5. Consensus Proposals
Appendix A of the Phase 2 Workshop Report contains six consensus proposals to revise the Commission's General Orders. There is no opposition to the consensus proposals. We address each of the consensus proposals below.
5.1. Consensus Proposal 1 re: GO 95, Rule 18A
Rule 18A of General Order (GO) 95 requires CIPs and electric utilities to correct safety hazards and violations of GO 95. Consensus Proposal 1 would replace the word "violation" in Rule 18A with the word "nonconformance." The proposed revisions to Rule 18A are shown in Appendix A of today's decision.18
The parties do not expect Consensus Proposal 1 to have any financial impact on electric utilities or CIPs.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 1 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
CPSD does not believe the consensus proposal to replace the word "violation" with "nonconformance" will improve safety. CPSD is neutral on the proposal because, in CPSD's opinion, it does not matter which word is used, as the Commission has determined that a "nonconformance" is a "violation."19
SCE believes there is an important distinction between the words "nonconformance" and "violation." SCE states that the term nonconformance is broader than violation. By using the term nonconformance, the applicability of Rule 18A will be broadened to encompass conditions that do not rise to a level that is considered to be a violation by Commission decisions.
We agree with the Phase 2 Workshop Report that revising Rule 18A to use the word "nonconformance" in place of "violation" will facilitate the timely correction of all conditions that do not adhere to the requirements of GO 95.20 The timely correction of non-conforming conditions should help achieve our goal of improved fire safety. The consensus revisions to Rule 18A are also consistent with the terminology found in GO 95, Rule 12.6 (Third Party Nonconformance) and Rule 35 (Vegetation Management) - Exception #3.
For the preceding reasons, we find the consensus revisions to Rule 18A are reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of the revised Rule 18A is contained in Appendix B of today's decision.21
5.2. Consensus Proposal 2 re: GO 95, Rule 18B
Rule 18B of GO 95 requires that if one company discovers a safety hazard with respect to another company's facilities, the first company must notify the second company of the hazard no later than 10 business days after the discovery. Consensus Proposal 2 consists of several proposed revisions to Rule 18B that are intended to clarify the rule. The proposed revisions to Rule 18B are shown in Appendix A of today's decision.
A first consensus revision concerns the applicability of Rule 18B. The rule currently applies when a company is "inspecting its facilities." The consensus revision replaces the phrase "inspecting its facilities" with "performing inspections." The replacement phrase is intended to clarify that Rule 18B applies to inspections during the normal course of business, and not to emergency situations when companies must inspect their facilities to remedy the emergency.
The second consensus revision adds flexibility to the notification requirement. Rule 18B currently requires that notifications be "in writing." The revision requires that notifications be "documented" to avoid limiting the methods used by a company to notify another company of a safety hazard. For example, the proposed revision would allow the inspecting company to meet the notification requirement by making a phone call and then documenting the call.
The third consensus revision provides greater flexibility for a pole owner that is informed about a safety hazard with the facilities of one of its pole tenants. Currently, the pole owner must notify the pole tenant of the safety hazard "promptly." The proposed revision states that the timeframe is "normally" not to exceed five business days. The use of the word "normally" reflects the fact that it is sometimes impossible to provide notice within five business days. This could occur, for example, when the pole owner must visit facilities that are located on land where the property owner refuses to provide access.
The fourth consensus revision to Rule 18B simplifies the term "electric transmission or distribution facility" to "electric facility."
The fifth revision removes the requirement that the inspecting company must state in its notification whether the safety hazard is in a high fire-threat zone. The workshop participants agreed that this requirement is unnecessary.
The final consensus revision is to the sentence that states: "It is the responsibility of each pole owner to know the identity of each entity using or maintaining equipment on its pole." Several parties expressed concern about whether Rule 18B requires each joint owner of a utility pole to know the identity of every entity that another joint owner leases its space to. The consensus revision clarifies this requirement by stating that a company must be able to determine the identity of (1) its own pole tenants, and (2) other pole owners.
The authors of the Phase 2 Workshop Report do not expect the consensus revisions to Rule 18B to increase costs significantly.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 2 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
SCE submits that the consensus revisions to Rule 18B will make it clear that utility inspectors do not need to apply the rule's requirements during emergencies or trouble calls when the focus is on restoring service.
SCE states that the consensus revisions also recognize the difficulties faced by joint owners of utility poles in identifying every pole tenant. While a utility knows the tenants in the space it owns on jointly owned poles, the utility does not always know the tenants in the space of the other pole owners. The revised rule recognizes this reality, and permits the inspecting company to notify the relevant joint owner when it cannot identify the tenant whose facilities are causing a safety hazard. It is then the responsibility of the relevant joint owner to notify its tenant of the hazard.
In its opening brief, SCE proposed - apparently for the first time - to revise Rule 18B to remove all deadlines for providing notice of safety hazards. SCE disfavors placing time frames and other operational requirements in GO 95. Instead, SCE favors a "programmatic approach" to regulation within GO 95. Specifically, GO 95 should contain the standards to be met by regulated utilities. The utilities should be required to develop a program to meet those standards, and Commission staff should audit the utilities to ensure their programs are designed to meet the standards and that each utility is following its program. This approach allows each utility to consider the unique aspects of its service territory and operations when developing compliance programs.
We agree with the rationale in the Phase 2 Workshop Report that the consensus revisions to Rule 18B will clarify and streamline the requirements regarding the notification of safety hazards.22 This will facilitate notice of safety hazards to the entities responsible for correcting the hazards which, in turn, should help to reduce safety hazards over time.
For the preceding reasons, we find the proposed consensus revisions to Rule 18B are reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of the revised Rule 18B is contained in Appendix B of today's decision.
We decline to adopt SCE's proposal to eliminate from Rule 18B the deadlines for providing notice of safety hazards. We believe SCE's proposal would be detrimental to public safety, as it would eliminate the requirement for a utility to provide notice of an observed safety hazard to the entity responsible for correcting the hazard within a specified timeframe. It is not in the public interest to adopt a proposal that would allow an observed safety hazard to go unreported (and uncorrected) indefinitely.
5.3. Consensus Proposal 3 re: GO 95, Rule 35
Rule 35 of GO 95 requires electric utilities and CIPs to keep their overhead facilities clear of vegetation. Consensus Proposal 3 consists of revisions to Paragraphs 1 - 3 of Rule 35. The consensus revisions to Rule 35 are shown in Appendix A of today's decision.
The consensus revisions to Paragraph 1 clarify that Rule 35 applies to all electric utility and CIP facilities located on lands owned by state and local agencies. This is intended to ensure consistent vegetation management practices on all lands throughout the state.23
The consensus revisions to Paragraph 2 clarify that it is permissible for healthy trees to lean toward or overhang conductors, and that electric utilities and CIPs should trim or remove a tree only when they have actual knowledge that a dead, rotten or diseased tree (including trunks, limbs, or branches) is poised to fall onto a power line or communication line. Also, the term "span" is modified to include the phrase "of supply or communication lines" to avoid interpretive errors.24
The consensus revisions to Paragraph 3 clarify that low voltage conductors (0 - 750 volts) deflected by trees, but still within allowable tension, are subject to vegetation management in order to avert support structure damage or failure due to excessive transverse loads.
The Phase 2 Workshop Report states that it is unknown at this time whether Consensus Proposal 3 will result in additional costs.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 3 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
CPSD, PG&E, and SCE aver that the consensus revisions to Rule 35 will clarify that vegetation management requirements apply to facilities located on state and local lands, which should help utilities to deal with government entities that refuse to allow utilities to perform vegetation management work. PG&E and SCE add that the consensus revisions will also clarify that (1) it is permissible for healthy trees or limbs to overhang or lean toward conductors; and (2) vegetation-related strain on a conductor needs to be corrected when it compromises the integrity of the supporting structures.
We find that the consensus revisions to Rule 35 will enhance public safety by reducing the fire hazards associated with overhead electric utility and CIP facilities. In particular, the consensus revisions to Paragraph 1 of Rule 35 will require overhead power lines and communication lines located on lands owned by state and local public agencies to be kept clear of vegetation.
The consensus revisions to Paragraph 2 will help electric utilities and CIPs to determine when a tree that overhangs or leans toward a conductor should be trimmed or removed. This should make vegetation management activities more efficient and effective at reducing fire hazards.
Finally, the consensus revisions to Paragraph 3 will clarify that electric utilities and CIPs are responsible for remedying vegetation-related strain on conductors energized at 750 volts or less. This should reduce the incidence of damaged lines, appurtenances, and support structures, and thereby reduce safety risks to workers and the general public.
Although the Phase 2 Workshop Report does not provide an estimate of the costs, if any, to implement the consensus revisions to Rule 35, we anticipate such costs will be minimal.
For the preceding reasons, we find the proposed consensus revisions to Rule 35 to be reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of the revised Rule 35 is contained in Appendix B of today's decision. The adopted text includes the correction of the following typo, omission, and inconsistency in the Phase 2 Workshop Report: (1) replacing the period at the end of the first sentence of Rule 35, Paragraph 1, with a comma, so that the first and second sentences are combined into one sentence; (2) adding the word "General" before "Order" in the last sentence of the first paragraph; and (3) replacing the word "violation" with "nonconformance" in the last sentence of the third paragraph, which is consistent with the use of the word "nonconformance" in the Third Exception listed in Rule 35 and in the adopted consensus revisions to Rule 18A.
5.4. Consensus Proposal 4 re: GO 95, Rule 37, Table 1, Case 14 and Footnotes (fff) - (jjj)
The Phase 1 Decision modified Rule 37, Table 1, Case 14, and associated Footnotes (fff) through (jjj). These modifications (1) expanded the minimum vegetation clearances around bare-line conductors in the high fire-threat areas of Southern California, and (2) required the expanded minimum clearances to be maintained on a year-round basis, not just during fire season.25 The Phase 1 Decision also excluded orchards from the expanded clearances, recognizing that actively managed orchards pose less of a fire hazard than other areas. These measures were adopted on an interim basis pending further review in Phase 2. However, there were no proposals to revise the interim measures in Phase 2.
The purpose of Consensus Proposal 4 is to permanently adopt the "interim" revisions to Rule 37 and to correct typographical errors in Footnote (fff). The proposed revisions are shown in Appendix A of today's decision. The parties do not anticipate that the conversion of the interim rule into a permanent rule will result in significant additional costs, although the rule itself - whether interim or permanent - does impose costs.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 4 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
SCE observes that Footnote (hhh) of Rule 37 contains a reference to Cal Fire's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Fire Threat Map. SCE notes that one of the issues before the Commission in Phase 2 of this proceeding is the selection of appropriate fire-threat maps. SCE requests that the Commission affirm that the use of Cal Fire's FRAP Map as referenced in Footnote (hhh) and elsewhere in GO 95 and GO 165 is subject to change.
We conclude that the permanent adoption of expanded vegetation clearances around bare-line conductors in the high fire-threat areas of Southern California will promote our goal of reducing fire risks. We also find that it is reasonable to exclude actively managed orchards from the expanded vegetation clearances because, as was noted in the Phase 1 Decision, such orchards pose less of a fire hazard.26 Although there will be costs to comply with the expanded vegetation clearances, no party objects to the costs. We find that such costs are outweighed by the public-safety benefits.
For the preceding reasons, we find the consensus revisions to Rule 37 are reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of the revised Rule 37, Table 1, Case 14 and Footnotes (fff) - (jjj) is in Appendix B of today's decision.
In response to SCE's request that we affirm that the use of the FRAP Map as referenced in Footnote (hhh) of Rule 37 and elsewhere in GO 95 and GO 165 may be changed in the future, we note that later in today's decision we establish a Phase 3 of this proceeding for the specific purpose of developing and adopting fire-threat maps to replace the FRAP Map.
5.5. Consensus Proposal 5 re: GO 95, Rules 23.0, 44.1, 44.2, and 44.3
Consensus Proposal 5 consists of revisions to Rules 23.0, 44.1, 44.2, and 44.3 of GO 95. The proposed revisions are shown in Appendix A of today's decision.
The consensus revisions to Rule 23.0 have the effect of applying the safety factors for new construction in Rule 44.1 to a "change to an existing grade of construction or class of circuit."
The consensus revisions to Rule 44.1 add "mechanical strength" as a design criterion for lines and elements of lines that are installed or reconstructed. This will help ensure that mechanical strength is both considered during design calculations and subject to the safety factors in Rule 44.1. The proposed revisions to Rule 44.1 also replace the word "utility" with "company" to reflect that the entity doing the installation or reconstruction may not be a utility.
There are several consensus revisions to Rule 44.2. The first revision clarifies that Rule 44.2 applies to any "supply or communication company," rather than to any "utility." The second revision changes "utility" to "company" in several spots to clarify that Rule 44.2 applies to companies that may not technically be utilities. The third revision clarifies that a load calculation is required before a company adds facilities that materially increase vertical, transverse, and longitudinal loads. This is intended to promote public safety by ensuring that all loads are considered before facilities are added. The fourth revision changes a general reference to "Section IV" to a specific reference to "Rule 44.3." This clarifies which design criteria are applicable to additional construction on poles. The fifth revision requires the company doing load calculations to maintain records of its calculations for five years. This is consistent with the five-year document-retention requirement in Rule 19. The sixth revision changes "intrusive pole loading data" to the more accurate "intrusive pole test results." The final revision eliminates a note added by D.09-08-029 that states, "Nothing contained in this rule shall be construed as allowing the safety factor of a facility to be reduced below the required values specified in Rules 44.1 and 44.3." The workshop participants agreed that this note is no longer necessary given the consensus revisions to Rule 44.3 addressed below and the specific reference to Rule 44.3 that is being added to Rule 44.2.
Rule 44.3 requires replacement or reinforcement of lines or parts thereof before safety factors fall below specified levels due to deterioration. The consensus revision adds "installation of additional facilities" as another factor that would justify replacement or reinforcement. The new text is a more direct way of stating the concept already embodied in the note to Rule 44.2 and thereby allows for the elimination of the note.
The Phase 2 Workshop Report states that the cost impacts of the proposed revisions are not certain. Companies that currently do not retain pole loading calculations for five years may incur additional document retention costs. The inclusion of additional design criteria could lead to more pole replacements and/or reinforcements, and thus higher costs.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 5 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
CPSD, PG&E, and SCE support Consensus Proposal 5 because it will help ensure that (1) companies perform pole-loading calculations, and (2) pole-loading calculations employ the correct safety factors and consider both structural loads and mechanical strength.
With one exception, we agree with the Phase 2 Workshop Report that the consensus revisions to Rules 23.0, 44.1, 44.2 and 44.3 will clarify which design criteria are applicable to the installation, reconstruction, addition, and replacement of facilities on utility poles.27 This should promote public safety by helping to ensure that utility poles and attachments do not fail and thereby ignite a fire. The revisions also clarify that Rule 44.2 applies to any "company" planning to add facilities to a pole, rather than to any "utility." This change should promote public safety by helping to ensure that both electric and telecommunications companies are expected to perform and share pole-loading calculations. Although the exact costs of these consensus revisions are unknown, no party objects to these costs. We find that such costs are unlikely to exceed the public-safety benefits of the adopted revisions.
The one exception concerns the proposed five-year record retention period for pole-loading calculations. We believe that a longer record retention period is needed so that we may conduct a thorough forensic analysis in the event there is a major safety-related incident. To this end, we will require CIPs and electric utilities to henceforth retain records of pole-loading calculations for ten years. This new record-retention requirement applies to records currently in an entity's possession and records created on or after the date of today's decision.
For the preceding reasons, we find the proposed revisions to GO 95, Rules 23, 44.1, 44.2, and 44.3, as revised by today's decision, are reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of revised rules is contained in Appendix B of today's decision.28
5.6. Consensus Proposal 6 re: GO 165, Sections I - IV
Consensus Proposal 6 consists of several revisions to GO 165. The proposed revisions to GO 165 are shown in Appendix A of today's decision.
The first consensus revision extends the inspection and reporting requirements in GO 165 to all outdoors electric distribution and transmission facilities (except substations)29 that are under the Commission's jurisdiction, including facilities that belong to non-electric utilities such as Southern California Gas Company, which owns an overhead electric distribution system at its Aliso Canyon storage field. Consensus Proposal 6 specifically excludes CIP facilities and cathodic protection systems for natural gas facilities from GO 165.
The second consensus revision streamlines the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in GO 165.
The final consensus revision adds a new Section III.E to GO 165 that creates a mechanism to revise GO 165 that is similar to the mechanism in Rule 15.1 of GO 95. The proposed Section III.E would allow entities to request revisions to maintenance and inspection programs based on new technology and practices without a formal Commission proceeding.
The Phase 2 Workshop Report acknowledges that CAISO has oversight responsibilities for the electric transmission facilities under its operational authority. CAISO requires Participating Transmission Owners to inspect and maintain their transmission facilities according to pre-approved plans, and to submit reports to CAISO on their inspection and maintenance activities. The Phase 2 Workshop Report states that the consensus revisions that pertain to the inspection and maintenance of electric transmission facilities do not conflict with CAISO regulations.
The Phase 2 Workshop Report notes that the consensus revisions will not increase costs for electric utilities that are currently covered by GO 165. On the other hand, companies that are newly subject to GO 165, including non-electric utilities such as SoCalGas, will incur additional costs to comply with GO 165.
Most parties either did not address Consensus Proposal 6 in their briefs or expressed general support for the proposal.
CAISO agrees that the consensus revisions to GO 165 do not conflict with its jurisdiction and regulations. CPSD avers that Consensus Proposal 6 will enable CPSD to ensure that transmission facilities in California are adequately inspected and maintained, without duplicating CAISO's regulations. PG&E and SCE submit that the consensus revisions will vastly improve GO 165 by streamlining many of its requirements.
With one exception described below, we agree with the assessment in the Phase 2 Workshop Report that the consensus revisions will streamline and clarify GO 165, thereby making it more useful to utilities and CPSD.30 These revisions should improve compliance and reduce costs. Extending GO 165 to additional electric distribution and transmission facilities located outside of buildings should promote public safety and reduce fire hazards by ensuring that these additional facilities are inspected in accordance with GO 165. As noted by CAISO, the proposed revisions to GO 165 do not conflict with CAISO's jurisdiction or regulations.
Our one reservation with the consensus revisions to GO 165 is the following provision that would add a new mechanism for seeking future exemptions from, or modifications to, GO 165:
If, in a particular case, exemption from or modification of any of the requirements herein is desired, the Commission will consider a request for such exemption or modification when accompanied by a full statement of conditions existing and the reasons why such exemption or modification is asked and is believed to be justifiable. It is to be understood that, unless otherwise ordered, any exemption or modification so granted shall be limited to the particular case covered by the request.
The above provision is vague because it does not (1) state who may ask for an exemption or modification, or (2) specify a procedure for seeking an exemption or modification. The provision is also unnecessary because the Commission already has procedures to request an exemption or modification, including applications, petitions for modification of Commission decisions, and petitions for new rulemaking proceedings. We therefore see no value or need for the above provision, and we decline to adopt it.
For the preceding reasons, we find that the proposed consensus revisions to GO 165, as modified by today's decision, are reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. We therefore adopt the revisions. The text of the revised GO 165 in contained in Appendix B of today's decision.31 We recognize that the adopted revisions to GO 165 could increase costs for companies that were not previously subject to GO 165. However, no party suggests that such costs are unreasonable. We find that the increased costs are unlikely to exceed the public-safety benefits of the adopted revisions.
18 The consensus proposal to revise Rule 18A is in addition to two contested proposals to revise Rule 18A that are addressed later in today's decision.
19 D.04-04-065, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 207 at *18.
20 Phase 2 Workshop Report, Appendix A, at A-8.
21 The revised Rule 18A adopted by today's decision reflects the consensus revisions as well as certain contested revisions that are addressed later in today's decision.
22 Workshop Report, Appendix A, at A-12 to A-14.
23 Nothing in the proposed revisions to Rules 35 is meant to suggest that the minimum clearances currently in Table 1, Cases 13 and 14 apply to communication lines.
24 Today's decision uses the terms "power line" and "supply line" interchangeably.
25 D.09-08-029 at 31 - 32.
26 D.09-08-029 at 31-32. As noted in Rule 37, Table 1, Case 14, Footnote (jjj), the Case 13 clearances apply to plowed or cultivated orchards of fruit, nut, or citrus trees.
27 Workshop Report, Appendix A, page A-31.
28 The revised Rule 44.2 adopted by today's decision reflects the consensus revisions as well as certain contested revisions that are addressed later in today's decision. The revised Rule 44.3 is corrected to add the word "rule" to the last sentence so that it reads: "In no case shall the application of this rule...."
29 The proposed consensus revisions do not apply to substations because the Commission is currently considering a new general order in R.10-09-001 that would contain inspections and reporting requirements for electric substation facilities.
30 Phase 2 Workshop Report, Appendix A, page A-50.
31 The adopted text corrects two typos. The first correction is in Section III.B where the word "assure" is replaced with "ensure." The second correction is in Note 1 under the Sample Report Template where "their" is replaced with "its."
