VIII. The Role of a Maintenance Priority System in This Investigation
As stated above, when Edison violates a GO, it is subject to a penalty as provided by statute. (See, e.g., § 2107.) However, the Commission has discretion to provide notice and a cure period in lieu of a penalty, as well as discretion in determining whether and how much to penalize Edison for uncured violations of the GOs. The range of possible penalties is set by applicable statutes; criteria to be considered in making a penalty determination are set out D.98-12-075, 84 CPUC 2d 155. The fact that a utility has limited resources and may not be able to correct every violation instantly may be a factor in assessing penalties. Penalties may also be imposed in order to encourage a utility to focus its system maintenance and repairs so as to prevent death, injury, and property damage. Before discussing the penalty issue, we discuss the issue of a maintenance priority system and its role in this investigation.
Edison believes there are different safety risks associated with different types of violations, and implementing a maintenance priority system is the most cost-effective and efficient way to maintain a safe and reliable system. According to this argument, treating all failures to comply with GOs as violations will either mean that the maintenance program will be unduly expensive or that dangerous violations may be overlooked while personnel are concentrating on minor ones. Edison explains that some violations create a clear risk of serious injury or death and must be corrected immediately. Other violations create a lesser risk, and, in Edison's view, should only be corrected when workers are in the area for another reason. This is because immediate corrective action may expose workers to unnecessary risks by bringing them into a hazardous zone they would not otherwise need to enter at the time, and by distracting workers from concentrating on finding and correcting more serious violations.
In keeping with this philosophy, Edison currently uses a five-tier maintenance priority system.8 Priority 1 corrections require immediate attention because Edison believes they pose the greatest risk to public safety and system reliability. Edison assigns to Priorities 2 through 4 items that in Edison's opinion pose much less risk to public safety or system reliability, with the following intervals as a typical repair or replacement period: (a) for Priority 2 items, 60 days (or within one year for a wood pole); (b) for Priority 3 items, one year for underground facilities, 18 months for overhead facilities, and three years for wood poles; and (c) for Priority 4 items; three years for underground facilities and five years for overhead facilities and wood poles. Priority 5 items are those in which Edison believes the safety risk to employees in performing the repair is greater than the risk to the public or to system reliability in leaving the problem uncorrected. Therefore, Edison's system provides that Priority 5 items will be corrected at the next time a crew is at that structure to perform other tasks at that work level. (Edison also calls Priority 5 "opportunity maintenance.")
CPSD, on the other hand, hesitates to acknowledge that there may be useful distinctions between the timing to correct different types of violations. In CPSD's view, every rule in the GOs was adopted for sound safety reasons, and any violation of any rule creates an unacceptable risk.
In this case, we find ourselves largely in agreement with Edison. While the existence of a maintenance priority system is not a defense to a violation of a GO, it is only common sense to recognize that some violations create more serious hazards than others. For example, live electrical wires hanging into the street are more critically in need of immediate correction than replacing a cracked or missing high voltage sign at the power line level.
We disagree with Edison's suggestion that some violations are so unimportant that they don't require regular preventive maintenance. This is especially the case for many of the Priorities 3-5, which may take a year or longer to repair.9 To use the automotive analogy, Edison wants to schedule maintenance starting when the brakes fail rather than when the car leaves the showroom. Indeed, to some extent Edison's approach creates a second maintenance timeframe that begins only after the original maintenance schedules established in GO 165 have run. Ideally, Edison should be inspecting for and repairing violations of GO 95 and 128, and also should be taking corrective action to the extent possible in order to forestall violations of the GOs. Refining its maintenance priority system may help Edison achieve this goal.10
Developing more precision in Edison's maintenance priority system will also enable the utility to better comply with GO 165. That GO requires the utility to report a date certain by which required corrective action scheduled to occur during the GO's reporting period is actually performed. Similarly, GO 165 requires utilities to report numbers and percentages of equipment in need of corrective action, with a scheduled date beyond the reporting period, classified by the amount of time remaining before the scheduled action.
There should be ways to distinguish between hazards requiring immediate correction and hazards for which more time may be taken that do not involve multi-tiered and years-long corrective action schedules. This proceeding is not the forum to approve Edison's maintenance priority system or to refine it with particularity. However, we direct that Edison, in consultation with CPSD, refine its maintenance priority system, considering the following, as well as other appropriate goals:
8 Edison's maintenance priority system has changed over the course of the years that are the subject of this investigation. Prior to January 2001, Edison used a six-point numerical rating scale for its system, with the highest priority items ranked Priority 6 and the lowest priority items at Priority 1. 9 Even under Priority 2, it may take one year to repair a wood pole. 10 We note that Edison states it has further refined its maintenance priority system in response to recommendations from an expert Edison retained for this proceeding.· Decrease the amount of time for making system repairs;
· Achieve a more defined period within which system problems are repaired;
· To the extent possible, the inspectors should be capable of fixing observed system problems at the time of the inspection (i.e., the persons inspecting should also be trained to fix routine problems);
· Where Edison recommends opportunity maintenance, such as repairing high voltage signs, determine how to isolate the problem and how to make more immediate repairs that might in part remedy the problem. (See the discussion of high voltage signs below for examples.)
