VII. Edison is Required to Comply with Commission GOs; the Failure to do so is a Violation

The Commission has broad regulatory authority over the safety of utility facilities and operations. (See e.g., Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 761, 762 and 768.) Utilities are required to provide reasonable service, equipment, and facilities as necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public. (See Pub. Util. Code § 451.) In implementing its regulatory responsibilities, the Commission has adopted regulations governing safety in the form of GOs, and has also issued decisions giving guidance regarding safety policy.

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. (See e.g., Pub. Util. Code §§ 702, 2101 and 2106.) A utility's failure to comply with these statutes, GOs and decisions means a utility has violated them.

We therefore reject Edison's argument that it has not violated GOs 95, 128, or 165 unless Edison knows, or should know, of a "nonconforming condition" and that condition is not corrected according to Edison's maintenance priority system. Nothing 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," with a violation occurring at a later time determined by the utility according to its maintenance schedules.

In short, if a utility fails to comply with a GO, it is violating that GO. Moreover, the existence of a violation does not depend on the source of the violation. For instance, facilities may fall out of compliance with GO 95 or 128, and thus be in violation of these GOs, as a result of normal foreseeable deterioration, acts of God, or the intervention of third parties. This is not to say that every violation of these GOs will lead to a Commission investigation and penalties. However, GO 95 and 128 do not contain language susceptible to Edison's interpretation of them.

Contrary to Edison's arguments, this holding does not mean that the Commission has no concept of the real world, or that Edison needs to "gold-plate" its system. For instance, Edison argues that various parts of its system are subject to the various stresses of life and begin deteriorating as soon as they are built, just as new cars do once they leave the showroom floor, and it is impossible to maintain the system in a newly built condition.

The Commission does not expect utility systems to remain pristine and newly built 100% of the time. In addition to normal wear and tear, accidents, acts of God and other factors degrade the utility's system. We understand that some system deterioration is inevitable.

At the same time, because some system deterioration is inevitable, it is to a large extent generally predictable. Although a utility may not be able to predict the precise manner and the exact time a particular piece of equipment or a facility will fail, deterioration is generally predictable, so a utility can determine when a particular class of equipment or facilities is likely to deteriorate to the point that safety or reliability is impaired. In fact, Edison demonstrated that it performs this type of maintenance for some types of equipment, such as wood poles.

Just as a new car is accompanied by an owners' manual setting forth maintenance schedules that prompt car owners to have certain equipment evaluated or replaced at specified intervals, utilities such as Edison have (or should have) equivalent manuals describing the predicted trouble-free life span of various equipment and facilities. This information should assist utilities in developing inspection and maintenance schedules. In fact, as noted above, this life-span information assisted the Commission in developing the minimum inspection intervals under GO 165.