree may be burning on the conductor. But the utility made its good faith effort. Case closed.

(2) There is a lot wrong with the thrust of such an exception. It provides a wall to protect the utility, but does little to provide safety and essential protection to the customer. I hear utilities say; well we never actually leave a tree in an unsafe condition. This is not always true. The exception lets the utility off, and in correspondence between the utility and the Commission, the utility is ready with a glib and cavalier statement that it is excused from some citation under Exemption 2.

(3) The exemption should do no more than give the utility a reasonable time to negotiate an agreement with the customer, and as well, provide a framework for showing the customer the utility’s rights to its own right of way for purposes of maintaining its line to provide safety and service reliability to the customer and surrounding neighbors.

(4) And, the exception should not imply that when all efforts are completed then it must be OK to leave the tree untrimmed, but the exception should, bottom line, provide, “no unsafe condition shall be allowed to remain beyond a reasonable time to resolve the refusal.”

Current Rule

Rule 35 (Exception 2)

2. Rule 35 requirements do not apply where the utility has made a “good faith” effort to obtain permission to trim or remove vegetation but permission was refused or unobtainable. A “good faith” effort shall consist of current documentation of a minimum of an attempted personal contact and a written communication, including documentation of mailing or delivery. However, this does not preclude other action or actions from demonstrating “good faith”. If permission to trim or remove vegetation is unobtainable and requirements of exception 2 are met, the utility is not compelled to comply with the requirements of exception 1.

B-29 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Strikeout/Underline


2. Rule 35 requirements do not apply Wwhere the utility has made makes a “good faith” effort to obtain permission to trim or remove vegetation but permission was is initially refused or unobtainable, a reasonable amount of time shall be allowed to negotiate the required permission and resolve the refusal. A “good faith” effort shall consist of current documentation of a minimum of an attempted personal contact and a written communication, including documentation of mailing or delivery. However, this does not preclude other action or actions from demonstrating “good faith”. For example, local protection agencies may be sought out to assist negotiating permission to trim. Any available right-of-way document should be used to show the utility rights to enter and maintain the line. Prescriptive rights may apply. Time is of the essence. No unsafe condition shall be allowed to remain beyond a reasonable time to resolve the refusal. If permission to trim or remove vegetation is unobtainable and requirements of exception 2 are met, the utility is not compelled to comply with the requirements of exception 1.

Proposed Rule


2. Where the utility makes a “good faith” effort to obtain permission to trim or remove vegetation but permission is initially refused or unobtainable, a reasonable amount of time shall be allowed to negotiate the required permission and resolve the refusal. A “good faith” effort shall consist of current documentation of a minimum of an attempted personal contact and a written communication, including documentation of mailing or delivery. However, this does not preclude other action or actions from demonstrating “good faith”. For example, local protection agencies may be sought out to assist negotiating permission to trim. Any available right-of-way document should be used to show the utility rights to enter and maintain the line. Prescriptive rights may apply. Time is of the essence. No unsafe condition shall be allowed to remain beyond a reasonable time to resolve the refusal.

B-30 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


B. Alternative Proposal – No Change

Supported by CPSD, CNUC, Frontier, IBEW 1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, TID and Verizon

Rationale


A. Introduction

This PRC would in essence eliminate the “good faith” exception to Rule 35. This PRC would mandate (without any explanation of how the mandate should be carried out) that utilities trim trees on property to which they are refused access. The “good faith” exception appropriately recognizes the fact that utilities do not have authority to trim and/or remove all trees within the vicinity of their high voltage power lines. This exception was the subject of workshops, lengthy discussions among industry and regulatory experts, and ultimately adopted by the Commission in 1997. There is no need to change this exception – this PRC should be rejected.

B. History of this PRC

In 1994, the Commission opened an Order Instituting Investigation (“OII”) into SDG&E’s tree trimming practices (I.94-06-012). In that proceeding, which concluded in October 1997, the “good faith” exception was fully discussed, litigated, and adopted by the Commission.

C. Utilities have detailed and thorough processes for addressing tree trimming refusals – This PRC is without basis and should be rejected.

Initially, it must be noted that the proponents of this alternative proposal object, in the strongest possible terms, to the baseless accusation in the rationale for this PRC that the utilities “simply walk away” from potentially dangerous situations involving a tree growing too close to a power line. This statement is false, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and should not have been included in this workshop report. Similarly, the assertion that the utilities offer a “glib and cavalier statement” when asked why the good faith exception is applicable to a given situation is without factual foundation and should be rejected.

As this PRC’s author is well aware, Exception 2 to GO 95, Rule 35 is rooted in a lengthy, detailed and thorough OII. Indeed, the “good faith” exception was discussed at length during extensive workshops in that proceeding, and fully litigated in hearings and briefs. In light of the

B-31 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

relatively recent comprehensive analysis and extensive evidentiary record developed in support of the rule, we urge the Commission to reject this PRC.

There are also several specific reasons why this proposal should be rejected. First and foremost, it eliminates the “good faith” exception and exposes the utilities to liability for events beyond their control. Without repeating the extensive record resulting from the prior OII, it should be noted that this good faith exception was fully vetted among all parties, supported by the Utilities Safety Branch and ultimately adopted by the CPUC. In adopting this exception, the Commission acknowledged the predicament utilities are placed in when property owners do not allow the trimming of trees within the vicinity of power lines. The existing rule further recognizes that the trees in question are not the utilities’ property and that the utilities have limited legal rights to force access to private property for the purpose of trimming vegetation. A complete reversal of the Commission’s earlier determination that this exception is appropriate and in the public interest should require far more analysis than that presented in this PRC.

Second, regarding the proponent’s assertion that the exception should provide a “framework” for resolving “refusals,” is simply incorrect. Utility companies in California have developed and documented comprehensive procedures that ensure that refusals are tracked and effectively acted upon. These comprehensive processes were also, for the most part, reviewed and approved by the Commission. For example, in the case of PG&E, the way the exception is implemented was the subject of an agreement with the Commission in the 1998 Tree Trimming OII (I. 98-09-007). The Commission and PG&E agreed specifically on when the exception was to apply and the necessary documentation to assert the exception from the clearance requirement. The specifics included:

This process defines the steps that PG&E takes to successfully resolve the customer refusal. First, PG&E explains to the property owner the safety reasons for and the limited nature of the proposed tree trimming. If the property owner still refuses, PG&E researches and documents all existing land rights on the subject property. Where PG&E determines that the primary rights (easement, franchise, etc.) include secondary rights for tree trimming, PG&E immediately communicates with the property owner by letter explaining the origin and nature of the rights, and schedules a trim. At this point, if necessary, PG&E will call on the sheriff, the local fire marshal, and even USB staff to ensure that PG&E completes the tree trimming necessary to protect public safety and system reliability. In cases where the primary and secondary rights are not sufficient to permit tree trimming, then PG&E sends a letter to the property owner explaining the purpose and need for the tree trimming. PG&E also sends informational material about public safety and fire prevention. Finally, PG&E contacts the local fire marshal, CDF and the CPUC to encourage additional follow-up – all in an effort to convince the property owner to allow the tree trimming.

Again, this process was reviewed and approved by the Commission’s USB. This process more than amply demonstrates a “good faith effort” to successfully resolve customer tree trimming refusals and the proposed change is unwarranted. Surely after lengthy discussions in the 1998 PG&E OII and the adoption of a settlement in that OII addressing exactly how this “good faith” exception was to work, the Commission should not now, just five years later, eliminate this exception.

B-32 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

As previously mentioned, all utilities in the state have already developed a comprehensive “framework” for invoking this exemption, and ensuring that all appropriate follow-up measures are taken. In fact, it is expected that few, if any, utility companies outside of California have equally effective refusal procedures.

Third, there is no factual basis for the proponent’s implicit claim that utilities regularly abandon their efforts to persuade a recalcitrant property owner to allow his or her trees to be trimmed. In fact, utility companies in California work to resolve these situations and keep the number of “refusals” affecting public safety to an absolute minimum. The current wording in Rule 35, coupled with the existing utility-specific refusal processes, is in fact working the way it was intended to.

Fourth, the proposal, by eliminating the “good faith” exception, apparently intends to mandate that utilities pursue their efforts to obtain landowner permission to trim until the trimming is achieved. This is already done, and if it cannot be done, service is terminated. No amendment to Rule 35 is needed to achieve this goal. The author also attempts to set a time limit of some kind, i.e. “a reasonable amount of time shall be allowed to negotiate the required permission and resolve the refusal” and “[n]o unsafe condition shall be allowed to remain beyond a reasonable time to resolve the refusal.” This language, of course, sets no time limit at all. The reason for the existing language in the “good faith” exception is simple: unless the legislature provides the utilities with legal mechanism for requiring property owners to allow the utilities to enter property to trim trees, a mandate that tree trimming be done within a prescribed amount of time is unenforceable. The proponent ignores this reality and instead proposes a rule that unrealistically and unfairly places a burden on utilities that they cannot always meet.4

Finally, the new text concerning “good faith” adds only meaningless and confusing language to the Rule:

• “For example, local protection agencies may be sought out to assist negotiating permission to trim.” This is done by all of the IOUs, pursuant to their refusal protocols.

• “Any available right-of-way document should be used to show the utility rights to enter and maintain the line.” This is self-evident and already done pursuant to the refusal protocols.

• “Prescriptive rights may apply.” The meaning of this statement is unclear. If by “prescriptive rights” the proponent means easements and other property interests, the utilities are well aware of their land rights and already inform property owners of those rights pursuant to the refusal protocols. Further, this declarative sentence means nothing in that it calls for no action.

4 It should be added that the utilities neither seek nor want the police powers contemplated by such a mechanism. It may, however, make sense for the legislature to craft a provision that would, much like Code of Civil Procedure section 1988, allow utilities to seek an order compelling the local sheriff to forcibly enter property to allow tree trimming to take place. (Section 1988 provides that a party seeking to serve a subpoena may obtain an order requiring the sheriff to break into a building where a witness is hiding to serve the subpoena.)

B-33 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

This PRC lacks both justification and merit. It eliminates a valuable and sensible exception to Rule 35 which recognizes that utilities do not always have the legal right to trim trees in the vicinity of power lines, and balances that reality with the need for utilities to use their best efforts to persuade a landowner to allow tree trimming.

PRC 60 should be rejected.

B-34 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


A. Proposal Supported by William Adams and the City and County of San Francisco Rationale

The phrase,

“When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or, notification to the utility, ..”

which appears in two places in Rule 35, should not be needed, and is inappropriate when included in any rule. It should be immaterial whether a utility has “actual knowledge” of a condition that a rule is designed to prevent, protect, correct, require, or specify for safety and service. Its obligation stands.

The utility has knowledge of the rules and knows to comply. It needs to acquire actual knowledge of conditions by, say, applying Rule 31.2 Inspection of Lines

Lines shall be inspected frequently and thoroughly for the purpose of insuring that they are in good condition so as to conform with these rules.

Rule 31.2, first sentence.

But, there is a significant if not sinister meaning contained in this phrase which begins, “When a utility has actual knowledge ...” etc. Does that mean only when the utility has actual knowledge, etc., it should have the obligation to remove, correct, protect, trim, etc.?

Just fall back on that meaning, only when, and you don’t need to be so concerned about acquiring knowledge under Rule 31.2.

All the rules except paragraphs two and three of Rule 35, apparently, apply all the time without regard to a stated “actual knowledge”. Split crossarm, broken guy bob, squatter pin, you name it, all rules apply under all conditions. Rule 31 Application.

Shifting attention from GO 95 to the STATUTES:

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE

No “actual knowledge” provision is contained in the Public Resources Code Sections 4293 or 4294, regarding tree trimming or removal.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 14

No “actual knowledge” provision is contained in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1257 regarding tree trimming or removal.

B-35 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Current Rule

Rule 35 (second and third paragraphs)

When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, should be removed.

Communication and electric supply circuits, energized at 750 volts or less, including their service drops, should be kept clear of limbs and foliage, in new construction and when circuits are reconstructed or repaired, whenever practicable. When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

Strikeout/Underline


When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, Ddead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, should be removed.

Communication and electric supply circuits, energized at 750 volts or less, including their service drops, should be kept clear of limbs and foliage, in new construction and when circuits are reconstructed or repaired, whenever practicable. When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, that any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

Proposed Rule


Dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, should be removed.

Communication and electric supply circuits, energized at 750 volts or less, including their service drops, should be kept clear of limbs and foliage, in new construction and when circuits are reconstructed or repaired, whenever practicable. When any circuit energized at 750 volts or less shows strain or evidences abrasion from tree contact, the condition shall be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree or placing mechanical protection on the conductor(s).

B-36 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


B. Alternative Proposal – No Change Supported by CCTA, CNUC, Frontier, IBEW1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, TID Verizon

Rationale


A. Introduction

This PRC would require utilities to have constructive knowledge of tree failures and strain and abrasion, regardless of the utilities’ efforts to inspect and proactively address tree conditions. Such a requirement is unreasonable. Moreover, this proposal has been fully vetted in a prior CPUC proceeding and rejected. It should be rejected once again.

B. History of PRC

The issue of whether utilities should be held responsible for constructive knowledge in the case of tree failures and strain or abrasion on secondary circuits was first raised in workshops held in the 1994-1997 Tree Trimming OII proceeding. The constructive knowledge standard for hazard trees and secondary circuits was subsequently raised through additional pleadings by intervenors, and ultimately rejected by the Commission when it adopted its final tree trimming rules (D. 97-01-044 and D. 97-10-056).

C. This PRC would invite speculation on the part of the Commission regarding what a utility “should have known” about a tree in question

This PRC would strike the “actual knowledge” standard from Rule 35 and require that utilities be deemed to have constructive knowledge of all trees that are dead, rotten and diseased and of all lines that are strained or abraded. Given the current inspection activity by the utilities to comply with Rule 35, the application of a constructive knowledge standard would require post-incident speculation on the part of the Commission concerning what a utility “should have known” about a given tree or wire and would require utilities to foresee tree and line problems that are simply not reasonably foreseeable. This is highly unreasonable and economically unsound. Utility arborists have never been able to completely predict and prevent tree and limb failures. For that matter, neither have municipal or commercial arborists. Tree and limb failures have always occurred in the past, and will continue to occur in the future, in spite of a great deal of preventive measures by all arborists.

The following represents three (of many) reasons why it is impossible to predict and prevent these occurrences.

B-37 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

1. Many trees show no outward evidence of a hazard before failing. The only way to “possibly” detect the potential would be to perform extensive and ongoing testing and analysis on each tree that could fail. And then, even with current arboricultural tools and knowledge, there is no guarantee that the tree would not have a problem.

2. The transition from a healthy tree, to a visibly hazardous tree can occur within a few short months. In order to identify the trees that do display signs of being hazardous, it would be necessary to visually inspect every tree at least 4 times a year.

3. It is impossible to accurately identify each and every tree that could cause a power line conflict. For example, outages routinely occur as a result of trees located well away from the lines. These trees, which could be located in larger groves of trees or in inaccessible backyards, would not normally be pruned, let alone inspected by the utility company.

To require utilities to remove trees that they “should have known” were going to fall also

invites the Commission to speculate on what a utility should have known about a tree within falling range of overhead primary conductor. Similarly, to require that utilities anticipate strain or abrasion on secondary circuits and eliminate all potential sites invites the Commission to again speculate on what the utility should have known about weather conditions in the area of the secondary conductor. At a minimum, such speculative inquiries are likely to result in wasted resources, since in most cases the answer to what the utility “should have known” is not determinable. At worst, utilities will be held to a standard of “20/20 hindsight” that will result in unfair penalties for tree failures and secondary voltage issues that were not reasonably foreseeable. A utility cannot, even with the utmost diligence, predict with complete accuracy when a particular tree or limb will fail or how local weather conditions will affect particular branches.

Utilities engage experienced, knowledgeable observers to attempt to predict which trees or limbs might fail. In fact, utility companies retain the services of more tree experts than any other agency, group, or organization in the state. The IOU’s in California hire hundreds of Certified Arborists (certified by the International Society of Arboriculture) to inspect trees along thousands of miles of overhead transmission and distribution lines. Each year, these Certified Arborists identify thousands of hazard trees for removal or trimming where there is actual evidence, visible to the trained expert arborist, that the tree or limb is likely to fail and impact the utility’s facilities or cause abrasion. As previously addressed, to require that these experts to predict all future tree and limb failures, is neither reasonable nor possible, given the current state of arboricultural science.

Similarly, California IOUs inspect secondary-voltage conductors on a regular basis for evidence of trees causing strain or abrasion, and also act on customer calls that identify such conditions. These inspections are followed up with the appropriate action in response to the site-specific circumstances5. Again, these inspectors are trained experts but they cannot be required to know what they could not see.

2 Where the tree is causing strain or abrasion on a secondary conductor, the solution is not automatically to remove or trim the tree. Pursuant to the appropriate tariff, the utility may relocate the line, slack the wire, install mechanical protection or trim the tree as necessary to correct the situation.

B-38 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

The proponent offers no evidence that the “actual knowledge” requirement is endangering public safety or resulting in more tree/line contact problems than would a “constructive knowledge” standard. Nor does he explain how, given the current inspection cycle, utilities can reasonably be held responsible for knowing about tree problems that can crop up just a couple of months after an inspection reveals that a tree appears to be in good health. Nor does he indicate how the utilities, and their ratepayers, will pay for a four to six-fold increase in inspection frequency in order to comply with a “constructive knowledge” standard.

Finally, the references to the Public Resources Code in the proponent’s rationale are inapposite. In rejecting a previous attempt to import the clearances set forth in Public Resources Code section 4293 into GO 95, the Commission wrote that the Public Resources Code standards are “not appropriate for application in more urbanized environments, and would be unreasonably expensive to implement and maintain.” (D.97-01-044, p. 17.) Nothing has changed since that opinion was written. The Public Resources Code tree trimming provisions are more stringent during fire season and govern vegetation management on “mountainous land, forest-covered land, brush-covered land [and] grass-covered land,” leaving GO 95, Rule 35 to govern tree trimming in relatively urban areas. The structure, standards and interpretation of the two sets of rules differ because they apply to markedly different environments. It makes no sense to insist, as does the proponent, that text contained within the Public Resources Code is automatically suitable for use in GO 95. Any such assertion must be supported by evidence and argument, and the proponent supplies neither.

For the foregoing reasons, this proposal should be rejected.

B-39 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


A. Proposal Supported by William Adams, City and County of San Francisco, CPSD

Rationale

This PRC is to change one word related to removal of dead, rotten and diseased trees: they shall be removed rather than should be.

The rationale that I use is that Public Resources Code Section 4293 provides as follows: (Note the imperative, shall.)

Dead trees, old decadent or rotten trees, trees weakened by decay or disease and trees or portions thereof that are leaning toward the line which may contact the line from the side or may fall on the line shall be felled, cut or trimmed so as to remove such hazard. (Emphasis added.)

Also the Public Resources Code Section 4294 provides as follows: (Note shall.)

Forked trees, leaning trees, and any other growth which may fall across the line and break it shall, however, be removed. (Emphasis Added.)

Also Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 1257, (c)(l) provides as follows: (Note are removed, not may be removed.)

Dead and decadent or rotten trees, trees weakened by decay or disease, leaning trees and portions thereof that are leaning toward conductor(s) and any other growth which may fall across the conductor and break it are removed or trimmed to remove such hazard. (Emphasis added.)

Current Rule

Rule 35 (second paragraph)

When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, should be removed.

B-40 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Strikeout/Underline


When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, shall should be removed.

Proposed Rule


When a utility has actual knowledge, obtained either through normal operating practices or notification to the utility, dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, shall be removed.

B-41 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


B. Alternative Proposal – No Change

Supported by CCTA, CNUC, Frontier, IBEW 1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD, TID and Verizon

Rationale

A. Introduction

This PRC would place an affirmative burden on utilities to determine the health of trees within the vicinity of high voltage power lines when such determinations are by their nature unreliable. Such a burden is unreasonable and should be rejected.

B. History of this PRC

During the 1994 tree trimming OII proceeding, many of the issues raised in this PRC were discussed and evaluated, including injecting language from the Public Resource Code section 4293 into Rule 35. In rejecting the suggestion to import the clearances set forth in Public Resources Code section 4293 into GO 95, the Commission wrote that the Public Resources Code standards are “not appropriate for application in more urbanized environments, and would be unreasonably expensive to implement and maintain.” (D.97-01-044, p. 17.)

C. This PRC unreasonably places the burden on utilities to determine the health of trees within the vicinity of high voltage power lines

As with the other PRC’s related to Rule 35, the proponent is suggesting changes that are both unwarranted, and ill advised. This proposal would expose the utilities to significant legal liability unless they cut down each and every tree and tree limb that “may” fall into a power line. The denuding of those portions of California’s urban and suburban forest adjacent to power lines is wholly unnecessary. This proposal should be rejected.

Rule 35 currently provides that a utility with actual knowledge of “dead, rotten and diseased trees or portions thereof, that overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span, should be removed.” (Emphasis added.) The words “may” and “should” confer upon the utilities the burden of using their best judgment to determine whether a tree is likely to fall into a span and, if so, whether it should be removed. Utilities exercise that judgment by using Certified Arborists to inspect trees in close proximity to supply lines and assess whether any limbs or trees may fall on a conductor. Based on the result of the inspection, the utility must decide whether or not to trim the limb or cut down the tree. This proposal would take away the element of human experience and judgment called for by the term “should” and replace it with an unrealistic and unreasonable requirement that utilities cannot implement.

B-42 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

The proponent, in his rationale, once again conveniently neglects to discuss the fact that the utilities do not own the trees in question. Landowners, various state and federal agencies, and all of the cities and counties in California own the trees, and they are unlikely to allow their wholesale removal. The proponent also fails to address the arboricultural fact that many trees that show signs of disease or decay will, in fact, not pose a safety risk for many years to come. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that these tree owners would, or even should, allow the removal of trees simply based on evidence of disease or decay. In essence, this proposal will result in the unnecessary removal of trees, rather than supporting the reasonable judgments of the tree experts charged with managing them. Most importantly, the proponent offers no evidence that utilities are exercising their judgment in a manner that endangers public safety or results in more tree/line contact problems than would the rigid standard he proposes.

Finally, the references to the Public Resources Code are inapposite. As previously stated, the Commission has already determined that the Public Resources Code standards are “not appropriate for application in more urbanized environments, and would be unreasonably expensive to implement and maintain.” (D.97-01-044, p. 17.) Nothing has changed since that opinion was written. The Public Resources Code tree trimming provisions are more stringent during fire season and govern vegetation management on “mountainous land, forest-covered land, brush-covered land [and] grass-covered land,” leaving GO 95, Rule 35 to govern tree trimming in relatively urban areas. The structure, standards and interpretation of the two sets of rules differ because they apply to markedly different environments. It makes no sense to insist, as does the proponent, that text contained within the Public Resources Code is automatically suitable for use in GO 95. Any such assertion must be supported by evidence and argument, and the proponent supplies neither.

For the foregoing reasons, this proposal should be rejected.

B-43 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 6 – PRC No. 63 – GO 128, Rule 17.4

A. Proposal Supported by William Adams and UDI

Rationale

INTRODUCTION

During development of the draft workshop report, the participants have disagreed on several of the Proposed Rule Changes (“PRCs”) to General Orders 95 and 128. To resolve these disputes, the workshop participants came up with an informal, non-binding process they call Multiple Alternative Proposals or “MAP.” When a PRC goes to MAP, the PRC’s proponent describes the problem with the current rule, how the PRC will modify the current rule; and how those changes go toward solving the problem.6 The workshop agreed that, in sending a PRC to MAP, this in no way waives the proponent’s right to proceed with an evidentiary hearing and briefing in favor of the PRC after the workshop report is submitted.7

Utility Design, Inc., (“UDI”) presented PRC #63 and #64 at the November 20, 2002 workshop. PRC #63 is a modification to General Order 128, Rule 17.4 that makes joint trench installation of gas, electric and communication utilities the standard method of underground construction, unless engineering judgment dictates otherwise. PRC#64 modifies General Order 128, Rule 17.7A by requiring applicants to file plans with the utilities and governing municipalities indicating the sizing, location, and occupancy of all new underground utility systems. As PRC#63 and #64 have been sent to the MAP process and UDI, as the proponent of PRC #63 and #64, UDI presents the following rationales.

1. The Problem with the Current Rule, General Order 128, Rule 17.4

The installation of gas, electric, and communication8 utilities along one common underground route is preferred in California. Indeed, 99% of all gas, electric, and communication facilities are installed in one common route referred to as a joint trench. Though it is the preferred means of construction, General Order 128, Rule 17.4 does not require joint trench installation as a standard. Instead, the current rule allows the utility that controls the joint trench to exclude participants on a subjective basis. This has led to problems in the field.

Regulated utilities that control the joint trench have kept common area and private streetlight wires, municipal electric lines and devices, and private telephone systems and communication companies out of the trench, claiming these services and their providers may not comply with Government Code §4216 or G.O. 128, Section 17.7.9 Prohibiting underground 6 It is still unclear how and what procedures the MAP process uses to resolve the dispute. 7 See May 1, 2003 Workshop notes. 8 The term “communication utilities” include Cable TV and fiber optic companies as that term has been defined

during the course of these workshops. 9 Government Code §4216 et seq. requires all private and public operators of underground facilities to comply and

to fund and participate in Underground Service Alert (USA).

B-44 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

utilities and non-utilities from occupying the joint trench not only contradicts Government Code §4216, but also leads to a lack of uniformity or certainty in the field. The controlling utility may have concerns about non-utility or municipal utility facilities, but kicking them out of the trench is an inappropriate method of resolving their concerns.

2. How PRC#63 Modifies General Order 128, Rule 17.4

PRC #63 modifies G. O. 128, Rule 17.4 to require joint trench installation as the standard method of construction for all underground “dry” utilities (meaning no sewer or water facilities) and non-utilities facilities, unless engineering judgment dictates otherwise. PRC #63 modifies Rule 17.4, by additions in italics and removals as strikeouts, as follows:

Joint trenching and installation of facilities may be shall be undertaken subject to the clearances stated in these rules. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring joint trenching or as granting authority for installation of facilities in a trench excavated by or for another party without consent of such party. In the interest of public health and safety, joint trenching shall be the standard method of installation for all underground gas, electric, communication, fiber optic, and non-utility services (such as municipal or city maintained facilities and private communication systems), unless in the engineering judgment of the electric or gas utility, separate trench installation is required due to field conditions or the particular facilities being installed.

A common example of where engineering judgment would prevent joint trench construction is in the installation of gas transmission facilities.

3. How PRC #63 Goes Toward Resolution of The Current Problem with General Order 128, Rule 17.4

A rule that allows one utility to selectively exclude other utilities or non-utilities from occupying the joint trench only aggravates a problem we all must avoid. Exclusion leads to a hodgepodge of separate trenches, created by those who were denied joint trench participation, which are lost until dug up at some future date when underground utilities are excavated. Placing utilities underground which no one, but for the installer, knows is a sure fire method of endangering public health and safety. This is why we want Rule 17.4 modified to make joint trench installation a standard method of construction.

Current Rule

Rule 17.4 Joint Use of Excavations and Facilities

Joint trenching and installation of facilities may be undertaken subject to the clearances stated in these rules. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring joint trenching or as granting authority for installation of facilities in a trench excavated by or for another party without consent of such party.

B-45 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Strikeout/Underline


Joint trenching and installation of facilities may be shall be undertaken subject to the clearances stated in these rules. Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring joint trenching or as granting authority for installation of facilities in a trench excavated by or for another party without consent of such party. In the interest of public health and safety, joint trenching shall be the standard method of installation for all underground gas, electric, communication, fiber optic, and dry non-utility services (such as municipal or city maintained facilities and private communication systems), unless in the engineering judgment of the electric or gas utility, separate trench installation is required due to field conditions or the particular facilities being installed.

Proposed Rule


Joint trenching and installation of facilities shall be undertaken subject to the clearances stated in these rules. In the interest of public health and safety, joint trenching shall be the standard method of installation for all underground gas, electric, communication, fiber optic, and dry non-utility services (such as municipal or city maintained facilities and private communication systems), unless in the engineering judgment of the electric or gas utility, separate trench installation is required due to field conditions or the particular facilities being installed.

B-46 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 6 – PRC No. 63 – GO 128, Rule 17.4

B. Alternative Proposal – No Change Supported by CCTA, CNUC, CPSD, Frontier, IBEW 1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E and Verizon

Rationale

There is no reason to change General Order 128 Rule 17.4. Utility Design, Inc.’s (“UDI”) vague and ill-considered proposal to amend GO 128, Rule 17.4 is a poorly crafted ‘solution’ to a non-existent problem. UDI has failed to show why a clear, sensible and flexible rule that has functioned successfully for over 35 years should be changed.

Currently, joint trenching is a common practice among the regulated utilities and is facilitated by mutual contractual agreement. Joint trenching usually saves time and money and reduces the impact of trenching on streets and neighborhoods. Where appropriate, there is every incentive for the utilities to use joint trenches. There are, however, times when it is not appropriate, and UDI’s proposal may force utilities to allow joint trenching where it may be unsafe, unwise or unnecessary. The new rule language would potentially allow any and all parties into the trench without controls, require ratepayer subsidy, decrease reliability and enrich UDI at the expense of safety.

The proposal raises jurisdiction issues. The CPUC does not regulate certain classes of joint trench applicants. It is unclear if the Commission has the desire or the legal standing to regulate parties that are currently governed solely by local jurisdictions under the requirements of the California Electric Code (“CEC”).

The proposal is vague. The phrase “non-utility services” is not defined, leaving unclear what types of services will have access to joint trenches. Not all applicants must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and many would not be subject to Commission sanction if they violated GO 128 standards for depth, clearances and other construction and safety standards. This is unfair to the regulated utilities, who must comply with these standards.

For example, there would be no control over the placement of the unregulated applicants’ facilities. These entities are subject to local agency enforcement of CEC standards that are less stringent than GO 128 standards. Inspections by those jurisdictions may not be timely, causing delays and resulting in the trench being open for an extended period of time, another safety concern. Further, local agencies may attempt to force utilities to comply with CEC rules or may not enforce the CEC requirements with respect to the newcomers in the mistaken belief that they are regulated by the CPUC.

In the OIR workshops UDI stated that this rule change does not contemplate allowing wet utilities such as fresh water, reclaimed water and sewerage to be in the same trench as “dry” utilities such as gas and electric. The proposal, however, would arguably allow this to happen. Dry utilities are concerned that allowing wet utilities in the same trench could have adverse effects on the health and safety of utility workers as well as the safe and reliable operation of the

B-47 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

utility system. Broken sewer lines pose a health hazard to utility workers who have to maintain their equipment and delay restoration of service to customers by requiring the clean up of sewage before repairs can be started. A break in high pressure water pipes can blast and scour the protective slurry, conduits and insulated cable coverings. Leaks in sewer and water lines can also cause corrosion, trench integrity failure and equipment failure.

Utilities are hesitant to allow all parties into the trench because joint trench applicants sometimes fail to pay for their share of the cost of the trench. An increase in the number of applicants allowed into trenches would also increase the number of project delays, increase costs, and consequently cause friction with local governments and communities.

Allowing more joint trench applicants increases costs if a deeper trench must be dug to accommodate the additional utilities; further, shoring expenses may be incurred, expenses that are absent when digging a shallower trench. An increase in the number of parties occupying a trench also increases the cost of repairs or work to extend or modify existing facilities because of more difficult access to the lines. More utilities in the same trench means more parties digging after the trench is closed and increases the chance of damage to other facilities where it is unclear which conduits contains which facilities. Non-utility trench occupants may be less trained in or knowledgeable about GO 128, particularly those occupants from out-of-state.

UDI’s proposal is self-serving. UDI is in the business of designing joint utility trenches and would benefit financially if joint trenching was required. The General Orders are not a vehicle for enriching certain entities at the expense of the ratepayer.

UDI’s proposal would not mandate joint trenching, but it would appear to unnecessarily shift the burden of proof from the party seeking to install its facilities in another party’s trench to the owner of the trench. The proposed language states: “joint trenching shall be the standard method of installation” for all services “unless circumstances make it impractical or uneconomic to do so.” While not clear, it appears that trench owners, usually investor-owned utilities, would have to prove, in some unstated fashion, that allowing another entity to install facilities in their trenches would be “impractical” or “uneconomic.” Neither term is defined, potentially giving rise to expensive and wasteful litigation, and neither term encompasses certain situations listed above, e.g. the outside entity is in poor financial condition or wishes to install “wet” utilities.

There is no need to modify GO 128 Rule 17.4. UDI’s proposal creates safety, reliability and economic problems. Safety will not be increased and may be decreased because trenches will be kept open longer and have more occupants, and parties who are not regulated by the CPUC may not comply with GO 128 safety rules. Reliability may decrease because more parties will dig into the same trench, increasing the number of dig-ins. The crowded trenches will restrict access to facilities for repairs. UDI’s proposal would increase costs due to the need to dig deeper trenches, the increase in delays, increased repair costs, and potential increases in ratepayer subsidies for those new applicants who don’t pay their fair share of trench costs.

For all of these reasons, this proposal should be rejected.

B-48 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 7 – PRC No. 64 – GO 128, Rule 17.7-A

A. Proposal Supported by William Adams, City and County of San Francisco, UDI

Rationale

1. The Problem with the Current Rule, General Order 128, Rule 17.7A

Over the past few years, the number of “dig-in” accidents has been increasing. Construction crews dig into gas, communication, and power lines on a regular basis and the lack of information concerning existing underground facilities usually is the reason why. The current means of locating underground utilities, by itself, is not sufficient. Location problems would be minimized if plans showing the exact vertical and horizontal location of all underground communication and energy facilities were on file with one or more principal agencies.

Applicants and utilities commonly prepare composite plans to assist the utilities and independent contractors in coordinating the installation of underground utilities. These composite plans show the location of the covered trench and the exact horizontal and vertical location of each occupant within it. These plans are prepared to coordinate installation, yet are not required to be filed either with the governing utility or the local city or county engineering department. Certain cities and counties have required that joint trench composite plans be filed in their jurisdictions. Yet, this has been done on an individual basis and usually as a knee jerk reaction to “dig-in” accidents after they occur.

General Order 128, Rule 17.7 requires that utilities provide information on the location of their underground facilities to those contemplating performing underground work in the vicinity. Yet Rule 17.7 does not give the party access to plans showing the exact location of all the underground lines and devices in a given area as well as their location relative to other utility and non-utility facilities. Indeed, the utilities rarely provide this information. PRC#64 would remove this problem by providing as much information as possible on what facilities lie underground, where they are, and what they are adjacent to.

2. How PRC#64 Modifies General Order 128, Rule 17.7A

PRC #64 would modify General Order 128, Rule 17.7A to require that applicants (private developers and other parties who add or make major modifications to underground systems) provide composite plans of all line extensions or conversions of overhead to underground facilities under Rule 20, showing the exact horizontal and vertical location of the covered trench and all underground facilities installed within it. These plans would be provided to owners and operators of such facilities and to the governing municipality. PRC #64’s modifications to Rule 17.7-A, indicated by additions in italics and removals as strikeouts, are as follows:

A. Records

B-49 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

Applicants of line extensions or conversions of overhead to underground facilities shall provide the parties who will own or operate such facilities and the local municipality with a plan of the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication facilities, (referred to as a joint trench composite plan), showing the size and horizontal and vertical location of all trenches, gas pipe, conduits and cables, building utility service stubs, meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures. A registered civil engineer shall sign all sheets of the plan, indicating that the standard of care for civil engineering and survey practices have been applied. The responsibility for maintenance of necessary records and joint trench composite plans to comply with this rule rests with the party owning and operating the facilities. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission, or the Commission Staff,. and the public. This Section applies to all underground utilities installed after _______.

(1) Services: Records are not required of supply system services of 0 – 750 volts located outside of a public street or highway right of way, or of communication system services.

3. How PRC #64 Goes Toward Resolution of The Current Problem with General Order 128, Rule 17.7A

We must ensure that underground utility and non-utility systems are easy to locate. That is why a plan, prepared to engineering and survey standards that shows the exact location of all underground dry utilities is best for all stakeholders. As presently written, Rule 17.7A does not require this type of information. One utility may know where its lines are; yet not know or even care where another utility’s lines are located. That is why one comprehensive plan, showing where all underground utilities and improvements are located, is the best possible defense in preventing dig-in accidents. As written, PRC#64 will help to accomplish the goal of reducing the number of dig-in accidents.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing represents UDI’s rationales for PRC #63 and #64, which have been submitted to the MAP process. UDI’s rationales for these PRCs remain the same; however, UDI reserves the right to amend this submittal should issues be raised that require modification of the language of either PRC. UDI also reserves the right to bring an evidentiary hearing and submit briefing to the Administrative Law Judge or the Commission as the proponent of these PRCs.

Current Rule

Rule 17.7-A

A. Records

The responsibility for maintenance of necessary records to comply with this rule rests with the party owning or operating the facilities. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission or the Commission Staff.

B-50 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03


Strikeout/Underline

Rule 17.7-A

A. Records

Applicants of line extensions or conversions of overhead to underground facilities shall provide the parties who will own or operate such facilities and the local municipality with a plan of the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication facilities, (referred to as a joint trench composite plan), showing the size and horizontal and vertical location of all trenches, gas pipe, conduits and cables, building utility service stubs, meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures. A registered civil engineer shall sign all sheets of the plan, indicating that the standard of care for civil engineering and survey practices have been applied. The responsibility for maintenance of necessary records and joint trench composite plans to comply with this rule rests with the party owning and operating the facilities. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission, or the Commission Staff,. and the public. This Section applies to all underground utilities installed after _______.


Proposed Rule

Rule 17.7-A

A. Records

Applicants of line extensions or conversions of overhead to underground facilities shall provide the parties who will own or operate such facilities and the local municipality with a plan of the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication facilities, (referred to as a joint trench composite plan), showing the size and horizontal and vertical location of all trenches, gas pipe, conduits and cables, building utility service stubs, meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures. A registered civil engineer shall sign all sheets of the plan, indicating that the standard of care for civil engineering and survey practices have been applied. The responsibility for maintenance of necessary records and joint trench composite plans to comply with this rule rests with the party owning and operating the facilities. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission, the Commission Staff, and the public. This Section applies to all underground utilities installed after _______.

B-51 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

MAP No. 7 – PRC No. 64 – GO 128, Rule 17.7-A

B. Alternative Proposal – No Change Supported by CCTA, CNUC, CPSD, Cox Communications, Davey Tree, IBEW 1245, PG&E, SBC, SCE, SDG&E, TID and Verizon

Rationale

There is no need to modify GO 128 Rule 17.7-A since the regulated utilities are already required to provide location information of their facilities and all excavators are required to comply with California Government Code 4216 to locate underground facilities. UDI has not provided any support for their proposal beyond anecdotal dig-in stories unrelated to the proposed changes.

UDI’s proposed rule change will not increase safety or reduce the number of dig-in accidents. It will:

• improperly impose on utilities legal liability for maintaining accurate map data;

• create a financial burden on utility ratepayers to maintain and provide free map information to any requestor;

• subsidize non-utility trench applicants with free maps and engineering data; and

• require the Commission to attempt to assert jurisdiction in areas where it arguably has no jurisdiction, i.e. local government matters and the enforcement of those provisions of the California Business and Professions Code concerning engineering stamps.

The sole beneficiaries of this proposal would appear to be the employers of independent registered civil engineers, but the enrichment of certain groups at the expense of the ratepayer is not a function of the General Orders.10

UDI has not demonstrated a need for a rule change. UDI claims that its proposal would reduce the number of dig-ins. This is not true - most dig-in accidents are caused by the negligence of excavators failing to abide by provisions of Government Code section 4216. The excavators fail to call USA or Dig-Alert, fail to wait for mark-out of the underground facilities to

10 UDI would be one such beneficiary of this proposal. According to its website: For the past 20 years we have prepared joint trench composite plans. During the last five years we pioneered applicant design of gas and electric systems. Whether it is basic trench coordination or complete design, we deliver your project complete, correct and on time. Our residential and commercial utility engineering and consulting services are unparalleled.

B-52 SF/1135252v1 10/28/03

occur, fail to hand dig within twenty-four inches of the existing lines, or fail to call back when the facilities are not found by hand-digging.11

UDI’s proposal also improperly creates a legal liability for the regulated utilities by requiring the regulated utilities to maintain maps of the composite trench and provide the maps to the public. If the regulated utility does not maintain changes or additions of the other trench occupants, it may be liable for a dig-in accident on facilities it does not own or control. Further, the plans are only as good as the information provided to the entity preparing the plan, and the applicants preparing the plans will arguably be the insurers of the accuracy of the information provided to them by the other utilities. The cost of doing so will ultimately be borne by ratepayers.

The maintenance of maps of other trench occupants would be an unfair ratepayer subsidy of trench applicants. Providing maps is tantamount to providing free engineering studies to parties seeking to install more facilities. The regulated utilities must do their own engineering studies at their expense and others should not be allowed to use this data for free.

The proposed rule change creates jurisdictional conflicts by attempting to authorize the Commission to oversee the efforts of cities and counties to maintain and provide their facilities’ location information to the public. UDI’s proposal will also require the Commission to regulate civil engineering requirements of the California Business and Profession Code, in conflict with the Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. It is unclear whether the Commission has the desire or authority to extend its jurisdiction in either of these areas.

UDI’s proposal is self-serving in that it would create lucrative make-work for professional engineers. The proposal would require applicants to expend time and money preparing joint trench composite plans under the supervision of registered professional engineers (such as those who work at UDI) who would place their official seal on all original drawings for the plans every time they apply for line extensions or conversions of overhead lines. The plans would have to include all facilities, not just those owned by the applicant, adding an extra financial burden on the applicant. Currently, utilities designing new installations sometimes allow the applicant to install facilities in the trench, negating the need for the applicant to pay extra for UDI’s service.

UDI has not demonstrated the need for a change to GO 128 Rule 17.7-A. The current rule works well with Government Code section 4216 to safely identify utility facilities locations. UDI’s proposed rule change would create unfair legal and financial burdens on the regulated utilities customers, do nothing to enhance safety, and create jurisdictional conflicts with local and state agencies. It should be rejected.

11 Because of the inherent imprecision of even the most thoroughly detailed plans and the inevitability of some changes in the field, the plans are designed to show the existence of subsurface facilities, but exact locations should always be required to be confirmed by field location techniques.

APPENDIX B - go95-rc.com

Documents