Positions of the Parties

Complainants claim the site of the relocated facilities falls within the property boundaries of the subdivision in which they reside. As such, Complainants claim that the property owners in this subdivision have the right to require the County and PG&E to place the electric facilities underground, as required by the Resolution approving the subdivision.

Complainants further claim that a utility pole installed at the corner of Academy Avenue and Richert Avenue obstructs the view of drivers turning on to a 65 miles-per-hour (mph) roadway. Complainants claim the pole is installed on their private property, and as such, they should be allowed to determine whether the facilities should be moved.

Also, Complainants dispute PG&E's installation of an anchor and guy wire on Richert Avenue, based on their contention that any facilities in this "cut off" area must be placed underground.

PG&E responds that the overhead electric facilities at issue were installed and relocated in accordance with the Commission's General Order 95, and pursuant to PG&E's right under its franchise agreement with the County. According to PG&E, if the County desired the relocated facilities to be converted to underground service, the County would have adopted an ordinance creating an underground district pursuant to PG&E's Commission-approved Electric Tariff Rule 20- Replacement of Overhead with Underground Electric Facilities.

In response to Complainants' argument that the relocated facilities are on new larger and taller poles with new lines that did not exist as stated in the Resolution, PG&E contends that the facilities at issue are not "new" but an existing line that was relocated. PG&E notes that the Resolution described the service as "two lines on a single pole, a 70 kilovolt (kV) transmission and 12 kV distribution line." The facilities, as installed now, are two lines on a single pole, a 70 kV transmission line with a 12 kV distribution underbuild. PG&E believes that it has the right and duty to modernize and upgrade its facilities to provide service. According to PG&E, the upgrading of the actual poles and wires in conjunction with the relocation required by the County was a prudent business decision for the betterment of the customers which the transmission line serves. Also, PG&E states that the cost difference for PG&E to place the facilities underground in lieu of overhead would be approximately 10-20 fold. PG&E believes that in this case, it would not be prudent to pass such costs on to ratepayers.

According to PG&E, the pole at the corner of Academy Avenue and Richert Avenue was installed in accordance with the Commission's clearance requirements, within the County right of way, and not on private property. PG&E contends that the pole is set back from the road and does not obstruct the view of drivers turning on to Academy Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Also, according to PG&E, the disputed anchor and guy wire are within the County right of way and not on private property.

PG&E argues that this relocation project did not involve new electric service to serve the subdivision, and is therefore not subject to the Resolution requirement that new utility facilities to serve the subdivision must be undergrounded.