Piedmont Pines Club Homeowners Association

APPEAL OF CPUC DECISION 01-12-009:

UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES
Summary:

On December 11, 2001, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC" or "Commission") issued a decision (D.01-12-009) in its investigation into converting overhead utility lines to underground (I.00-01-005) that makes a narrow change to Rule 20, the utility rule that governs such conversions. The decision adopted by the CPUC differs significantly from the draft decision issued by the CPUC for comment in October 2001 in one key area: the CPUC eliminated the inclusion of areas of fire hazard and earthquake risk as criteria for establishing an underground utility district. (A summary of the findings of the draft and final decisions is provided below.)

The City of Oakland has filed an appeal of this decision. Unless other interested parties register their concern, Oakland does not believe its appeal will be granted full consideration. If you are a party to the case you can file formal comments; if you are not a party, you can send a letter (see below for details). A history of the case is provided below, as well.

Why Is This Important?

One of the key reasons for expanding the public safety criteria to include fire and earthquake hazards is that when utility wires come down during fires and earthquakes, as they always do, they create major hazards. The problems created by downed wires and attendant fires require substantial fire and police involvement, and could leave inadequate resources to handle other fires or problems. If wires are down, access to endangered areas is limited until the wires are deactivated; this includes access by emergency personnel. Downed wires also cannot be left unattended, so emergency personnel are diverted from other emergencies until utility staff can respond.

Including fire and earthquake hazard also will allow cities to create underground districts that are complete. Under the current criteria, in any given underground district, some of the streets will still have overhead lines. This does not resolve the problems outlined above. Broader criteria will allow cities to use limited underground conversion funds in the most cost effective manner. The Draft Decision did not authorize more money for this program, and it maintained the requirement for local government to designate underground districts through a public process accessible to all citizens.

Points To Address In Correspondence With the CPUC

Support the Petition For Modification and Application For Rehearing of D.01-12-009 filed by Oakland on January 10, 2002, in R.00-01-005.
CPUC should include fire hazard and earthquake risk as public safety criteria in the establishment of underground utility districts.
Cite to specific individual's or jurisdiction's experiences and how expanded criteria would alleviate those problems.
Note that this would not increase overall cost of the program; no additional funds are requested. This will merely make expenditure of existing funds more efficient.
State concerns about CPUC complying with intent of AB 1149.
State concern that CPUC has not even included fire hazard and earthquake risk for consideration in Phase 2 of this proceeding.

Where to send correspondence:
Address letters to each of the five Commissioners (President Loretta M. Lynch, Henry M. Duque, Richard A. Bilas, Carl W. Wood, Geoffrey Brown) at:

California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: 415/703-1758

It is especially important to send a letter to Henry Duque, as he is the lead commissioner on this case.
The Facts and Timeline:

In January 2000, the California Public Utilities Commission opened a rulemaking on converting overhead utility lines to underground (I.00-01-005). The case was prompted by legislation (Assembly Bill 1149) directing the Commission to address:

Discovering and eliminating barriers to establishing continuity of the existing underground system and ways to eliminate uneven patches of overhead facilities.
How to enhance public safety.
How to improve reliability.
How to provide more flexibility and control to local governments.

AB 1149 also gave the Commission permission to revise the rules without prior Legislative approval. It directed the CPUC to file report with the Legislature on January 1, 2001.

The CPUC conducted workshops in early 2000.
In July 2000, the City of Oakland filed a petition to amend Rule 20. Oakland's petition specifically recommended that the criteria for establishing underground utility districts be modified to include public safety. Many parties, particularly other local jurisdictions and individuals, supported this proposal.
The CPUC held public participation hearings in this case during the summer of 2000. While attendance was sparse in some parts of the state, in those areas with a preponderance of overhead utility lines there was a huge amount of interest. The CPUC had to schedule a follow-on public participation hearing in the Bay Area because so many people came to a hearing in Oakland (over 100) that there was not sufficient opportunity for all to speak. The follow-on hearing in San Francisco was nearly as heavily attended.
In August 2000, the CPUC put forward a "Preliminary Summary of Issues." Parties had an opportunity to file comments and reply comments on the summary.
Neither the "Preliminary Summary" nor any other report was filed with the Legislature in January 2001.
On April 24, 2001, Commissioner Duque sent a letter to the Legislature with his recommendations. Among them was a Phase 1 Interim Order that would "expand Rule 20A criteria to add more areas within the definition of public interest (i.e., arterial streets or major thoroughfares, and areas of fire hazard and earthquake risk)." Parties to the CPUC proceeding did not see this letter until it was released with the Draft Decision in October.
On October 4, 2001, the CPUC released the "Draft Decision of ALJ Brown." As noted above, the Draft Decision included areas of fire hazard and earthquake risk as public safety criteria. Parties had the opportunities to file comments and reply comments on the Draft Decision. In those comments, the utilities and consumer groups generally opposed the inclusion of fire and earthquake, and local governing agencies generally supported it.
The Draft Decision was to be considered on the CPUC's consent agenda for November 8, 2001. It was held on November 8, and again on November 29. On December 11, the Draft Decision was adopted off the Consent Agenda (D.01-12-009), with fire hazard and earthquake risk removed. The decision was not recirculated, because CPUC rules allow the Commission to adopt a final decision that adopts recommendations made in comments on draft decision without recirculating the decision for further comment.
On January 10, 2002, Oakland filed both an application for rehearing and a petition for modification of the decision. The application for rehearing requests rehearing on the sole issue of whether the public interest criterion should include fire and earthquake. The petition for modification requests the Commission D.01-12-009 to include areas of fire and earthquake risk, basically restoring the Draft Decision originally circulated in October.
For parties in the proceeding, responses to the application for rehearing are not necessary, but are due Friday, Jan. 25. Responses to the petition for modification must be filed and served by Monday, Feb. 11. Folks who are not parties but still want to support the application for rehearing and petition for modification can send letters to the CPUC as indicated above. It is most beneficial if letters are sent by February 11, at the latest.

Draft Decision	Final Decision (D.01-12-009)
Rule 20A criteria expanded to include arterial streets or major thoroughfares, and areas of fire hazard and earthquake risk.	Rule 20A criteria expanded to include arterial streets or major thoroughfares.
Cities allowed to use Rule 20A funds in combination with Rule 20B funds.	Cities allowed to use Rule 20A funds in combination with Rule 20B funds.
Cities allowed to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years.	Cities allowed to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years.
Utilities create a formal process whereby a point person meets quarterly with residents in queue for conversion and monthly once projects underway.	Utilities create a formal process whereby a point person meets every six months with residents in queue for conversion and once every other month once projects underway.
Utilities design standardized reporting mechanism for tracking conversion projects; file data annually with CPUC staff.	Utilities design standardized reporting mechanism for tracking conversion projects. Hold workshop to solicit input from parties prior to making a decisioin. File data annually with CPUC staff.
PG&E, Pacific Bell, League of Cities to update Undergrounding Planning Guide.	PG&E, Pacific Bell, League of Cities to update Undergrounding Planning Guide.
Sets issues for Phase 2, including: Standards for conversion projects that would allow third parties to competitively bid; Incentive mechanisms; A "breakpoint" in allowing new overhead pole and line installation or whether current exemption process is working; Cost recovery mechanism for telecommunications carriers.	Sets issues for Phase 2, including: Standards for conversion projects that would allow third parties to competitively bid; Incentive mechanisms; A "breakpoint" in allowing new overhead pole and line installation or whether current exemption process is working; Including undergrounding as a line item on utility bills ; Cost recovery mechanism for telecommunications carriers. Whether adjustments in the Rule 20A allocation formula are appropriate; Reforms that should be made by the Legislature

Open Forum :: Calendar :: Strategic Plan :: Local Issues :: PPNA Info :: Newsletter
Archives :: Home :: Photo Gallery :: Site Map

Site Design Pro Bono by Skyline-design.com a Montclair based Company