0% found this document useful (0 votes)

181 views

Appendices A C

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008, BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines

Uploaded by

L. A. Paterson

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

181 views

Appendices A C

Uploaded by

L. A. Paterson

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 159

FILED

4-01-16
04:59 PM

Appendices A-C

APPENDIX A
PG&Es Positions on SEDs Penalty Calculations
PG&E disputes SEDs alleged violations, most of which lack evidentiary support, are outside
the scope of the proceeding, or both. 1 PG&E has indicated in this Reply Brief that in some instances
its conduct, viewed in hindsight, did not meet the expectations that PG&E sets for itself when it comes
to safety. 2 For those reasons, PG&E believes that the fines imposed in this proceeding, if any, should
not exceed $33.636 million, which reflects SEDs proposed penalties in those areas where PG&E
could have done better. 3 PG&E also understands that the Commission will engage in its own
assessment of the recommended penalty in this case. Still, PG&E does not believe that SED has met
its burden of proof with respect to the violations, and the discussion in this Appendix sets forth
PG&Es position on SEDs recommended penalties. 4 While further detail is provided below, this table
summarizes PG&Es position on the maximum properly calculated fine for each of SEDs eight
Categories of violations.
Category

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

Category 1

$53.308 million

$376,000

Category 2

$16.618 million

Category 3

$24.98 million

$50,000

Category 4

$8.6 million

Category 5

$500,000

$380,000

Category 6

$450,000

Category 7

$7.12 million

Category 8

$350,000

$111.926 million

$7.926 million

Total

1
2
3
4

PG&E OB at 41-47.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 1.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 7-10.
See infra pp. A-2 to A-14.

A-1

PG&E Disagrees With SEDs Methodology for Calculating Penalties.

SED has grouped its alleged violations into eight broad categories (i.e., Category 1, Category 2,
etc.), 5 and cites multiple alleged violations within each category. Although SED has not included a
final tally of the total number of alleged violations, PG&E submits that SEDs methodology for
counting violations is frequently in error and, as a consequence, overstates the number of violations
and the resulting penalties.
1.

The Alleged Category 1 Violations Are One-Time Events, Not Continuing

Violations.

SED alleges that nearly all of the incidents it places in Category 1 constitute violations of
section 192.605(a) for failing to follow . . . written procedures to maintain and update . . . operating
maps and records. 6 As discussed in PG&Es Opening Brief, SED did not meet its burden of showing
that PG&E failed to follow specific procedures. 7 But, even if the Commission finds that PG&E did, in
fact, violate section 192.605(a), it should not adopt SEDs penalty calculation because these are not
continuing violations.
A procedurefor example, a mapping update protocolis either followed or not followed on
one occasion; an employee does not continue to fail to follow it indefinitely. SED appears to assume
that these violations are continuing because the result of the failure to update a map or record correctly
(i.e., the inaccurate map/record) may exist until it is remedied. But that is not the meaning of a
continuing violation. The Commission has illuminated this distinction. It held in D. 15-04-023 that
we note as a general matter our concurrence with PG&E that for a continuing violation to occur under
section 2108, it is the violation itself that must be ongoing, not its result. 8 If SED had applied this
Commission guidance, it would not have multiplied the number of actual violations many times over.

SED OB at 76-89.
Id. at 76.
7
PG&E OB at 43-45.
8
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co. to Determine Violations of Pub. Utils. Code Section 451, Gen. Order 112, & Other Applicable
Standards, Laws, Rules & Regulations in Connection with the San Bruno Explosion & Fire on Sept. 9, 2010, D.
15-04-023, 2015 Cal. PUC LEXIS 229, at *96 (citing People ex rel. Younger v. Super. Ct., 16 Cal. 3d 30
(1976)) (emphasis added).
6

A-2

SED also miscalculated the Milpitas Incident I penalty by multiplying the violation by the
number of customers affected by the service outage. 9 This has no basis in section 2108. It should be
disregarded.
Although PG&E does not believe that SED has met its burden of proof, even if these violations
were proven, each fine would be a one-time penalty of $2,000, $20,000, or $50,000, depending on
when the relevant procedure is deemed not to have been followed. 10 Accordingly, the following table
sets forth the maximum available penalties 11 for the alleged Category 1 violations of section
192.605(a) after adjusting for SEDs improper methodology:
Incident
Charleston Road, Mountain View

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

$5.786 million

$2,000

F Street, Sacramento

$20,000

Goodhill Road and Diablo Drive,

Kentfield

$60,000

$20,000

$5.02 million

$20,000

Guadalupe Street and 3rd Avenue,

Carmel

$20.73 million

$20,000

Main Street, Morgan Hill

$5.278 million

$2,000

Montague Expressway and Great

Mall Parkway, Milpitas
(Milpitas I)

$1.974 million

$0 12

$1.38 million

$20,000

Great Mall Parkway, Milpitas

(Milpitas II)

San Miguel Avenue, Castro Valley

SED OB at 77.
Public Utilities Code section 2107 provides the maximum penalty amount for violations committed by a
utility. For violations committed: from 1951 to December 31, 1993, the maximum penalty is $2,000 (Cal. Pub.
Util. Code 2107 (1951)); from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2011, the maximum penalty is $20,000 (Cal.
Pub. Util. Code 2107 (1993)); and, from January 1, 2012 to the present, the maximum penalty is $50,000 (Cal.
Pub. Util. Code 2107 (2012)).
11
With respect to the incidents in Mountain View and Carmel, PG&E has acknowledged that, when viewed in
hindsight, it did not meet its own expectations when it comes to safety. See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 1.
PG&E, however, has not waived any of its legal or factual arguments regarding SEDs penalty calculations. See
supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 8 n.26.
12
This incident did not involve recordkeeping. PG&E OB at B-5; Ex. 4 at 3-25:3-17 (PG&E Reply Testimony,
Higgins); see also 1/20/16 Tr. at 286:11-14 (PG&E/Higgins) (The physical record is actually correct. It is the
position of the valve, in fact, in the field that wasnt correct.).
10

A-3

Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

San Ramon Valley Boulevard,

San Ramon

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

$2.84 million

$20,000

$50,000

$6.22 million

$2,000

SF Division Leak 1

$1 million

$50,000

SF Division Leak 2

$1.3 million

$50,000

San Jose Division Leak 1

$1.05 million

$50,000

San Jose Division Leak 2

$600,000

$50,000

$53.308 million

$376,000

Tully Road, San Jose

(San Jose II)
West Ashlan Avenue, Fresno

Total
2.

Category 2 Violations
a.

The Alleged Category 2 Violations Are Duplicative and Without

Merit.

As discussed above, SED uses its Opening Brief to introduce new alleged violations for failing
to have controls in place, leading to purported systemwide failures. 13 These allegations should be
disregarded because they were raised too late. 14 Additionally, neither SED nor its consultants at PWA
purported to conduct a comprehensive review of PG&Es recordkeeping practices, and, as such, there
is no basis for such sweeping violations. 15 Although those reasons alone would be sufficient, proposed
penalties for this category are also deficient because SED has alleged duplicative and overlapping
violations. Due Process prohibits the imposition of multiple penalties for the same underlying
conduct. 16
Prior decisions by the Commission have rejected duplicative penalties based on allegations that
appear discrete at first glance, but in fact punish the substantially same actions twice. In D. 15-04-023,
for example, SED alleged two purportedly separate violations: first, that PG&E did not incorporate
13

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 40-47.

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 40-43.
15
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 43-47.
16
De Anza Santa Cruz Mobile Estates Homeowners Assn. v. De Anza Santa Cruz Mobile Estates, 94 Cal. App.
4th 890, 912 (2001) (stating that due process prohibits double penalties for the same conduct); Troensegaard
v. Silvercrest Indus., Inc., 175 Cal. App. 3d 218, 226-28 (1985) (A defendant has a due process right to be
protected against unlimited multiple punishment for the same act or substantially the same conduct).
14

A-4

the weakest element of a pipeline into its design pressure calculations, thus creating an unsafe
pipeline; and second, that PG&E lacked complete and accurate knowledge of the specifications of
the weakest element, therefore not meeting MAOP determination requirements and creating an unsafe
pipeline. 17 The Commission found no significant, bright line distinction between the two
purportedly discrete allegations and instead combined them on the ground that [b]oth pertain to
consideration of the design pressure of the weakest element. 18 Similarly, in D. 15-04-021, SED
alleged that PG&E simultaneously violated section 451 by failing to have accurate Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) diagrams, which left control room operators without
the data essential for fully understanding the transmission system, and also by failing to provide its
control room operators with accurate and useable SCADA displays, which reduced the SCADA
systems usefulness and rendered PG&Es reliance upon it unsafe. 19 The Commission found that the
second allegation was not its own separate violation but rather part of the first, as the allegations
both hinged on whether the underlying data in SCADA were inaccurate. 20 And in the Coordinated
Remedies Decision in San Bruno, the Commission excluded 19,611 days of violations for failing to
conduct hydrostatic testing in favor of consolidating the claim under a more inclusive allegation of
failing to maintain records of such testing. 21
SED asserts that its Category 2 violations are based on the incidents described in the PWA
Report, PG&Es setting of MAOP for certain distribution systems, and the missing De Anza leak
repair records. 22 These asserted violations overlap completely with violations for the same purported
conduct that SED identifies elsewhere:
17

D. 15-04-023, 2015 Cal. PUC LEXIS 229, at *137.

Id. at *137-38.
19
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co. with Respect to Facilities Records for its Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. Pipelines, D. 15-04-021, 2015
Cal. PUC LEXIS 228, at *157, 167. Part of the alleged reason that the displays were inaccurate was that the
underlying diagrams were inaccurate. Id. at *167-69.
20
Id. at *169.
21
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co. to Determine Violations of Pub. Util. Code Section 451, Gen. Order 112, & Other Applicable
Standards, Laws, Rules & Regulations in Connection with the San Bruno Explosion & Fire on Sept. 9, 2010, D.
15-04-024, Cal. PUC LEXIS 230, at *35.
22
SED OB at 79.
18

A-5

The alleged Category 2 violations premised on the failure to maintain accurate operating
maps and/or data 23 are nearly identical to the alleged Category 1 violations premised on
failing to follow . . . written procedures to maintain and update . . . operating maps and
records 24 and also the alleged Category 5 violations for failing to provide operating staff
with accurate records, maps and operating history. 25

The alleged Category 2 violations based on the absence of records to support

establishment of the MAOP for approximately 243 distribution systems 26 are identical to
the alleged Category 7 violations for failure to maintain records to establish the maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for approximately 243 distribution systems. 27

The alleged Category 2 violations premised on the missing leak repair records 28 are the
same as the alleged Category 4 violation, which is also based on the De Anza leak repair
records. 29

Because the alleged Category 2 violations are duplicative of and overlapping with other
violations, no additional fines for this category are warranted, as reflected in this table:
SEDs Recommended Fine
Incident

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

Systemwide Failure

$7.122 million

Missing De Anza Division

A Forms

$9.496 million

$16.618 million

Total
3.

Category 3 Violations

The Scoping Memo defines the question to be determined in this OII as whether PG&E
violated any applicable laws, regulations, or rules by its recordkeeping policies and practices. 30 The
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Id. at 79.
Id. at 76.
Id. at 84.
Id. at 79.
Id. at 86.
Id. at 79.
Id. at 83-84.
Scoping Memo at 3; PG&E OB at 41-42, C-2; see supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 47-49.

A-6

alleged Category 3 violations are related to PG&Es procedures to conduct causal analyses or
otherwise incorporate lessons learned from past failures. 31 PG&E agrees that learning from past
incidents is an important component of its goal to become the safest and most reliable gas utility in the
country, which is why PG&E has a robust set of causal evaluation procedures. 32 These regulations,
however, are not recordkeeping requirements and are, therefore, outside the scope of the OII.
a.

PG&Es Actions After the Mountain View Incident

Among the alleged violations for failure to conduct adequate causal analyses, SED argues that
PG&E should be penalized for failing to address the issue of unknown plastic inserts after having been
put on notice of the issue following the Mountain View incident. 33 PG&E has admitted that, with the
benefit of hindsight, it could have done more to mitigate the risks of unmapped plastic inserts. 34
PG&E agrees that this issue is properly within scope, although not for the specific regulatory violations
proffered by SED. 35 Nonetheless, assuming the Commission considers whether to assess a fine for
PG&Es conduct, SED has identified the correct time frame, July 30, 2013 to March 3, 2014. 36
b.

The Carmel Residence That Was Not on the Plat Map

In its discussion of unmapped facilities, SED references the Carmel resident who lost service
on April 6, 2015 because her gas service was not tied into a new distribution main. 37 PG&E does not
dispute that the service line at issue was not identified on the plat map. PG&E re-established gas
service to the home and updated its records accordingly. 38 The failure to update the relevant plat map

SED OB at 80-83.
Ex. 4 at 1-6:8-16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 5-21:23 to 5-22:7, 5-22:22 to 5-28:15 (PG&E
Reply Testimony, Singh).
33
SED OB at 80-81.
34
PG&E OB at 50-51; 1/20/16 Tr. at 317:19 to 318:8 (PG&E/Higgins); Ex. 4 at 3-26:18-25 (PG&E Reply
Testimony, Higgins).
35
With respect to unmapped plastic inserts, PG&E has acknowledged that, when viewed in hindsight, it did not
meet its own expectations when it comes to safety. See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 8-9. PG&E, however, has
not waived any of its legal or factual arguments regarding SEDs penalty calculations. See supra PG&E Reply
Brief p. 8 n.26
36
SED OB at 81.
37
Id. at 82.
38
Ex. 4 at 3-39:26 to 3-40:2 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
32

A-7

with this service line could constitute a one-time violation of section 192.605(a), similar to the alleged
Category 1 violations.
c.

In Addition to Being Out of Scope, the Remaining Alleged

Category 3 Violations Suffer From Other Flaws.

SED argues that PG&E should be fined $1.29 million for failing to timely investigate the
missing De Anza leak repair records. 39 Violations based on the De Anza A Forms should be barred by
fundamental notions of Due Process and fundamental notions of fairness. 40
SED also argues that PG&E should be penalized for its alleged failure to account for unknown
stubs. 41 SED appears to be basing this recommended fine on anecdotal evidence compiled by PWA
without the benefit of a comprehensive review of PG&Es stub program. SED identified three
incidents that involved unmapped stubs, and SED is elsewhere seeking penalties related to those
events. 42 Therefore, the alleged violation lacks evidentiary support, is duplicative of other alleged
violations, and should not be considered.
SED proposes a $2.51 million fine for unmapped facilities on top of a $1.93 million fine for
mismapped facilities. 43 These claims are barred for the primary reason that SED never provided
notice that it was alleging violations for such alleged systemwide deficiencies, nor could it, given the
lack of a comprehensive investigation by PWA to determine whether such conditions even exist. 44
Instead, PWA focused on a handful of individual incidents, which are appropriately before the
Commission and PG&E has addressed in its evidence and briefing. In addition, these new Category 3
allegations are plainly duplicative and overlapping. The incidents that SED argues are evidence of
failures related to unmapped facilities and mismapped facilities are the same incidents underlying
the alleged violations of sections 192.605(a) and 192.605(b)(3). 45
39

SED OB at 81.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-37.
41
SED OB at 81.
42
Id. at 53, 63-64, 67 (describing Morgan Hill, Lafayette, and San Jose II incidents as involving stubs); id. at
76-78, 84-86 (alleging penalties for Morgan Hill and San Jose II incidents); id. at 85-86, 88 (alleging penalties
for Lafayette incident).
43
Id. at 82-83.
44
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 40-47; Appendix B at pp. B-56 to B-57.
45
Compare SED OB at 82-83 with SED OB at 76-79, 84-85.
40

A-8

Last, SED alleges that PG&E failed to address difficult to locate facilities. 46 In SEDs
telling, PG&E may be susceptible to mismarking if electrical means of locating are not available. SED
cannot sustain this violation, as a factual matter, in light of Mr. Higginss lengthy and uncontroverted
testimony on PG&Es locate-and-mark organization, resources, procedures, and tools. 47 Additionally,
SEDs description of this alleged violation, which references locating and marking techniques, makes
clear that this is an alleged operational violation, and not a recordkeeping issue. It is therefore out of
scope.
d.

The Maximum Properly Calculated Fine for the Alleged Category 3

Violations Is Far Less Than SEDs Recommendation.

The following table summarizes the maximum penalties for the alleged Category 3 violations
when adjusting for those parts of SEDs methodology with which PG&E disagrees, as discussed
above.
Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

Unknown Plastic Inserts

(Mountain View and Carmel)

$10.8 million

Investigation into Missing Leak

Repair Records

$1.29 million

$6.8 million

Unknown Stubs

$50,000 48

Unmapped Facilities

$2.51 million

Mismapped Facilities

$1.93 million

Difficult to Locate Facilities

$1.65 million

$24.98 million

$50,000

Total
4.

For Reasons Already Discussed, the Alleged Category 4 Violation Related

to the De Anza A Forms Should Be Disregarded.

In its Category 4 violations, SED seeks its third separate penalty related to the missing De Anza
A Forms, based on PG&Es alleged failure to timely disclose information about this issue. 49 The PWA

46
47
48
49

Id. at 83.
Ex. 4 at 3-5:17 to 3-23:20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
April 6, 2015 Santa Fe Avenue, Carmel incident. See SED OB at 82.
SED OB at 83-84.

A-9

Report showed that SED was aware of the missing records, but asserted no corresponding alleged
violations. 50 Thus, PG&E could not have known these records would be at issue, because SED gave
no timely notice of its intention to seek penalties related to the leak repair records, 51 notwithstanding
the fact that PG&E fully disclosed the existence of the missing records in discovery. 52 No penalty is
appropriate for the alleged Category 4 violation.
Incident
Disclosure of Missing De Anza
Leak Repair Records
5.

SEDs Recommended Fine

$8.6 million

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine
$0

PG&E Generally Does Not Dispute SEDs Calculation of the Alleged

Category 5 Penalties.

SED groups the alleged violations of section 192.605(b)(3) in Category 5. These violations
were identified in the PWA Report, and PG&E responded on the merits in its Opening Brief. 53 PG&E
maintains the procedures that are required to be maintained under section 192.605(b)(3). 54 SEDs
attempt to read into the regulation a substantive requirement that all records made available to field
personnel must be perfect is not found anywhere in the text of the regulation and is inconsistent with
the federal pipeline safety regulations and the associated guidance. 55 What is new in SEDs Opening
Brief is that SED has amended these violations to include an additional violation under section 451. 56
PG&E does not believe that the late addition of this violation supersedes the plain language of section
192.605(b)(3) to support the notion that section 451 includes a substantive requirement of perfect
records even if the federal regulation does not. For reasons explained above, untimely allegations such
as these new section 451 violations should be disregarded. 57 The section 451 violations should be
rejected for the additional reason that there is no regulatory requirement that all pipeline records be
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

See Ex. 1 at 90 attch. B (PWA Report).

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 34-37.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 37-40.
PG&E OB at 45-48.
Id. at 45-47.
Id.
SED OB at 84-85.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33.

A-10

perfect and therefore that to penalize each instance of an imperfection would create a requirement that
does not exist and with which no pipeline operator in the nation could comply. 58
Although PG&E does not contest the Mountain View incident and, therefore, agrees that the
maximum fine is $50,000, 59 PG&E stands by the arguments expressed above. Otherwise, if the
Commission were to impose penalties in connection with these alleged violations, PG&E generally
does not disagree with SEDs calculations, as shown in the following table:
Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine
$0 60

Grimes/Arbuckle Road and First

Street, Colusa

$20,000

San Ramon Valley Boulevard,

San Ramon

$20,000

San Miguel Avenue,

Castro Valley

$20,000

Harding Boulevard, Roseville

$20,000

F Street, Sacramento

$20,000

Main Street, Morgan Hill

$50,000

Great Mall Parkway, Milpitas

(Milpitas II)

$50,000

$50,000
$0 61

Montague Expressway, Milpitas

(Milpitas I)

$100,000

Charleston Road, Mountain View

$50,000

Guadalupe Street and 3rd Avenue,

Carmel

$50,000

West Ashlan Avenue, Fresno

$50,000

Tully Road, San Jose

(San Jose II)

$50,000

$500,000

$380,000

Total

See PG&E OB at 30-41, 45-47 (discussing the lack of regulatory support for PWAs proposed standard of
care that would require zero defects in an operators records, and stating that such a standard is unattainable).
59
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 9.
60
This is neither a distribution incident nor a recordkeeping incident and is therefore out of scope. See infra
Appendix B at p. B-5.
61
This is not a recordkeeping incident and is therefore out of scope. See infra Appendix B at p. B-10.

A-11

SEDs Alleged Category 6 Locate and Mark Violations Are Out of Scope.

As discussed in Appendix C to PG&Es Opening Brief, SEDs numerous alleged violations of

the operational standards for locating and marking underground facilities are not recordkeeping
violations and do not belong in this proceeding. 62 49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and California
Government Code 4216.3(a)(1) do not prescribe how records should be created, maintained, or
accessed, and, thus, these alleged violations should be disregarded, as reflected in the following table:
Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

San Ramon Valley Boulevard, San

Ramon

$20,000

San Miguel Avenue,

Castro Valley

$20,000

Harding Boulevard, Roseville

$20,000

Goodhill Road and Diablo Drive,

Kentfield

$20,000

F Street, Sacramento

$20,000

Main Street, Morgan Hill

$50,000

Great Mall Parkway, Milpitas

(Milpitas II)

$50,000

Danville Road, Alamo

$50,000

Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette

$50,000

Palou Avenue, San Francisco

$50,000

West Ashlan Avenue, Fresno

$50,000

Tully Road, San Jose

(San Jose II)

$50,000

$450,000

Total
7.

PG&E Disagrees With the Alleged Violations but Does Not Dispute SEDs
Calculation of the Proposed Fine for the Category 7 MAOP Violations.

PG&Es arguments regarding SEDs allegations concerning the Companys use of an

alternative method to set MAOP for approximately 243 gas distribution systems have been well
briefed 63 and will not be repeated here. While PG&E does not agree that SED has shown that PG&E
62
63

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 41-42; Appendix C at pp. C-3 to C-4.
PG&E OB at 56-62.

A-12

violated the pipeline safety regulations in connection with the setting of MAOP on these systems, if the
Commission finds PG&E in violation, PG&E does not disagree with SEDs maximum fine calculation.
Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

MAOP-Associated Violations
8.

$7.12 million

PG&Es Suggested
Maximum Fine
$7.12 million

The Other Violations Grouped in Category 8 Are All Outside the Scope of
the OII.

SEDs alleged Category 8 violations include various alleged regulatory violations, most of
which were already addressed in PG&Es Opening Brief, and are all outside the scope of the
proceeding. 64 PG&E has already established that the Colusa, Antioch, Alameda, and Market Street,
San Jose I incidents are not related to recordkeeping and are therefore out of scope. 65 The other
violations alleged in Category 8 concern matters that are plainly operational and not recordkeepingrelated, such as the obligation to perform leak surveys, 66 the installation of tracer wire, 67 locating and
marking during emergency conditions, 68 and deactivation of abandoned mains. 69 These alleged
violations should be disregarded, as follows:

PG&E OB at 41-42, B-2 to B-7.

Id. at B-2 to B-7.
66
Id. at C-2.
67
Id. at C-3.
68
Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451 (not incorporating any specific recordkeeping requirements or standards); SED
OB at 88 (applying Public Utilities Code section 451 to PG&Es locating and marking activities during
emergency conditions).
69
Id. at C-3.
65

A-13

Incident

SEDs Recommended Fine

Maximum Properly
Calculated Fine

Colusa (Gas Transmission)

$40,000

San Ramon

$40,000

Antioch

$40,000

Alameda

$40,000

Kentfield

$20,000

Alamo

$50,000

Lafayette

$20,000

San Jose I

$100,000

Total

$350,000

A-14

APPENDIX B
Incidents and Alleged Violations
Incidents Not Related to Recordkeeping & Outside of Scope

Page

Alameda, Aughinbaugh Way (Sept. 28, 2010) ............................................................................B-3

Colusa, Grimes/Arbuckle Road and First Street (Mar. 19, 2009) ...............................................B-5
Antioch, Lonetree Way and James Donlon Boulevard (Mar. 15, 2010) .....................................B-8
Milpitas, Montague Expressway and Great Mall Parkway (Oct. 10, 2012) (Milpitas I).............B-9
San Francisco, Palou Avenue (Apr. 8, 2014).............................................................................B-11
San Jose, S. Market Street (Nov. 7, 2014) (San Jose I) .............................................................B-12
Incidents Potentially Related to Recordkeeping

Page

Mountain View, Charleston Road (July 30, 2013) ....................................................................B-13

Alamo, Danville Road (July 24, 2013) ......................................................................................B-15
Sacramento, F Street (Oct. 31, 2011).........................................................................................B-18
Kentfield, Goodhill Road and Diablo Drive (Apr. 1, 2011) ......................................................B-21
Milpitas, Great Mall Parkway (Mar. 4, 2013) (Milpitas II).......................................................B-23
Carmel, Guadalupe Street and 3rd Avenue (Mar. 3, 2014) .......................................................B-26
Roseville, Harding Boulevard (Oct. 21, 2010) ..........................................................................B-28
Morgan Hill, Main Street (June 21, 2012).................................................................................B-30
Lafayette, Pleasant Hill Road (Aug. 27, 2013)..........................................................................B-33
Castro Valley, San Miguel Avenue (Sept. 17, 2010).................................................................B-35
San Ramon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Aug. 12, 2009).....................................................B-38
San Jose, Tully Road (Jan. 20, 2015) (San Jose II) ...................................................................B-41
Fresno, West Ashlan Avenue (Sept. 24, 2014)..........................................................................B-43
Alleged Violations Not Related to Specific Incidents

Page

SED Inspection of San Francisco Division Leak 1.................................................................B-46

SED Inspection of San Francisco Division Leak 2.................................................................B-47
SED Inspection of San Jose Division Leak 1 .........................................................................B-48
SED Inspection of San Jose Division Leak 2 .........................................................................B-49
MAOP-Associated Violations ...................................................................................................B-50
Systemwide Failure....................................................................................................................B-51

Missing De Anza Division Leak Records..................................................................................B-52

Unknown Plastic Inserts ............................................................................................................B-53
Lack of Timely Investigation Into Missing Leak Repair Records.............................................B-54
Failure to Account for Unknown Stubs .....................................................................................B-55
Failure to Account for Unmapped Facilities..............................................................................B-56
Mismapped Facilities .................................................................................................................B-57
Failure to Address Difficult to Locate Facilities........................................................................B-58
Failure to Disclose the Missing De Anza Division Records in Response to the OII.................B-59

Incidents Not Related to Recordkeeping & Outside of Scope

x
x
x

ALAMEDA, AUGHINBAUGH WAY (SEPT. 28, 2010)

This incident involved third-party damage to a plastic main. 1
The plat map for the location was and is accurate. 2 The cause of the inaccurate locate and mark was likely that the locator misunderstood the
position of the property line from which he calculated his marks. 3
There were no reported injuries. 4
SED Alleged
Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping: 5

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that
PG&E failed to
follow WP 441203, in violation of
section
192.605(a). 6

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x This is not a recordkeeping incident.
x SED initially described this incident as a thirdparty dig-in resulting from an inaccurate
PG&E map. 7
x PG&E clarified that the plat map was, in fact,
correct, but the locator misunderstood the
position of the property line from which he
calculated his marks. 8
x SED has not proven that PG&E failed to
prepare or follow a specific recordkeeping
standard or procedure when the record was
created, as required by section 192.605(a),
because WP 4412-03 is not a recordkeeping
procedure. 9

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.605(a). 10

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted
because the incident is out of
scope, and SED has not met its
burden of proof. 11

B-3
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

ALAMEDA, AUGHINBAUGH WAY (SEPT. 28, 2010)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

NonRecordkeeping: 12

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R.
192.614(c)(5) and
Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that
PG&E failed to
provide accurate
temporary marking
for its subsurface
facilities, in
violation of
sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 13

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt Code

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1)
Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing requirements x SED proposes a penalty of
for written damage prevention programs, does
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
not relate to recordkeeping. 14 Moreover,
one-time violation of
PG&Es Damage Prevention Handbook, first
sections 192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 17
published in Oct. 2013 and updated in March
2014, complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were deficient. 15
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing Locating and
Field Marking of Subsurface Installations,
does not relate to recordkeeping. 16

B-4
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty
Non-Recordkeeping:
49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.
Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted
because the incident and the
violations are out of scope. 18
x Furthermore, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 19

x
x

COLUSA, GRIMES/ARBUCKLE ROAD AND FIRST STREET (MAR. 19, 2009)

A PG&E crew foreman performing excavation work did not understand that a symbol on the plat map indicated the potential presence of an
offset. 20
As a result, a PG&E gas crew dug into a main that had not been marked. 21 There were no reported injuries. 22
Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 23

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x This incident occurred on a
transmission line and is therefore out
of scope. 24
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such procedures. 25
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 26
x Regardless, there is no evidence that
the plat map was inaccurate.
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 27 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 28

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident is out of scope, and
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 29
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, no
penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 30

B-5
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

COLUSA, GRIMES/ARBUCKLE ROAD AND FIRST STREET (MAR. 19, 2009)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and

Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
did not follow an
unspecified locate and
mark procedure and did
not locate and mark all
subsurface facilities
within the delineated
area, in violation of
sections 192.605(a) and
4216.3(a)(1). 31

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x This is not a recordkeeping incident.
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a),
because SED does not cite any
recordkeeping procedure. 32
x This incident occurred on a
transmission line, not a distribution
line. 33
x SED investigated this incident in
2010 and did not issue any Notice of
Violation or a fine. 34
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 35

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
violation of sections
192.605(a) and 4216.3(a)(1). 36

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and the violations 37
are out of scope, and SED has
not met its burden of proof. 38
x Moreover, SED investigated this
incident in 2010 and did not
issue any Notice of Violation or
a fine. 39

B-6
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

COLUSA, GRIMES/ARBUCKLE ROAD AND FIRST STREET (MAR. 19, 2009)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.805(h)*
x SED alleges that PG&Es
L&M staff had
experience, training, and
qualifications
inconsistent with thenapplicable mapping
standards, in violation of
section 192.805(h). 40

49 C.F.R. 192.805(h)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.805(h) violation in its direct
testimony, and should be therefore
barred from raising the new claim. 41
x Section 192.805(h), requiring
operators to have written
qualification programs that include
certain training requirements, is
unrelated to recordkeeping. 42
Moreover, SED has not met its
burden to prove this violation. 43

49 C.F.R. 192.805(h)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.805(h). 44

49 C.F.R. 192.805(h)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and violation are out
of scope, and because SED has
not met its burden of proof. 45
x Furthermore, due process
requires PG&E to have received
notice of the section 192.805(h)
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 46

B-7
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

ANTIOCH, LONETREE WAY AND JAMES DONLON BOULEVARD (MAR. 15, 2010)
This incident arose out of construction work in which a third-party contractor struck a plastic gas main while excavating. 47
The locator used electrical means to mark out the line, but the signal emanating from the line was incorrect and caused the locator to mismark. 48
There were no reported injuries. 49
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow WP
4412-03, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 50

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x This is not a recordkeeping incident.
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a),
because WP 4412-03 is not a
recordkeeping procedure. 51

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.605(a). 52

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and violation 53 are
out of scope, and because SED
has not met its burden of proof. 54

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 55

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 56 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were deficient. 57
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 58

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 59

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and violations are
out of scope. 60
x Furthermore, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 61

B-8
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x
x

MILPITAS, MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY AND GREAT MALL PARKWAY (OCT. 10, 2012) (MILPITAS I)
A PG&E crew, preparing to conduct a distribution main transfer, plugged the northern end of the existing steel pipeline and tapped and plugged
the southern end of it. 62
The pressure gauge was not monitored from approximately 1145 hours to 1300 hours. 63
At approximately 1245 hours, PG&E received notices of gas outages. 64
A 2-inch plug valve which appeared open on the plat map was in fact closed, thereby preventing gas from being fed from an alternate feed and
resulting in the service outage. 65
There were no reported injuries or property damage. 66
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow Standards
A-93.1 and D-S0454,
which require that
personnel be assigned to
monitor pressure during
field work, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 67

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$1.974 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 69
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a $2,000 fine for
each customer impacted (987
x $2,000 = $1.974 million). 70

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and violation 71 are
out of scope, and because SED
has not met its burden of proof. 72

B-9
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x
x

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 73

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such procedures. 74
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 75
x Regardless, the map most likely
showed the correct valve position. 76
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 77 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$100,000 for PG&Es alleged
violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 78
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on two alleged
occasions when inaccurate
information was provided
($50,000 x 2 = $100,000). 79

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident is out of scope, and
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 80
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of proof. 81

Non-Recordkeeping:
x

None

N/A

B-10
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

N/A

x
x

SAN FRANCISCO, PALOU AVENUE (APR. 8, 2014)

This incident involved a PG&E excavation crew digging into a service line due to a failure to mark the main. 82
There were no reported injuries. 83
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

x
x

SED alleges no
recordkeeping failure. 84

This is not a recordkeeping incident.

SED does not allege that the incident
was the result of an inaccurate or
missing record. 85

N/A

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 86

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 87 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. 88
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 89

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 90

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and the violations
are out of scope. 91
x Furthermore, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5). 92

B-11
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

SAN JOSE, S. MARKET STREET (NOV. 7, 2014) (SAN JOSE I)

PG&E and the excavator failed to mutually agree on or reschedule a locate and mark. 93
On the date of the incident, the excavator began digging before PG&E was able to apply field marks to the excavation site, resulting in a dig-in to
a plastic distribution main. 94
There were no reported injuries. 95
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

Recordkeeping:

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow the rule
for making direct contact
in PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook
TD-5811M, in violation
of section 192.605(a). 96

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x This is not a recordkeeping incident. x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
x There is no allegation that PG&Es
one-time violation of section
maps were incorrect or that records
192.605(a). 99
contributed in any way to this
incident. 97
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a),
because the rule for making direct
contact in PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook TD-5811 is not
a recordkeeping procedure. 98

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and violation 100 are
out of scope, and because SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 101

Non-Recordkeeping:

Cal. Govt Code

4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to locate and mark
its subsurface facilities,
in violation of section
4216.3(a)(1). 102

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)

x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 103

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)

x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
4216.3(a)(1). 104

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)

x No penalty is warranted because
the incident and the violation are
out of scope. 105

B-12
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

Recordkeeping:

Incidents Potentially Related to Recordkeeping

x
x
x
x

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CHARLESTON ROAD (JULY 30, 2013)

This incident arose out of a construction project in which the PG&E crew was unaware that a steel service line casing involved in its welding
work had an inserted plastic line. 106
The plastic insert, which PG&E believes was installed some time between 1972 and the mid-1980s, was neither identified in the construction
documents nor on the plat map. 107
A PG&E welder welded a tap fitting onto the steel service line and the insert melted, causing a release of gas. 108
There were no reported injuries. 109
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
did not follow an
unspecified procedure to
keep its maps and records
updated and accurate, in
violation of section
192.605(a). 110

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a),
because SED does not cite any
recordkeeping procedure. 111

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $5.786 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 112
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from June 1972 to
July 30, 2013:
o 6/1/1972 to 12/31/1993:
$2,000 monthly. 113
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 114
o 1/1/2012 to 7/30/2013:
$50,000 monthly. 115

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 116
x Although PG&E disagrees that
SED has proven the alleged
violations, PG&E acknowledges
that it did not meet the
expectations it sets for itself.
Therefore, if the Commission
finds that violations have
occurred, PG&E agrees that the
maximum penalty is $5.786
million. 117

B-13
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CHARLESTON ROAD (JULY 30, 2013)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 118

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x PG&E does not contest the violation
of section 192.605(b)(3). 119
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 120

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 121

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x PG&E does not contest the
alleged violation of section
192.605(b)(3) and acknowledges
that it did not meet the
expectations it sets for itself.
Therefore, if the Commission
finds that the violation has
occurred, PG&E agrees that the
maximum penalty is $50,000. 122
x No penalty is warranted for the
section 451 violation because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony, and to the
extent the violation overlaps
with the section 192.605(b)(3)
violation, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 123

Non-Recordkeeping:
x

Withdrawn. 124

N/A

B-14
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

N/A

x
x
x
x

ALAMO, DANVILLE ROAD (JULY 24, 2013)

This incident involved construction work in which a locator was unable to precisely locate a pipe due to flooding in the area of excavation, which
reduced his instruments capabilities. 125
The available map showed the pipes general location but not its exact footage or specifications. 126
The locator instructed the contractor to hand-dig but the contractor failed to do so, and while digging mechanically he struck the pipe. 127
There were no reported injuries. 128
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

SED does not allege any

recordkeeping failure. 129

N/A

B-15
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

N/A

x
x
x
x

ALAMO, DANVILLE ROAD (JULY 24, 2013)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
personnel left the work
site without locating its
gas lines, in violation of
sections 192.614(c)(5)
and 4216.3(a)(1). 130

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x The pipe could not be located
precisely due to flooded
conditions. 131
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 132
x Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 133 Indeed,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 134
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 135

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 136

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 137
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 192.614(c)(5)
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 138
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 139

B-16
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x

ALAMO, DANVILLE ROAD (JULY 24, 2013)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451

x SED alleges that PG&E
personnel left the work
site during an emergency
without locating its gas
lines, in violation of
section 451. 140

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451

x The pipe could not be located
precisely due to flooded
conditions. 141 SED has not identified
any recordkeeping issue. 142
x Section 451 does not incorporate any
specific recordkeeping requirements
or standards. 143

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451

x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
451. 144

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451

x No penalty is warranted because
the violation is out of scope. 145

B-17
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SACRAMENTO, F STREET (OCT. 31, 2011)

This incident involved a contractor striking and damaging a mismarked plastic service line. 146 The mismark was due to the line not being
accurately mapped to reflect the presence of two offsets. 147
There were no reported injuries. 148
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 149

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 150
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 151

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.605(a). 152

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. In addition,
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 153

B-18
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SACRAMENTO, F STREET (OCT. 31, 2011)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 154

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 155
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 156
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 157 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 158

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 159
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 160

B-19
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SACRAMENTO, F STREET (OCT. 31, 2011)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 161

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 162 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 163
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 164

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 165

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 166
x In addition, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 167

B-20
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

KENTFIELD, GOODHILL ROAD AND DIABLO DRIVE (APR. 1, 2011)

This incident arose out of construction work in which a water contractor was excavating and hit a plastic main that was not indicated on the plat
map and on which PG&E had failed to install tracer wire. 168
There were no reported injuries. 169
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 170

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 171
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 172

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $60,000 for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 173
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 12/23/2010 to
4/1/2011: $20,000 monthly. 174

Withdrawn. 176

N/A

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.321(e)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to install tracer
wire on a replacement
plastic main, in violation
of section 192.321(e). 177

49 C.F.R. 192.321(e)
x Section 192.321(e), addressing the
installation of tracer wire when
installing plastic pipe, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 178

49 C.F.R. 192.321(e)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.321(e). 179

49 C.F.R. 192.321(e)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violation is out of scope. 180

B-21
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

KENTFIELD, GOODHILL ROAD AND DIABLO DRIVE (APR. 1, 2011)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to mark a plastic
main in the area of
excavation, in violation
of sections 192.614(c)(5)
and 4216.3(a)(1). 181

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 182 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 183
x SED did not allege a section
4216.3(a)(1) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 184
Moreover, Section 4216.3(a)(1),
addressing Locating and Field
Marking of Subsurface Installations,
does not relate to recordkeeping. 185

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 186

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 187
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 4216.3(a)(1)
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 188
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 189

B-22
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MILPITAS, GREAT MALL PARKWAY (MAR. 4, 2013) (MILPITAS II)

A third-party contractor was excavating to install a sewer main when it dug into a plastic distribution main. 190
The nearest Electronic Test Station (ETS) that the locate crew should have used to connect the tracer equipment was not indicated on the plat
map, leading the crew to use a remote ETS, which resulted in a mis-mark. 191
There were no injuries. 192
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 193

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 194
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 195

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $5.02 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 196
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 1994 to
3/4/2013:
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 197
o 1/1/2012 to 3/4/2013:
$50,000 monthly. 198

B-23
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MILPITAS, GREAT MALL PARKWAY (MAR. 4, 2013) (MILPITAS II)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 200

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 201
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 202
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 203 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 204

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 205
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 206

B-24
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MILPITAS, GREAT MALL PARKWAY (MAR. 4, 2013) (MILPITAS II)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 207

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 208
x Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 209 Indeed,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 210
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 211

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 212

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 213
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
violations when SED filed its
direct testimony. 214
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 215

B-25
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

CARMEL, GUADALUPE STREET AND 3RD AVENUE (MAR. 3, 2014)

This incident arose out of a construction project in which the PG&E crew was unaware that a steel pipe involved in their welding and tapping
work had an inserted plastic main. 216
The plastic main, which was installed sometime in 1997 or 1998, was not reflected on the plat map provided to the contractors and PG&E
welding crews. 217
In the course of welding and tapping a save-a-valve on the steel pipe to install a pressure gauge, a PG&E welder tapped into the plastic main,
causing a release of gas that led to the explosion of a nearby home. 218
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to keep its maps
and records updated and
accurate, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 219

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $20.73 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 221
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 7/17/1997 to
3/3/2014:
o 7/17/1997 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 weekly. 222
o 1/1/2012 to 3/3/2014:
$50,000 weekly. 223

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 224
x Although PG&E disagrees that
SED has proven the alleged
violation, PG&E acknowledges
that it did not meet the
expectations it sets for itself.
Therefore, if the Commission
finds that a violation has
occurred, PG&E agrees that the
maximum penalty is $9.88
milion, which is equivalent to
SEDs proposed penalty reduced
by the $10.85 million that PG&E
has already paid in connection
with the Carmel incident. 225

B-26
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

CARMEL, GUADALUPE STREET AND 3RD AVENUE (MAR. 3, 2014)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 226

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 227
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 228
x To the extent SED alleges section
192.605(b)(3) is the basis for the
alleged section 451 violation, the
same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 229

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 230
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 231

Non-Recordkeeping:
x

Withdrawn. 232

N/A

B-27
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

N/A

x
x

ROSEVILLE, HARDING BOULEVARD (OCT. 21, 2010)

This incident involved third-party damage due to an inaccurate mark-out of a plastic main. 233 The plat map incorrectly showed the main to be
located in a joint trench, when in fact it was in an offset trench. 234
There were no reported injuries. 235
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 236

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 237
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 238
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 239 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 240

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 241
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 242

B-28
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

ROSEVILLE, HARDING BOULEVARD (OCT. 21, 2010)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 244
x Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 245 Indeed,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 246
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 247

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 248

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 249
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 192.614(c)(5)
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 250
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 251

B-29
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MORGAN HILL, MAIN STREET (JUNE 21, 2012)

A third-party contractor was excavating to install a new water main when he struck a steel gas service line, partially pulling the service tee off of
its connection to the steel main and resulting in the release of gas. 252
The damaged service line was deactivated at the property line in 1966 but the plat map was not updated to show it was a stub, and it remained on
the map as a complete service. 253 Because of the inaccurate map, the service was not visible in the field and was difficult to locate. 254
There were no injuries or property damage as a result of this incident. 255
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
procedure TD-9500P-16,
Deactivation and/or
Retirement of
Underground Gas
Facilities, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 256

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $5.278 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 258
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from July 1966 until
6/21/2012:
o 7/1/1966 to 12/31/1993:
$2,000 monthly. 259
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 260
o 1/1/2012 to 6/21/2012:
$50,000 monthly. 261

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violation is out of scope, 262
and SED has not met its burden
of proof. 263

B-30
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MORGAN HILL, MAIN STREET (JUNE 21, 2012)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 264

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 265
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 266
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 267 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 268

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 269
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 270

B-31
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

MORGAN HILL, MAIN STREET (JUNE 21, 2012)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 272
x Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 273 Indeed,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 274
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 275

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 276

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 277
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 192.614(c)(5)
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 278
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 279

Withdrawn. 280

N/A

B-32
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

N/A

x
x
x

LAFAYETTE, PLEASANT HILL ROAD (AUG. 27, 2013)

This incident involved third-party damage to a service line due to an inaccurate plat map. 281
The line had been removed from the map on account of an incorrect gas service record which indicated the service line was cut off. 282
There were no reported injuries. 283
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and

192.727(b)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow GTS
Standard S4129, which is
a procedure related to
cutting off services at the
main, and failed to
abandon or deactivate its
gas facilities, in violation
of sections 192.605(a)
and 192.727(b). 284

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and 192.727(b)

x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare, maintain, or follow
a specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because GTS Standard
S4129 is not a recordkeeping
procedure. 285
x Section 192.727(b), which addresses
the deactivation of abandoned mains,
does not relate to recordkeeping. 286

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and

192.727(b)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(a) and 192.727(b). 287

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a) and

192.727(b)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope, 288
and SED has not met its burden
of proof. 289

B-33
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x

LAFAYETTE, PLEASANT HILL ROAD (AUG. 27, 2013)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 290

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 291 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 292
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 293

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 294

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 295
x In addition, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 296

B-34
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x

CASTRO VALLEY, SAN MIGUEL AVENUE (SEPT. 17, 2010)

This incident involved a construction project to dig a new storm drain. 297
A third-party contractor began work digging the drain when he struck a plastic service line that did not appear on the plat map. 298
Both 2005 and 2010 five-year leak surveys were conducted on this plat map. 299
There were no reported injuries. 300
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
did not follow its
Standard UO S4460 to
keep its maps updated
and accurate, in violation
of section 192.605(a). 301

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a). 302
x SED has cited the wrong standard, as
UO S4460 applies to transmission
lines. 303

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.38 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 304
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 2005 to
8/17/2010: $20,000
monthly. 305

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 306

B-35
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x

CASTRO VALLEY, SAN MIGUEL AVENUE (SEPT. 17, 2010)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 307

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 308
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 309
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 310 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 311

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 312
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 313

B-36
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x
x
x

CASTRO VALLEY, SAN MIGUEL AVENUE (SEPT. 17, 2010)

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 315
x Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 316 Indeed,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 317
x SED did not allege a section
4216.3(a)(1) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 318
Moreover, section 4216.3(a)(1),
addressing Locating and Field
Marking of Subsurface Installations,
does not relate to recordkeeping. 319

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 320

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 321
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the violations when SED filed its
direct testimony. 322
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 323

B-37
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SAN RAMON, SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD (AUG. 12, 2009)

This incident involved third-party damage to an unmarked service line, which did not accurately appear on the plat map. 324
There were no reported injuries. 325
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 326

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 327
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 328

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $2.84 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 329
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 10/14/1997 to
8/12/2009: $20,000
monthly. 330

B-38
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SAN RAMON, SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD (AUG. 12, 2009)

This incident involved third-party damage to an unmarked service line, which did not accurately appear on the plat map. 324
There were no reported injuries. 325
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 332

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 333
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 334
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 335 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 336

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 337
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 338

B-39
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SAN RAMON, SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD (AUG. 12, 2009)

This incident involved third-party damage to an unmarked service line, which did not accurately appear on the plat map. 324
There were no reported injuries. 325
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 339

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 340 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. Nor is
there any evidence that prior damage
prevention practices were
deficient. 341
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 342

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$20,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 343

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 344
x In addition, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5), and
there is no evidence that past
damage prevention practices
were deficient. 345

49 C.F.R. 192.723(b)(2)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to perform leak
surveys of the service
line since its installation
which occurred prior to
October 14, 1997, in
violation of section
192.723(b)(2). 346

49 C.F.R. 192.723(b)(2)
49 C.F.R. 192.723(b)(2)
x Section 192.723(b)(2), addressing the x SED proposes a total penalty
frequency with which leak surveys
of $40,000 for PG&Es
must be conducted, does not relate to
alleged violation of section
recordkeeping. 347
192.723(b)(2). 348
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 10/14/1997 to
8/12/2009: $20,000 once
every five years. 349

49 C.F.R. 192.723(b)(2)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violation is out of scope. 350

B-40
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SAN JOSE, TULLY ROAD (JAN. 20, 2015) (SAN JOSE II)
This incident involved an unmapped steel stub that was not marked and that a contractor dug into. 351
There were no reported injuries. 352
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow Mapping
Standard 410.2-1, in
violation of section
192.605(a). 353

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure,
including Mapping Standard 410.2-1,
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a). 354

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of section
192.605(a). 355

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 356

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 357

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 358
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 359
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 360 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 361

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 362
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 363

B-41
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5)
and Cal. Govt Code
4216.3(a)(1)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to provide accurate
temporary marking for its
subsurface facilities, in
violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 364

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x Section 192.614(c)(5), addressing
requirements for written damage
prevention programs, does not relate
to recordkeeping. 365 Moreover,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. 366
x Section 4216.3(a)(1), addressing
Locating and Field Marking of
Subsurface Installations, does not
relate to recordkeeping. 367

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 368

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 369
x In addition, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5). 370

B-42
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

FRESNO, WEST ASHLAN AVENUE (SEPT. 24, 2014)

This incident involved a dig-in to an unmapped service line offset. 371
There were no reported injuries. 372
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow Mapping
Standard 410.21-1, in
violation of section
192.605(a). 373

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure,
including Mapping Standard 410.211, when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a). 374

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $6.22 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 375
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 8/1/1983 to
9/24/2014:
o 8/1/1983 to 12/31/1993:
$2,000 monthly. 376
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 377
o 1/1/2012 to 9/24/2014:
$50,000 monthly. 378

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 379

B-43
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

FRESNO, WEST ASHLAN AVENUE (SEPT. 24, 2014)

This incident involved a dig-in to an unmapped service line offset. 371
There were no reported injuries. 372
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3)
and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
provided inaccurate maps
and records to field
personnel, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(3)
and 451. 380

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal. Pub.

Util. Code 451*
x SED has not shown that PG&Es
O&M Manual lacked procedures for
making maps/records available, as
required by section 192.605(b)(3).
PG&E maintained such
procedures. 381
x Section 192.605(b)(3) does not speak
to records accuracy or require that
records be perfect. 382
x SED did not allege a section 451
violation in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claim. 383 To the extent SED
alleges section 192.605(b)(3) is the
basis for the alleged section 451
violation, the same arguments apply.

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.605(b)(3) and 451. 384

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(3) and Cal.

Pub. Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 385
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the section 451 violation when
SED filed its direct testimony,
and to the extent the violation
overlaps with the section
192.605(b)(3) violation, SED
has not met its burden of
proof. 386

B-44
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

FRESNO, WEST ASHLAN AVENUE (SEPT. 24, 2014)

This incident involved a dig-in to an unmapped service line offset. 371
There were no reported injuries. 372
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal. Govt

Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.614(c)(5) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 388
Moreover, this section addresses
requirements for written damage
prevention programs and does not
relate to recordkeeping. 389 Finally,
PG&Es Damage Prevention
Handbook, first published in Oct.
2013 and updated in March 2014,
complies with the regulation. 390
x SED did not allege a section
4216.3(a)(1) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 391
Moreover, section 4216.3(a)(1),
addressing Locating and Field
Marking of Subsurface Installations,
does not relate to recordkeeping. 392

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and

Cal. Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x SED proposes a penalty of
$50,000 for PG&Es alleged
one-time violation of sections
192.614(c)(5) and
4216.3(a)(1). 393

49 C.F.R. 192.614(c)(5) and Cal.

Govt Code 4216.3(a)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the violations are out of scope. 394
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the violations when SED filed its
direct testimony. 395
x Moreover, PG&Es Damage
Prevention Handbook complies
with section 192.614(c)(5). 396

B-45
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

Alleged Violations Not Related to Specific Incidents

x
x

SED INSPECTION OF SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION LEAK 1

In August of 2015, SED conducted an inspection in the San Francisco Division to determine whether pipe repairs completed in 2013 were
accurately represented on the current maps. 397
SED discovered that a plastic insert that had been installed in December 2013 was not reflected on the current GD-GIS map. 398
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 399

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 400
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 401

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 402
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 12/19/2013 to
8/7/2015: $50,000 monthly. 403

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 404
x In addition, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 405

B-46
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SED INSPECTION OF SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION LEAK 2

In August of 2015, SED conducted an inspection in the San Francisco Division to determine whether pipe repairs completed in 2013 were
accurately represented on the current maps. 406
SED discovered that a plastic insert that had been installed in May 2013 was not reflected on the current GD-GIS map or plat map. 407
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 408

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 409
x Moreover, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 410

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.3 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 411
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 5/29/2013 to
8/7/2015: $50,000 monthly. 412

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 413
x In addition, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 414

B-47
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SED INSPECTION OF SAN JOSE DIVISION LEAK 1

In July of 2015, SED conducted an inspection in the San Jose Division to determine whether pipe repairs completed in 2013 and 2014 were
accurately represented on the current maps. 415
SED discovered that a plastic insert that had been installed in October 2013 was not reflected on the current GD-GIS map. 416 PG&E conducted a
further investigation and discovered that the job was in fact timely mapped, but to a nearby address. 417
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 418

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 419
x Moreover, there is no violation
because the plat map was properly
updated. 420
x In addition, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 421

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.05 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 422
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 10/4/2013 to
7/17/2015: $50,000
monthly. 423

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 424
x In addition, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 425

B-48
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

SED INSPECTION OF SAN JOSE DIVISION LEAK 2

In July of 2015, SED conducted an inspection in the San Jose Division to determine whether pipe repairs completed in 2013 and 2014 were
accurately represented on the current maps. 426
SED discovered that a plastic insert that had been installed in July 2014 was not reflected on the current GD-GIS map. 427 PG&E conducted a
further investigation and discovered that the job was in fact timely mapped, but to a nearby address. 428
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to follow its
written procedures to
maintain and update its
operating maps and
records, in violation of
section 192.605(a). 429

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED did not allege a section
192.605(a) violation in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claim. 430
x Moreover, there is no violation
because the plat map was properly
updated. 431
x In addition, SED has not proven that
PG&E failed to prepare or follow a
specific recordkeeping standard or
procedure when the record was
created, as required by section
192.605(a), because SED does not
cite any recordkeeping procedure. 432

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $600,000 for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
192.605(a). 433
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 7/15/2014 to
7/17/2015: $50,000
monthly. 434

49 C.F.R. 192.605(a)*
x No penalty is warranted because
the plat map was properly
updated. 435
x In addition, no penalty is
warranted because due process
requires PG&E to have received
notice of the violation when
SED filed its direct testimony.
In addition, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 436

B-49
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

MAOP-ASSOCIATED VIOLATIONS
This group of alleged violations arises from PG&Es method of determining the MAOP of approximately 243 gas distribution systems for which
PG&E did not have the relevant records reflecting the operating pressure from the 1965 to 1970 time frame. 437
To address this issue, in 1978 PG&E adopted a policy that provided two alternatives for determining the MAOP of those systems under the
grandfather clause of section 192.619(c). 438
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), and 192.619(c)
x SED alleges PG&E failed
to maintain records to
establish the MAOP for
approximately 243
distribution systems, in
violation of sections
192.603(b), 192.605(a),
and 192.619(c). 439

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b), 192.605(a), and

192.619(c)
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to keep records necessary to
administer its procedures under
section 192.605, as required by
section 192.603(b), because SED
does not cite to any specific
procedure. 440
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to prepare or follow a specific
recordkeeping standard or procedure
when the record was created, as
required by section 192.605(a),
because SED does not cite any
recordkeeping procedure. 441
x SED has not proven that PG&E
failed to comply with section
192.619(c) because SED incorrectly
assumes that this provision requires
written pressure records from 1965 to
1970. 442

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), and 192.619(c)
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $7.12 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.603(b), 192.605(a), and
192.619(c). 443
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 1/12/1971 to
9/30/2015:
o 1/12/1971 to 12/31/1993:
$2,000 monthly. 444
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 445
o 1/1/2012 to 9/30/2015:
$50,000 monthly. 446

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), and 192.619(c)
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 447
x Although PG&E disagrees that
SED has proven the alleged
violations, PG&E acknowledges
that it did not meet the
expectations it sets for itself.
Therefore, if the Commission
finds that violations have
occurred, PG&E agrees that the
maximum penalty is $7.12
million. 448

B-50
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

SYSTEMWIDE FAILURE
These asserted violations arise out of the incidents identified in the PWA Report resulting from PG&Es alleged failure to maintain accurate
maps, the two SED leak repair inspections, the absence of records to support establishment of the MAOP for approximately 243 systems, and the
missing leak repair records in the De Anza Division. 449
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), 192.13(c), and
Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to have controls in
place to ensure the
maintenance and
updating of its operating
maps and data, in
violation of sections
192.603(b), 192.605(a),
192.13(c), and 451. 450

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b), 192.605(a),

192.13(c), and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x SED did not allege section
192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.13(c), or
451 violations with regard to
systemwide recordkeeping failure
in its direct testimony, and is
therefore barred from raising the new
claims. 451
x The alleged violations arising out of
the failure to maintain accurate
operating maps are duplicative of the
Category 1 and Category 5 violations
regarding accuracy of records. 452
x The alleged violations arising out of
the MAOP claims are duplicative of
the Category 7 violations premised
on the same facts. 453
x The alleged violations arising out of
the missing De Anza leak repair
records are duplicative of the
Category 4 violations premised on
the same facts. 454

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), 192.13(c), and Cal.
Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $7.122 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.603(b), 192.605(a),
192.13(c), and 451. 455
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 1/12/1971 to
9/30/2015:
o 1/12/1971 to 12/31/1993:
$2,000 monthly. 456
o 1/1/1994 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 457
o 1/1/2012 to 9/30/2015:
$50,000 monthly. 458

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), 192.13(c), and Cal. Pub.
Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
SED has not met its burden of
proof. 459
x In addition, due process requires
PG&E to have received notice of
the violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 460
x Moreover, the alleged violations
are duplicative of other alleged
violations. 461

B-51
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

MISSING DE ANZA DIVISION LEAK RECORDS

These alleged violations arise out of PG&Es loss of approximately twelve years of leak repair records in the De Anza Division. 462
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b), 192.605(a),

192.13(c), and Cal. Pub. Util. Code
451*
x There is no evidence of a causal
connection between these leak repair
records and the Mountain View
incident. 464
x The information in these paper
records is largely contained in
PG&Es electronic databases. 465
x SED did not allege section
192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.13(c), or
451 violations with regard to the
missing De Anza records in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claims. 466

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), 192.13(c), and Cal.
Pub. Util. Code 451*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $9.496 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.603(b), 192.605(a),
192.13(c), and 451. 467
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 1/12/1979 to
12/31/1991: $2,000 daily. 468

49 C.F.R. 192.603(b),
192.605(a), 192.13(c), and Cal. Pub.
Util. Code 451*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violations when SED filed its
direct testimony. 469
x In addition, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 470

B-52
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

UNKNOWN PLASTIC INSERTS

These violations are based on PG&Es purported failure to implement new procedures after the Mountain View incident to respond to the risks
posed by unmapped plastic inserts in its distribution system. 471
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by not
addressing the issue of
unmapped plastic inserts,
in violation of sections
192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 472

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to a general
failure to address the issue of plastic
inserts in its direct testimony, and is
therefore barred from raising the new
claims. 473
x Although the alleged violations are
out of scope, PG&Es response to the
Mountain View incident is properly
within scope.
x PG&E concedes that, with the benefit
of hindsight, it should have done
more to address the dangers of
unmapped plastic inserts after the
Mountain View incident. 474

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $10.8 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 475
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 7/30/2013 to
3/3/2014: $50,000 daily. 476

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violations when SED filed its
direct testimony. 477
x In addition, no penalty is
warranted because SED has not
met its burden of proof. 478
x Although PG&E disagrees that
SED has proven the alleged
violations, PG&E acknowledges
that it did not meet the
expectations it sets for itself.
Therefore, if the Commission
finds that violations have
occurred, PG&E agrees that the
maximum penalty is $10.8
million. 479

B-53
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

LACK OF TIMELY INVESTIGATION INTO MISSING LEAK REPAIR RECORDS

These violations arise from PG&Es alleged failure to timely investigate the missing leak repair records from the De Anza Division based on one
CAP item. 480
There is a dearth of factual background on this set of allegations because no record was developed on the issue. 481
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by not timely
investigating the missing
De Anza records, in
violation of sections
192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 482

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to the missing
De Anza records in its direct
testimony, and is therefore barred
from raising the new claims. 483
x Owing to lack of notice of the claims,
the record is not sufficiently
developed to infer that PG&E did not
adequately investigate the missing
leak repair records. 484

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.29 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 485
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 7/30/2010 to
7/30/2013:
o 7/30/2010 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 486
o 1/1/2012 to 7/30/2013:
$50,000 monthly. 487

B-54
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR UNKNOWN STUBS

These violations arise from PG&Es supposed failure to map stubs throughout its distribution system and are based on a large quantity of mapped
stubs that SED identifies, three incidents in which an unmapped stub was involved, and a 2005 PG&E audit finding that a stub had been deleted
from a map without first excavating to confirm it had been removed. 490
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by failing to
account for inaccurately
mapped or unmapped
stubs, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 491

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to a general
failure to account for unknown stubs
in its direct testimony, and is
therefore barred from raising the new
claims. 492
x The alleged violations arising out of
unknown stubs are duplicative of
the alleged violations arising out of
Morgan Hill and San Jose II, which
are also based on unknown stubs. 493
x SED has not proven such sweeping
and generalized allegations. 494

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $6.8 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 495
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 7/30/2010 to
7/30/2013:
o 7/30/2010 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 496
o 1/1/2012 to 7/30/2013:
$50,000 monthly. 497

B-55
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR UNMAPPED FACILITIES

Support for these alleged violations comes from the incidents detailed in the PWA Report, as well as an incident described in the testimony of
Police Chief Calhoun in which an unmapped service line caused a PG&E crew to accidently cut off the gas service to a Carmel residents house
temporarily. 501
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by failing to
account for unmapped
facilities, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 502

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to a general
failure to account for unmapped
facilities in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claims. 503
x The alleged violations arising out of
unmapped facilities are duplicative
of the alleged violations arising out
of specific incidents, which are also
based on mismapped facilities. 504
x SED has not proven such sweeping
and generalized allegations. 505
x PG&E admits that the service for the
Carmel residence was not mapped. 506

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $2.51 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 507
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 8/12/2009 to
4/6/2015:
o 8/12/2009 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 508
o 1/1/2012 to 4/6/2015:
$50,000 monthly. 509

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 510
x In addition, the alleged
violations are duplicative of
other alleged violations, with the
exception of the unmapped
service in Carmel for which the
maximum fine is $50,000. 511
x Moreover, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 512

B-56
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

MISMAPPED FACILITIES
The facts underlying these alleged violations are not clear but seem to be the inaccurate maps underlying some of the incidents at issue in this
OII. 513
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by
inaccurately mapping
facilities, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 514

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to a general
failure to account for unmapped
facilities in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claims. 515
x The alleged violations arising out of
mismapped facilities are
duplicative of the alleged violations
arising out of specific incidents,
which are also based on mismapped
facilities. 516
x SED has not proven such sweeping
and generalized allegations. 517

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.93 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 518
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 10/21/2010 to
9/24/2014:
o 10/21/2010 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 519
o 1/1/2012 to 9/24/2014:
$50,000 monthly. 520

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 521
x In addition, the alleged
violations are duplicative of
other alleged violations. 522
x Moreover, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 523

B-57
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

FAILURE TO ADDRESS DIFFICULT TO LOCATE FACILITIES

These allegations arise from the occasional mismarking or not marking of gas lines in the course of PG&Es work. 524
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Non-Recordkeeping:

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, and Cal. Pub. Util.
451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to learn from
experience in order to
prevent future incidents,
specifically by failing to
address difficult to locate
facilities, in violation of
sections 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613,
192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 525

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617, and
Cal. Pub. Util. 451, 961(d)(1)*
x SED did not allege section
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, or 961(d)(1)
violations with regard to a general
failure to address difficult to locate
facilities in its direct testimony, and
is therefore barred from raising the
new claims. 526
x The alleged violations are related to
locating and marking practices,
which are operational issues and not
recordkeeping-related. 527
x SEDs claim that PG&E has failed to
address difficult to locate facilities
is contradicted by the testimony of
John Higgins. 528

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x SED proposes a total penalty
of $1.65 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of sections
192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8),
192.613, 192.617, 451, and
961(d)(1). 529
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 9/28/2010 to
4/8/2014:
o 9/28/2010 to 12/31/2011:
$20,000 monthly. 530
o 1/1/2012 to 4/8/2014:
$50,000 monthly. 531

49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4),
192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.617,
and Cal. Pub. Util. 451,
961(d)(1)*
x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 532
x In addition, the alleged
violations are not recordkeepingrelated. 533
x Moreover, SED has not met its
burden of proof. 534

B-58
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

x
x

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE MISSING DE ANZA DIVISION RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO THE OII
This violation arises from PG&Es alleged failure to disclose information regarding the missing De Anza Division leak repair records to SED. 535
PG&E timely disclosed to SED relevant information relating to this issue. 536
SED Alleged Violations

PG&E Position on Alleged Violations

SED Proposed Penalty

PG&E Position on Proposed

Penalty

Recordkeeping:

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*

x SED alleges that PG&E
failed to disclose known
facts about the missing
De Anza records, in
violation of section
451. 537

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*

x SED did not allege a section 451
violationor any violation for that
matterin connection with the
missing De Anza leak repair records
in its direct testimony, and is
therefore barred from raising the new
claims. 538
x PG&E, in fact, timely disclosed
information relevant to the De Anza
leak repair records to SED.539

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*

x SED proposes a total penalty
of $8.6 million for PG&Es
alleged violation of section
451. 540
x SEDs penalty calculation is
based on a continuing
violation from 12/22/2014 to
6/12/2015: $50,000 daily. 541

Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451*

x No penalty is warranted because
due process requires PG&E to
have received notice of the
violation when SED filed its
direct testimony. 542
x In addition, no penalty is
warranted because PG&Es
timely disclosure of the relevant
records during discovery does
not amount to a violation of
section 451. 543

B-59
* = Denotes an alleged violation that did not appear in SEDs Direct Testimony (PWA Report).

Ex. 6, Attachment W060 at W060.001-.002 (30-Day Letter from Glen Carter, PG&E to Raffy Stepanian, Cal. Pub. Utils. Commn (Oct. 28, 2010)).
Ex. 4 at 3-32:9 to 3-33:5 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
3
Id.
4
Ex. 1 at 20 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
5
PG&E does not agree that the regulations addressed in the Recordkeeping categories contain any requirements as to the form, content, or accuracy of gas
distribution records.
6
SED OB at 59-60, 88; Ex. 2 at 24 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
7
Ex. 1 at 20 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
8
Ex. 4 at 3-32:25 to 3-33:5 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
9
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 2 at 24 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal) (alleging that the L&M crew did not follow proper
procedures for determining location of pipelines as per Work Procedure 4412-03 page 4); Ex. 21 at W061.001 (Utility Work Procedure WP4412-03) (providing
step-by-step instructions for processing Underground Service Alert (USA) tickets and for marking and locating Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Company)
underground gas, electric, and fiberoptic cable facilities).
10
SED OB at 88.
11
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
12
Appendix C of PG&Es Opening Brief lists several of the non-recordkeeping regulations and laws cited by SED and discussed in this Appendix. See PG&E
OB at App. C.
13
SED OB at 59-60, 88; Ex. 1 at 44 tbl.4 (PWA Report); Ex. 2 at 24 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
14
See PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
15
Id.
16
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
17
SED OB at 88.
18
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
19
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
20
Ex. 10 at 3-34:2-20 (PG&E Errata to Reply Testimony, Higgins).
21
Ex. 1 at 19 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
22
Id.
23
SED OB at 56-57, 84-85; Ex. 2 at 22 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
24
Ex. 10 at 3-34:2-4 (PG&E Errata to Reply Testimony, Higgins).
25
Ex. 27 at 1-2 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of
operational and maintenance activities).
2

B-60

See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
28
SED OB at 84-85.
29
Id. at 45-47; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (discussing alleged Category 5 violations).
30
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
31
SED OB at 56-57, 86-87; Ex. 1 at 44 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
32
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
33
Ex. 10 at 3-34:2-4 (PG&E Errata to Reply Testimony, Higgins).
34
Id.
35
PG&E OB at C-3 to C-4.
36
SED OB at 86-87.
37
Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this Appendix,
PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42, C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3).
38
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
39
Ex. 10 at 3-34:2-4 (PG&E Errata to Reply Testimony, Higgins).
40
SED OB at 56-57, 86-87.
41
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
42
See 49 C.F.R. 192.805(h).
43
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 49 (discussing alleged section 192.805(h) violation).
44
SED OB at 86-87.
45
PG&E OB at 41-42; see supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 49 (discussing alleged section 192.805(h) violation).
46
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
47
Ex. 4 at 3-33:8-27 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
48
Ex. 1 at 19 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
49
Ex. 6, Attachment W062 at W062.001 (30-Day Letter from Glen Carter, PG&E to Raffy Stepanian, Cal. Pub. Utils. Commn (April 15, 2010)).
50
SED OB at 58-59, 87; Ex. 2 at 20-21 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
27

B-61

See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 2 at 20-21 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal) (alleging that PG&Es locate and mark personnel
did not contact mapping when the field locate and map did not agree or make sense, in violation of WP 4412-03); Ex. 21 at PGE_GDR_000008384 (Utility
Work Procedure WP4412-03) (providing step-by-step instructions for processing Underground Service Alert (USA) tickets and for marking and locating Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (Company) underground gas, electric, and fiberoptic cable facilities.).
52
SED OB at 87.
53
Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this Appendix,
PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42.
54
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
55
SED OB at 58-59, 87; Ex. 1 at 44 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
56
See PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
57
Id.
58
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
59
SED OB at 87.
60
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12.
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
61
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
62
Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.005-.006 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
63
Id. at W040.006.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Id. at W040.007.
67
SED OB at 54-56, 76-77; Ex. 1 at 38:24-26 (PWA Report).
68
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 6, Attachment W043 at W043.001 (DCS Standard D-S0454, Gas Mains,
Maintaining Continuity of Service During Construction) (describing procedure to prevent accidental interruption in customer service in the course of
construction, reconstruction or maintenance operations); id., Attachment W044 at W044.001 (A-93.1 Rev. 8, Plastic Gas Distribution System Construction and
Maintenance) (providing construction and maintenance information for a PE pipe and tubing gas distribution system). In addition, neither Standards A-93.1 nor
D-S0454 specified how long to monitor the gauge pressure before stopping the flow of gas or how often to monitor the gauge pressure after the pipe has been
severed throughout the duration of the job. Therefore, PG&E did not necessarily violate any procedures by not assigning personnel to monitor the pressure
constantly during the work activity. Ex. 4 at 3-25:3-17 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
69
SED OB at 76-77.
70
Id.

B-62

Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this Appendix,
PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42.
72
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-2 to A-4 (discussing alleged Category 1 violations).
73
SED OB at 54-56, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 38:16-17 (PWA Report).
74
Ex. 27 at 1-2 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of
operational and maintenance activities).
75
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
76
Ex. 4 at 3-26:10-16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
77
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
78
SED OB at 84-85.
79
Id.
80
PG&E OB at 45-47; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (discussing alleged Category 5 violations).
81
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
82
Ex. 1 at 23 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
83
Id.
84
SED OB at 64-65; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
85
Id.
86
SED OB at 64-65, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
87
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
88
Id.
89
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
90
SED OB at 85-86.
91
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
92
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
93
Ex. 4 at 3-30:9-16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
94
PG&E OB at D-1; Ex. 4 at 3-30:9 to 3-31:12 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins); Ex. 6, Attachment W057 at W057.001 (Cal. Pub. Utils. Commn, SED
Incident Investigation Report G20141107-01 (Feb. 24, 2015)) (describing San Jose I Incident).

B-63

Ex. 1 at 17 tbl.1 (PWA Report); Ex. 6, Attachment W057 at W057.001 (SEDs Third Responses to PG&Es Data Requests Sets 2 and 3, Attachment
Q9_G20141107-01 (Investigation Report)).
96
SED OB at 65-67, 88-89; Ex. 1 at 43 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
97
Ex. 1 at 17 tbl.2, 43 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
98
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 25 at W031.001 (TD-5811P-102) (describing step-by-step instructions for
evaluating the scope of a USA ticket request and determining the required response).
99
SED OB at 88-89.
100
Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this Appendix,
PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42.
101
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
102
SED OB at 65-67, 88-89.
103
See PG&E OB at C-3 to C-4.
104
Id. at 88-89.
105
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
106
Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.008 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
107
Id. at W040.009.
108
Id. at W040.008.
109
Id. at W040.009.
110
SED OB at 76-77; Ex. 1 at 39:32-34 (PWA Report).
111
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
112
SED OB at 76-77.
113
Id.
114
Id.
115
Id.
116
PG&E OB at 43-44.
117
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 9.
118
SED OB at 84-85; Ex. 1 at 39:24-26 (PWA Report).
119
See PG&E OB at 49-50.
120
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
121
SED OB at 84-85.

B-64

122

See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 9.

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
124
SED has withdrawn its allegation that the Mountain View incident specifically violated section 192.617. Compare SED OB at 80-83 with Ex. 1 at 39:32-34
(PWA Report).
125
Ex. 4 at 3-35:1-5 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins); Ex. 10 at 3-34:22-30 (PG&E Errata to Reply Testimony, Higgins).
126
Id.
127
Id.
128
Ex. 1 at 22 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
129
SED OB at 62-63; Ex. 2 at 25 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
130
SED OB at 62-63, 85-86; Ex. 2 at 25 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
131
See PG&E OB at D-2.
132
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
133
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
134
Id.
135
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
136
SED OB at 85-86.
137
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
138
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
139
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
140
SED OB at 62-63, 88; Ex. 2 at 25 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal).
141
See PG&E OB at D-2.
142
Ex. 1 at 22 tbl.2 (PWA Report); Ex. 2 at 25 tbl.1 (PWA Rebuttal); see SED OB at 62-63, 88.
143
See Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451.
144
SED OB at 88.
145
PG&E OB at 41-42.
146
Ex. 1 at 22 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
147
Id.
148
Id.
149
SED OB at 76, 78.
123

B-65

150

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
151
SED OB at 62, 76, 78.
152
Id. at 76, 78.
153
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief); PG&E OB at 43-44.
154
SED OB at 62, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
155
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
156
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
157
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
158
SED OB at 84-85.
159
PG&E OB at 45-47; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (discussing alleged Category 5 violations).
160
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
161
SED OB at 62, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
162
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
163
Id.
164
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
165
SED OB at 85-86.
166
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
167
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
168
Ex. 1 at 18 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
169
Id.
170
SED OB at 76, 78.
171
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
172
SED OB at 61, 76, 78.
173
Id. at 76, 78.
174
Id.

B-66

175

PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first
time in its Opening Brief).
176
SED has withdrawn its allegation that PG&E violated section 192.605(b)(3) in regard to the Kentfield incident. Compare SED OB at 61, 84-85, 88 with Ex. 1
at 43 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
177
SED OB at 61, 88; Ex. 1 at 43 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
178
See 49 C.F.R. 192.321(e).
179
SED OB at 88.
180
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-3 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.321(e)); see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
181
SED OB at 61, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 43 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
182
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
183
Id.
184
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
185
PG&E OB at C-3 to C-4.
186
SED OB at 85-86.
187
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
188
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
189
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
190
Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.007-.008 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
191
Id. at W040.008.
192
Id.
193
SED OB at 76-77.
194
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
195
SED OB at 56, 76-77.
196
Id. at 76-77.
197
Id. Although SED did not identify a specific date in 1994 when it began to assess the violation, use of January 1, 1994 as the start date results in the $5,020,000
figure that SED cites.
198
Id.
199
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first
time in its Opening Brief).

B-67

200

SED OB at 56, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 39:13-15 (PWA Report).

Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
202
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
203
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
204
SED OB at 84-85.
205
PG&E OB at 45-47.
206
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
207
SED OB at 56, 85-86.
208
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
209
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
210
Id.
211
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
212
SED OB at 85-86.
213
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
214
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
215
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
216
Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.010 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
217
Id. at W040.011.
218
Id. at W040.010-.011.
219
SED OB at 76-78; Ex. 1 at 40:14-18 (PWA Report).
220
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
221
SED OB at 76-78.
222
Id.
223
Id.
224
PG&E OB at 43-44.
225
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 8.
226
SED OB at 84-85; Ex. 1 at 40:18-20 (PWA Report).
201

B-68

227

Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
228
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
229
SED OB at 84-85.
230
PG&E OB at 45-47.
231
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
232
SED has withdrawn its allegation that the Carmel incident specifically violated section 192.617. Compare SED OB at 80-83 with Ex. 1 at 40:14-18 (PWA
Report).
233
Ex. 1 at 21 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
234
Id.
235
Id.
236
SED OB at 60-61, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 45 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
237
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
238
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
239
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
240
SED OB at 84-85.
241
PG&E OB at 45-47.
242
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
243
SED OB at 60-61, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 45 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
244
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
245
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
246
Id.
247
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
248
SED OB at 85-86.
249
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
250
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).

B-69

251

PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.

Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.004 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
253
Id. at W040.005.
254
Id.
255
Id. at W040.004.
256
SED OB at 53-54, 76-77; Ex. 1 at 37:37-39, 38:6-8 (PWA Report).
257
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 7, Attachment W091 (Utility Procedure TD-9500P-16, Rev. 1, Deactivation
and/or Retirement of Underground Gas Facilities) (describing the process for deactivating subsurface facilities).
258
SED OB at 76-77.
259
Id. Although SED did not identify a specific date in July 1966 when it began to assess the violation, use of July 1, 1996 as the start date results in the
$5,278,000 figure that SED cites.
260
Id.
261
Id.
262
Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping-related procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this
Appendix, PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42.
263
PG&E OB at 43-44.
264
SED OB at 53-54, 84; Ex. 1 at 38:6-8 (PWA Report).
265
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
266
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
267
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
268
SED OB at 84.
269
PG&E OB at 45-47.
270
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
271
SED OB at 53-54, 85; Ex. 1 at 37:40 to 38:1 (PWA Report).
272
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
273
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
274
Id.
252

B-70

275

Id. at C-3 to C-4.

SED OB at 85.
277
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
278
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
279
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
280
SED has withdrawn its allegation that PG&E violated section 961(d)(10) in regard to the Morgan Hill incident. Compare SED OB at 53-54 with Ex. 1 at
38:3-5 (PWA Report).
281
Ex. 1 at 16 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
282
Id.
283
Id.
284
SED OB at 63-64, 88; Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
285
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)); Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report) (GTS Standard S4129 . . . requires cutting off
services as close to the main as possible.).
286
PG&E OB at C-3.
287
SED OB at 88.
288
Note that in its Opening Brief, PG&E characterized section 192.605(a) as a recordkeeping regulation because when cited in reference to PG&Es alleged failure
to follow a recordkeeping procedure, that is the correct descriptor. See 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a). But, where, as here, SED cites section 192.605(a) in reference to
PG&Es alleged failure to follow a non-recordkeeping procedure, the alleged violation is not properly within the scope of this OII and therefore in this Appendix,
PG&E refers to such allegations as outside the scope. See PG&E OB at 41-42, C-3 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.727).
289
PG&E OB at 43-44; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
290
SED OB at 63-64, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
291
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
292
Id.
293
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
294
SED OB at 85-86.
295
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
296
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
297
Ex. 6, Attachment W040 at W040.002 (PG&Es Final Statement of Facts).
298
Id. at W040.002-.003.
299
Id. at W040.003.
276

B-71

300

Id. at W040.002.
SED OB at 52-53, 76-77; Ex. 1 at 37:31-32 (PWA Report).
302
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
303
1/19/16 Tr. at 158:27 to 159:20 (SED/PWA).
304
SED OB at 76-77.
305
Id. Although SED did not identify a specific date in 2005 when it began to assess the violation, use of 1/1/2005 as the start date results in the $1,380,000 figure
that SED cites.
306
PG&E OB at 43-44.
307
SED OB at 52-53, 84; Ex. 1 at 37:32-34 (PWA Report).
308
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
309
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
310
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
311
SED OB at 84.
312
PG&E OB at 45-47.
313
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
314
SED OB at 85.
315
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
316
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
317
Id.
318
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
319
PG&E OB at C-3 to C-4.
320
SED OB at 85.
321
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
322
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
323
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
324
Ex. 1 at 24 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
301

B-72

325

Id.
SED OB at 76, 78.
327
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
328
SED OB at 57-58, 76, 78.
329
Id. at 76, 78.
330
Id.
331
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief); PG&E OB at 43-44.
332
SED OB at 57-58, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 47 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
333
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
334
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
335
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
336
SED OB at 84-85.
337
PG&E OB at 45-47.
338
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
339
SED OB at 57-58, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 47 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
340
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
341
Id.
342
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
343
SED OB at 85-86.
344
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
345
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
346
SED OB at 57-58, 87; Ex. 1 at 47 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
347
PG&E OB at C-2.
348
SED OB at 87.
349
Id.
350
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.723); see supra Appendix A at pp. A-13 to A-14 (discussing alleged Category 8 violations).
351
Ex. 1 at 15 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
326

B-73

352

Id.
SED OB at 67, 76, 78; Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
354
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
355
SED OB at 76, 78.
356
PG&E OB at 43-44.
357
SED OB at 67, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
358
Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
359
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
360
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
361
SED OB at 84-85.
362
PG&E OB at 45-47.
363
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
364
SED OB at 67, 85-86; Ex. 1 at 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
365
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
366
Id.
367
Id. at C-3 to C-4.
368
SED OB at 85-86.
369
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
370
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
371
Ex. 1 at 23 tbl.2 (PWA Report).
372
Id.
373
SED OB at 65, 76, 78; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).
374
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
375
SED OB at 76, 78.
376
Id.
377
Id.
378
Id.
379
PG&E OB at 43-44.
353

B-74

380

SED OB at 65, 84-85; Ex. 1 at 46 tbl.4 (PWA Report).

Ex. 27 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 23) (describing PG&Es procedural requirements for accessing asset records in support of operational and
maintenance activities).
382
See PG&E OB at 45-47 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(b)(3)).
383
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
384
SED OB at 84-85.
385
PG&E OB at 45-47.
386
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), Appendix A at pp. A-10 to A-11 (stating that the section 451 violations should be rejected).
387
SED OB at 85-86.
388
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
389
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
390
Id.
391
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
392
PG&E OB at C-3 to C-4.
393
SED OB at 85-86.
394
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3); see supra Appendix A at p. A-12
(discussing alleged Category 6 violations).
395
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
396
PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2.
397
Ex. 1 at 57:4-11, 57 tbl.8 (PWA Report).
398
Id.
399
SED OB at 76, 78.
400
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
401
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
402
SED OB at 76, 78.
403
Id.
381

B-75

404

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief); PG&E OB at 43-44.
405
See PG&E OB at 43-44.
406
Ex. 1 at 57:4-11, 57 tbl.8 (PWA Report).
407
Id.
408
SED OB at 76, 79.
409
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
410
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
411
SED OB at 76, 79.
412
Id.
413
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief); PG&E OB at 43-44.
414
See PG&E OB at 43-44.
415
Ex. 1 at 57:4-11, 57 tbl.8 (PWA Report).
416
Id.
417
Ex. 4 at 4-14:17 to 4-15:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
418
SED OB at 76, 79.
419
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
420
Ex. 4 at 4-14:17 to 4-15:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino) (stating that for the two San Jose leak repairs identified in Table 8, PG&E conducted a further
investigation and determined that those capital jobs were in fact mapped timely, but to nearby addresses based on final repair information).
421
SED OB at 76, 79.
422
Id.
423
Id.
424
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief);
425
PG&E OB at 43-44.
426
Ex. 1 at 57:4-11, 57 tbl.8 (PWA Report).
427
Id.
428
Ex. 4 at 4-14:17 to 4-15:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
429
SED OB at 76, 79.

B-76

430

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
431
Ex. 4 at 4-14:17 to 4-15:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino) (stating that for the two San Jose leak repairs identified in Table 8, PG&E conducted a further
investigation and determined that those capital jobs were in fact mapped timely, but to nearby addresses based on final repair information).
432
SED OB at 76, 79.
433
Id.
434
Id.
435
Ex. 4 at 4-14:17 to 4-15:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
436
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief); PG&E OB at 43-44.
437
Ex. 4 at 5-14:22 to 5-15:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
438
Id. at 5-14:22 to 5-16:9 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
439
SED OB at 86.
440
Id. at 67-71, 86; see supra Appendix A at pp. A-12 to A-13 (discussing alleged MAOP-related violations).
441
See PG&E OB at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
442
SED OB at 67-71, 86.
443
SED OB at 86.
444
Id.
445
Id.
446
Id.
447
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-12 to A-13 (discussing alleged MAOP-related violations); PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof); id. at
43-44 (discussing requirements of section 192.605(a)).
448
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 9-10; Appendix A at pp. A-12 to A-13.
449
SED OB at 79.
450
Id. at 79-80.
451
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
452
See supra Appendix A at p. A-6.
453
Id.
454
Id.
455
SED OB at 79-80.
456
Id.
457
Id.

B-77

458

Id.
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 43-47; PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof); id. at 43-44 (discussing requirements of section
192.605(a)).
460
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 40-43 (discussing the alleged Category 2 violations).
461
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-4 to A-6.
462
PG&E OB at 51-52; SED OB at 79.
463
SED OB at 79-80.
464
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 33-34.
465
Id.
466
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony).
467
SED OB at 79-80.
468
Id.
469
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony); Appendix A at pp. A-4 to
A-6.
470
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 33-34, 37-40 (discussing the lack of causal connection between the De Anza A Forms and the Mountain View incident and
PG&Es timely disclosure of information relevant to the De Anza A Forms); PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof); id. at 43-44 (discussing
requirements of section 192.605(a)); Appendix A at pp. A-4 to A-6.
471
SED OB at 80-81.
472
Id.
473
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
474
PG&E OB at 30-31; see supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 9; Appendix A at p. A-7.
475
SED OB at 80-81.
476
Id.
477
See supra Appendix A at p. A-9.
478
PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
479
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 9.
480
SED OB at 81.
481
Id.
482
SED OB at 80-81.
459

B-78

483

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony).
484
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony).
485
SED OB at 80-81.
486
Id.
487
Id.
488
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony); Appendix A at pp. A-8 to
A-9.
489
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 33-34, 37-40 (discussing the lack of causal connection between the De Anza A Forms and the Mountain View incident and
PG&Es timely disclosure of information relevant to the De Anza A Forms); PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
490
SED OB at 14-15, 81-82; Ex. 1 at 37:36-39, 42 tbl.4 (PWA Report) (describing Morgan Hill and San Jose II incidents); Ex. 6, Attachment W053 at W053.017
(Response to GD 2-20-15 NOV, Appendix A) (describing Lafayette incident).
491
SED OB at 80-82.
492
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
493
See supra Appendix A at p. A-8.
494
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 45-46; Appendix A at p. A-8.
495
SED OB at 80-82.
496
Id.
497
Id.
498
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
499
See supra Appendix A at p. A-8.
500
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 45-46; Appendix A at pp. A-8 to A-9; PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
501
SED OB at 82.
502
Id. at 80, 82-83.
503
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
504
See supra Appendix A at p. A-8.
505
Id.
506
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-7 to A-8.
507
SED OB at 80, 82-83.

B-79

508

Id.
Id.
510
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
511
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-7 to A-9 (discussing alleged Category 3 violations).
512
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-8 to A-9; PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
513
SED OB at 83.
514
Id. at 80, 83.
515
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
516
See supra Appendix A at p. A-8.
517
See supra PG&E Reply Brief p. 44; Appendix A at p. A-8.
518
SED OB at 80, 83.
519
Id.
520
Id.
521
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
522
See supra Appendix A at pp. A-8 to A-9.
523
Id.; PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
524
SED OB at 83.
525
Id. at 80, 83.
526
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
527
PG&E OB at 41-42, C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.613), C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.617); see 49 C.F.R. 192.605(b)(4), 192.605(b)(8); Cal.
Pub. Util. Code 451, 961(d)(1).
528
See supra Appendix A at p. A-9; Ex. 4 at 3-5:17 to 3-23:20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
529
SED OB at 80, 83.
530
Id.
531
Id.
532
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief).
533
See supra Appendix A at p. A-9; PG&E OB at C-1 to C-2 (discussing 49 C.F.R. 192.614), C-3 to C-4 (discussing Cal. Govt Code 4216.3).
534
See supra Appendix A at p. A-9; PG&E OB at 8-9 (discussing the applicable burden of proof).
509

B-80

535

SED OB at 45-50, 83-84.

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 37-40.
537
SED OB at 83-84.
538
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony).
539
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 37-40.
540
SED OB at 83-84.
541
Id.
542
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 30-33 (arguing that the Commission should not consider the new violations that SED alleges for the first time in its Opening
Brief), pp. 34-37 (discussing SEDs failure to allege any violations associated with the missing De Anza records in its direct testimony); Appendix A at pp. A-9 to
A-10 (discussing alleged Category 4 violations).
543
See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 37-40; Appendix A at pp. A-9 to A-10.
536

B-81

APPENDIX C
PG&Es Responses to Proposed Remedial Measures
PWAS RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

1. Plastic Inserts and Stubs:

PWA recommends that PG&E
examine the costs and benefits
associated with undertaking a
systematic identification and
correction effort for unmapped
plastic inserts and stubs, relying on
the experiences of other utilities in
dealing with these issues. 2

PG&E has agreed to conduct benchmarking analyses to identify industry

best practices in addressing unmapped stubs and plastic inserts, after which
it will evaluate which of these best practices can be implemented at PG&E. 3
Additionally, PG&E has already utilized new technology platforms and
instituted multiple ongoing initiatives involving the use of analytical tools to
identify and investigate potential unmapped assets and, where appropriate,
proactively correct the related maps and records. 4
Moreover, PG&E has implemented several backstop measures to reduce the
potential risk of incidents involving unmapped assets. For example, PG&E
created a Gas Carrier Pipe Checklist to verify the existence of potential
plastic inserts in the field prior to conducting work, which PWA recognizes
as an effective backstop approach to PG&Es unmapped or unrecorded
plastic inserted lines. 5 PG&E also developed a process to use a Bolt on
Saddle Punch Tee, a device that can be used to verify the existence of
inserted plastic without penetrating the gas carrier pipe, which is described
by PWA as a very useful backstop measure. 6 PG&E also has been
actively investigating new advanced technologies for detecting such
unmapped assets. 7
These initiatives demonstrate that PG&E is taking a proactive approach to
continue to enhance its maps and records.

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

None.

Ex. 1 at 75:25 to 76:29 (PWA Report).

Id. at 75:25-32 (PWA Report).
3
Ex. 4 at 1-7 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 5-6:13-17, 5-8:12-17, 5-11:25 to 5-12:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 6-15:29 to 6-16:8 (PG&E
Reply Testimony, Thierry).
4
PG&E is continuously looking for new methods to gather intelligence from its newly digitized data in GD GIS and also using CAP mapping correction
notifications to detect evidence of potential unmapped stubs or inserts. PG&E OB at 18-24; Ex. 4 at 4-16:18 to 4-17:4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at
5-25:14-26, 5-26:31 to 5-27:22 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
5
Ex. 1 at 65 tbl.9 (PWA Report); Ex. 4 at 5-8:21 to 5-10:8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
6
PG&E OB at A-3, A-6 n.33; Ex. 1 at 68:9-13 (PWA Report); Ex. 4 at 5-10:12 to 5-11:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
2

C-1

PWAS RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Proposed Remedial Measure
2. Stub Removal: PWA
recommends that PG&E,
considering risk tradeoffs,
reexamine more aggressively
eliminating existing stubs. 8

PG&Es Response
Though this recommendation does not implicate recordkeeping issues,
PG&E already has a policy in place for systematically identifying and,
where appropriate, removing stubs. 9 To assist the tracking and monitoring
of potential stubs for removal, PG&E will use data captured from GSRs that
have been integrated into GD GIS to create a centralized database of gas
service stubs. 10 PWA acknowledges that this is the type of stub removal
program that it considers to be proactive. 11 In addition, PG&E is
researching industry best practices regarding mapped stubs, as noted
above. 12 Following the benchmarking analyses, PG&E will evaluate which
of these best practices can be implemented at PG&E to potentially more
aggressively eliminate stubs. 13
Moreover, PG&Es backstop measures, such as the Quality Management
Program, and ongoing improvements in training and procedures for locate
and mark crews, reduce the likelihood of existing unmapped stubs resulting
in potential significant incidents. 14

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

None.

For example, PG&E initiated an industry R&D project with the Gas Technology Institute in collaboration with other gas distribution system operators to
investigate commercially available technologies to detect potential inserted plastic pipe in gas distribution steel lines. This project tested several possible detection
methods in the laboratory, but none have proven feasible in the field. PG&E has also been supporting the efforts of a start-up company that is developing
ultrasonic means that may identify potential plastic inserts, demonstrating PG&Es continued commitment to identifying and developing new technologies that
further build upon PG&Es current methods and procedures. PG&E OB at 49, 56, A-3; Ex. 4 at 5-11:27 to 5-12:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
8
Ex. 1 at 75:33-36 (PWA Report).
9
PG&E currently monitors and, where appropriate, removes mapped stubs that are not deemed useful. To assist in this endeavor, on June 1, 2012, PG&E
published a revised procedure that outlines the steps for monitoring and removing stub services. Ex. 4 at 5-6:21 to 5-7:7 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); Ex. 7,
Attachment W091 (Utility Procedure TD-9500P-16, Rev. 1, Deactivation and/or Retirement of Underground Gas Facilities).
10
PG&E OB at 18, A-1; Ex. 4 at 5-7:8-10 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
11
Ex. 1 at 59 tbl.9 (PWA Report); Ex. 7, Attachment W095 at W095.007 (SEDs First Responses to PG&Es Data Requests Sets 2 and 3) (stating that a formal
stub program to eliminate stubs would be considered proactive).
12
Ex. 4 at 1-7 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe).
13
Id. at 6-15:31 to 6-16:8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Thierry).
14
PG&E OB at 16-17, 26-27, A-1 to A-2; Ex. 4 at 3-12:11 to 3-13:2, 3-16:1-30, 3-22:1-19 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins); id. at 5-32:5-12, 5-33:12-22
(PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-2

PWAS RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

3. MAOP: PWA recommends

that PG&E assess whether the
method it used for setting the
MAOP for some of its distribution
systems creates additional risk and,
if so, propose measures to address
it. It also recommends that, when
PG&E assesses what distribution
systems to prioritize for
replacement, the Company take
into account the method by which
it set MAOP for that system. 15

None.
The parties agree there is no basis to conclude that the method PG&E used
for setting MAOP on the distribution systems at issue in this proceeding
creates any safety risk. 16 Nevertheless, in light of PWAs recommendation,
PG&E committed to comparing the leak survey results for the approximately
243 systems with MAOP set using the alternative method against PG&Es
other distribution systems to determine whether additional measures were
necessary. 17 PG&E has completed the MAOP risk analysis suggested in
SEDs proposed remedy (h) and proposes to update that analysis once PG&E
has completed the MAOP review identified in SED (g).

4. Internal Audit: PWA

recommends that the CPUC take
advantage of the insights PG&E
has gleaned from its internal audit
process into potential soft spots in
the massive change effort being
undertaken by PG&E to help focus
its inspections, perhaps on the
adequacy of the action plan given
the internal audit findings on the
effectiveness of implementation,
and on the impact of corrective
actions. 18

While this is not a recommendation for PG&E, PG&E supports this

recommendation. 19 PG&Es Internal Auditing group (IA) performs audits to
evaluate the effectiveness of controls on new and existing business
processes, which allows management to then address any control gaps and
check whether the processes are being implemented effectively. 20 As a
reflection of the value PG&E places on its internal audit process, a Risk and
Compliance Committee comprised of senior management is responsible for
ensuring that corrective actions are implemented following an internal
audit. 21 PWA observed that, based on its review of IA reports and follow-up
action plans, PG&E management is making good use of these processes to
monitor the impact . . . of [ ] its improvement programs. 22

None.

Ex. 1 at 75:37 to 76:2 (PWA Report).

PG&E OB at 56-62. PG&Es distribution systems operate at considerably less than 20 percent of their maximum potential stress levels and accordingly operate
with a significant margin of safety. Id. at 61. Moreover, these systems have been subjected to maintenance and operations requirements in accordance with the
federal and state safety regulations. Id.
17
Ex. 4 at 5-21:4-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
18
Ex. 1 at 76:3-9 (PWA Report).
19
Ex. 4 at 1-8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe).
20
Id. at 5-22:16-19 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
21
Ex. 1 at 76:5-6 (PWA Report); Ex. 4 at 1-8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 3-23:3-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
16

C-3

PWAS RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

None.

5. Plastic Inserts: PWA

recommends that SED expand its
practice of incorporating into its
inspections an investigation of
whether plastic pipe has been
inserted in existing steel lines.
PWA recommends that SED focus
on the results of major
maintenance activities undertaken
subsequent to PG&Es full
implementation of GD GIS and its
associated practices and
procedures. 23

While this is not a recommendation for PG&E, PG&E supports this

recommendation and looks forward to cooperating with SEDs efforts to
identify unmapped plastic inserts, as noted above. 24 See PG&Es Response
to PWAs Recommendation 1, supra p. C-1.

6. Causal Analysis: PWA

recommends that PG&E consider
reexamining both how it defines
root cause and how it integrates
corrective actions related to those
root causes into existing
management practices. 25

PG&E has already followed this recommendation. In response to PWAs

None.
recommendation, PG&E reexamined its existing policy for causal analysis,
and it is substantially identical to the policy that PWA recommends; PG&Es
causal evaluation policies and procedures utilize a definition of causal
evaluation that incorporates the objectives of root cause analysis that were
outlined by PWA. 26

Ex. 1 at 75:3-6 (PWA Report).

Id. at 76:10-13 (PWA Report).
24
PG&E OB at 19-20, A-3; Ex. 4 at 1-8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe).
25
Ex. 1 at 76:14-29 (PWA Report).
26
See Ex. 4 at 1-8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 5-28:26 to 5-31:10 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh). PG&Es causal evaluation standard defines a
causal evaluation as a structured process used to determine, document and communicate the cause or reason why an incident, issue or error occurred. [Causal
evaluations] are necessary to identify the cause of the incident, issue or error, to prevent or minimize the probability of recurrence and to apply continuous
improvement. Ex. 7, Attachment W114 at W114.001 (Utility Standard GOV-6102S, Enterprise Causal Evaluation). This definition incorporates the objectives
of the root cause analysis outlined by PWA, as the Standard requires the identification of the cause and contributing factors, corrective actions, and lessons learned
that will inform continuous improvement. Ex. 4 at 5-30:26 to 5-31:10 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
23

C-4

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

a. Systemic Review of Records:

PG&E should conduct a systemic
review of its records to determine
if there are other categories of
missing records of the same
magnitude as the missing De Anza
records. Within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should file a report
that identifies all of the categories
of missing records for its gas
distribution system identified in
this review and an assessment of
how the records were lost.

PG&E acknowledges that it does not have perfect records. Like

other utility companies, PG&E faces challenges with records that in
many instances date back many decades, particularly given that
PG&E is the product of hundreds of acquisitions that started in the
late 19th century. 28
SED already has requested that PG&E identify known missing
document types during discovery. In response to this data request,
PG&E explained that some missing or incomplete information may
exist currently or may have existed at some time in the past in
nearly every category of PG&Es gas distribution asset records, and
in particular, through its due diligence efforts, identified the De
Anza records and the MAOP records. 29 Thus, PG&E interprets this
proposed remedy as seeking the identification of additional
categories of records that have not already been described in this
proceeding.
SEDs proposed remedy is exceedingly broad: It directs PG&E to
conduct a systemic review to identify all categories of missing
records, without any recommendation on how PG&E would
conduct such a review of millions of records. Moreover, it directs
PG&E to do so and to file a report, within 90 days of a
Commission decision.
This remedy does not consider the fact that PG&E has embarked
on an ambitious project to digitize all its distribution records, and in
doing so, has undertaken a number of initiatives to identify
potential gaps in its records during the migration of asset data to
electronic databases such as GD GIS. 30 These effortswhich are
in line with PG&Es long-term efforts to continue to enhance its
recordstake years, not days.

PG&E shall:
(1) Define activities to develop an extent
of condition plan for potential missing
GSRs and as-built records for gas
distribution mains within 90 days of a
Commission decision.
(2) Develop an associated extent of
condition report based on item (1) with
recommended actions within 90 days of
decision.

27
28
29
30

SED OB at 94-96.
Ex. 4 at 1-2:13, 1-10:23 to 1-15:9 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe).
See, e.g., Ex. 33 (PG&Es Supplemental Response No. 1 to SED Data Request No. 25).
PG&E OB at 19, A-1; Ex. 4 at 2-19:3 to 2-22:26 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-5

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure
(continued)

31
32
33
34

PG&Es Response
This proposed remedy, as well as proposals (b) and (c) below, is far
broader than the six PWA recommendations or SEDs proposed
remedies (d), (e), (g), and (h), which are tailored to address the
issues directly raised in this proceeding. As described above,
PG&E has already agreed to implement PWAs recommendations.
PG&E cannot realistically implement numerous broad-based
programs all at once to search for all missing records or missing
assets; instead, it should allocate its focus to prioritize measures
that will most enhance its system safety. Thus, while PG&E agrees
that having perfect records is an aspirational goal, it respectfully
disagrees with this remedy as drafted.
Rather than adopting a broad, unspecified remedy to identify all
categories of missing records, PG&E proposes an alternative that
focuses on efforts not yet implemented that would continue to
improve the Companys distribution records and enhance safety.
It is undisputed that PG&Es primary distribution records consist
of: (1) plat maps; (2) Gas Service Records (GSRs); (3) A Forms;
and (4) as-built records for gas distribution mains. 31 PG&Es
response therefore addresses each of these types of records:
Plat Maps: As part of the process of converting PG&Es existing
distribution asset data from MET to GD GIS, approximately 21,000
individual plat maps were migrated to GD GIS as one continuous
map for its entire system. 32 During this conversion process,
anomalies in the data being convertedincluding differences in the
descriptions of assets mapped across contiguous plat mapswere
automatically flagged through the PAR process, which is a process
set up to ensure that any such discrepancies are investigated and
resolved. 33 PWA evaluated the PAR process as an innovative
practice. 34

Ex. 4 at 2-10:28-31 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-13:18-21 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
PG&E OB at 19, A-1; Ex. 4 at 2-19:6-23 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
Ex. 1 at 59 tbl.9 (PWA Report).

C-6

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure
(continued)

35
36
37
38

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

As-Built Records: As a result of the Gas Distribution Mains AsBuilt Digitization initiative that began in 2015 and is projected to
be completed in 2017, nearly 10 million historic paper as-built
records will be scanned and made available electronically. 35 Once
all of these records are scanned, PG&E will be able to explore the
feasibility of using analytics to identify potential missing as-built
records for gas distribution mains, if any.
A Forms: A Forms are used to document leak information and to
determine pipe replacements. PG&Es mappers primarily use
GSRs to perform mapping updates. 36 Since 1970, PG&E captured
leak repair data from A Forms in electronic databases, 37 and SED
has presented no evidence to suggest that this procedure was not
followed. PG&E is currently undertaking efforts to analyze this
electronic A Form data to identify any potential unmapped plastic
inserts. 38 This type of practical analytics will yield far more
dividends in improving PG&Es distribution safety than SEDs
broad directive.
GSRs: PG&E completed scanning more than 6 million of its paper
GSR records by 2015. The Company is in the process of uploading
and entering these scanned GSRs into GD GIS so that they will be
accessible electronically. Once the data has been entered into GD
GIS, PG&E believes it could leverage analytic tools to identify
potential missing GSRs, if any.

PG&E OB at A-2; Ex. 4 at 2-11:7-9 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

PG&E OB at 25-26, A-1; 1/21/16 Tr. at 412:7 to 413:5 (PG&E/Trevino).
1/21/16 Tr. at 468:24 to 469:10 (PG&E/Singh).
PG&E OB at 25-26; Ex. 4 at 4-15:18 to 4-16:17 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at 5-11:17-24 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-7

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

b. Report on Systemic Review:

Within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should file a report
based on a systemic review of its
distribution system to ensure that
all of its facilities are accounted
for. PG&E should leverage
information gathered from its field
personnel and various sources,
such as its Corrective Action
Program (CAP), to determine any
negative trends that impact the
completeness and accuracy of its
records and maps.

This proposed remedy is exceedingly broad as it seeks a systemic

review to ensure that all of these facilities are accounted for, and to
do so within 90 days of final Commission decision. No operator
can prove with certaintyaside from taking extreme actions, such
as digging up every inch of underground assetsthat it has
accounted for each and every facility. SEDs own expert, PWA,
acknowledges that no operator has been able to do so. 39
This proposed remedy also does not consider the fact that PG&E
has implemented numerous initiatives to continuously improve its
records consistent with regulatory requirements. 40 PG&E is also
continuously improving its damage prevention program and L&M
personnel have many means to locate; they do not rely solely on
maps. 41
As discussed in response to proposed remedy (a), this type of
blanket directive is far less effective in improving safety than
measureslike the Recommendations proposed by PWA or SEDs
Proposed Remedies (d), (e), (g), and (h)that directly address the
issues raised in this proceeding. It would take away focus from
other critical work that is more effective at risk reduction. Thus,
PG&E respectfully disagrees with this remedy as drafted.

PG&E shall:
(1) Complete the planned effort to
compare existing PG&E meter data in
CC&B to GD GIS, along with relevant
ancillary data such as aerial imagery,
where appropriate, by December 30,
2016. PG&E will subsequently update
GD GIS, as required.
(2) Conduct a trending analysis of CAP
mapping correction notifications to
determine any potential trends in the
submission of the type of map updates
between October 2013 and the time of a
Commission decision. PG&E shall file a
report on the trending analysis within 90
days of a Commission decision.

39
40
41

1/19/16 Tr. at 44:5-15 (SED/PWA) (I dont know a pipeline operator who has perfect maps and records.).
PG&E OB at A-1 to A-2 (listing records-related initiatives undertaken by PG&E).
Ex. 4 at 3-10:21 to 3-20:3 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).

C-8

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure
(continued)

42
43
44
45

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

PG&E proposes the following alternative, specific remedies that

continue to improve its gas distribution records:
Comparing CC&B to GD GIS: PG&E has already implemented
measures to identify potential missing services. For example, as
part of the process of validating its gas distribution asset data,
PG&E compared its distribution asset maps in MET with the
customer meter locations included in its Customer Care Billing
System (CC&B) to identify assets not included on its maps. 42 This
effort was completed in 2013. 43 PWA recognized this as a best
practice. 44
PG&E is undertaking an additional effort to compare CC&B to GD
GIS. A cross-check of these databases against each other verifies
that customer premises have corresponding mapped services and
mains within GD GIS. 45
Trending Analysis: PG&E agrees to conduct a trending analysis of
CAP mapping correction notifications to determine any potential
trends in the submission of the type of map updates between
October 2013 and the time of a Commission decision. PG&E shall
file a report on the trending analysis within 90 days of a
Commission decision.

PG&E OB at 20, A-1; Ex. 4 at 2-20:21 to 2-21:3 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 4-21:4-12 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
Ex. 4 at 4-21:11-12 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
Ex. 1 at 61 tbl.9 (PWA Report).
Ex. 4 at 4-21:13-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).

C-9

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

c. GIS Validation Review:

PG&E should conduct a review of
its GD GIS system to validate the
data using all available records to
ensure completeness and accuracy
of data in GD GIS. Within 90 days
of a final Commission decision in
this matter, PG&E should file a
report presenting documentation of
all aspects of this review.

PG&E respectfully disagrees with this proposed remedy because it

is overly broad, redundant to SEDs Proposed Remedy (a), and is
redundant of the extensive efforts the Company has already
undertaken to digitize its distribution records.
Among many other things, this remedy could be interpreted to
require a manual comparison of tens of millions of distribution
records to GD GIS data to confirm that the information is correct in
GD GIS. It would take away focus from other critical work that is
more effective at risk reduction. See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp.
51-52.
Since 2012, PG&E has been transitioning to electronic-based
records systems and has been digitizing its Gas Distribution paper
records as part of the Pathfinder Project. PG&E began deploying
GD GIS in some of its divisions by late 2013 and, by August 2015,
PG&E finished implementing GD GIS in all of its 18 divisions.46
As part of this effort, PG&E embarked on a number of measures to
validate the data imported into GD GIS, including: implementation
of GD GIS in the Pathfinder Project; conducting PAR analysis to
identify potential anomalies in the conversion to GD GIS;
comparing GD GIS to CC&B and to Google Earth; using SAP to
inventory assets and track mapping updates in GD GIS; comparing
SAP leak data to GD GIS to identify potentially unmapped plastic
inserts; and scanning and making paper gas service records and
distribution as-built records accessible electronically. 47
Additionally, PG&E is continuously looking for new ways to use
analytic tools to analyze the data from its newly digitized data in
GD GIS. 48
PG&E provided extensive discovery and testimony on these
efforts. Neither PWA nor SED has taken issue with any of these
efforts. Nor has SED or PWA articulated any specific
recommendations not already implemented by PG&E to validate its
GD GIS records. In fact, PWA recognized many of these efforts as
best practices.
This proposed remedy is duplicative to PG&Es ongoing efforts
and PG&E believes it therefore is unnecessary.

Duplicative of SEDs Proposed Remedy

(a) and is redundant of the Companys
extensive ongoing efforts to digitize its
distribution records.

C-10

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure
d. Plastic Inserts: PG&E should
evaluate the need for a proactive
program to identify unknown
plastic inserts in its distribution
system. Within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should file a report
describing the evaluation for
program need, and the basis for
why a proactive program is or is
not needed. PG&E should also
describe any additional measures it
is taking to address the risk of
unknown plastic inserts.

PG&Es Response
PG&E agrees with this proposal.
As provided throughout PG&Es testimony, PG&E has already
implemented several initiatives to address unmapped plastic
inserts. 49 For example, PG&E is comparing GD GIS to SAP leak
data to identify potential unmapped plastic inserts, and uses CAP
mapping correction notifications to detect evidence of potential
unmapped stubs or inserts. 50 PG&E also has been actively
investigating new advanced technologies for detecting such
unmapped assets. 51 See PG&Es Response to PWAs
Recommendation 1 for a more detailed discussion of these
backstop measures, supra p. C-1. These initiatives demonstrate
that PG&E is taking a proactive approach to improve its maps and
records. In addition, PG&E has agreed to conduct benchmarking
analyses to identify industry best practices in addressing potential
unmapped plastic inserts. 52
PG&E further agrees to submit a report within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this proceeding.

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

None.

The amount of records involved in this project was massive, reaching nearly three times the height of the Empire State Building if the paper records were
stacked vertically, and the effort required coordination among multiple departments and across all divisions of Gas Operations. Ex. 4 at 5-37:17-29 (PG&E Reply
Testimony, Singh).
47
PG&E OB at 18-20, A-1.
48
Id. at 18-24; Ex. 4 at 4-16:18 to 4-17:4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at 5-25:14-26, 5-26:31 to 5-27:22 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
49
Ex. 4 at 1-7 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 2-20:3-18 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 4-15:16 to 4-17:4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino);
id. at 5-8:1 to 5-12:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 6-15:26 to 6-16:8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Thierry).
50
PG&E OB at 18-26; Ex. 4 at 2-11:1-5, 2-20:3-13, 2-22:6-9 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 4-15:16 to 4-17:4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at
5-11:17 to 5-12:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
51
For example, PG&E initiated an industry R&D project with the Gas Technology Institute in collaboration with other gas distribution system operators to
investigate commercially available technologies to detect potential inserted plastic pipe in gas distribution steel lines. This project tested several possible detection
methods in the laboratory, but none have proven feasible in the field. PG&E has also been supporting the efforts of a start-up company that is developing
ultrasonic means that may identify potential plastic inserts, demonstrating PG&Es continued commitment to identifying and developing new technologies that
further build upon PG&Es current methods and procedures. PG&E OB at 56; Ex. 4 at 5-11:25 to 5-12:13 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
52
Ex. 4 at 1-7 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 6-15:26 to 6-16:8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Thierry).

C-11

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

e. Stub Identification: Within 90

days of a final Commission
decision in this matter, PG&E
should provide a report describing
its policy of identification of stubs,
and documenting a systemic effort
to account for stubs.

PG&E agrees with this proposed remedy. See also PG&Es

Response to PWA Recommendations #2, supra.

None.

f. Excavation Damage
Prevention: PG&E should
perform an analysis to determine
causes of at-fault excavation
damages of its distribution system.
Within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should provide a
report of its analysis, including
measures to reduce the number of
at-fault excavation damages
caused by mapping and/or record
inaccuracies in its gas distribution
system.

PG&E currently performs such an analysis on a monthly basis.

PG&E will use the most recent six-month data from the time of the
Commission decision for this analysis and will identify any
additional potentially required measures to reduce at-fault dig-ins.
It will submit a report within 90 days.
PG&E accurately marked 99.98% of the excavation requests it
worked on between January and September 2015. At-fault dig-ins
due to incorrect maps and records constitute a fraction of 0.02% of
total dig-ins because the 0.02% figure includes dig-ins that resulted
from factors other than imperfect maps or records, such as changed
field conditions, or locate and mark operational errors unrelated to
records. 53
PG&E is committed to ongoing efforts to improve its gas
distribution records and believes it could work with the CPUC
directly to create objective measures of its progress in these
ongoing efforts.
PG&E is piloting a dedicated locating team for hard-to-locate
facilities. This team integrates several functions (its members can
locate, perform GPS surveys, and perform digs when necessary)
and is provided with specialized training and an additional locating
tool. The pilot includes pot-holing to validate locations,
installation of radio frequency identification where appropriate, and
map update requests.

(1) PG&E shall perform an analysis to

determine causes of at-fault excavation
damages of its distribution system and
identify measures to reduce at-fault digins and shall use the most recent sixmonth data from the time of the
Commission decision for this analysis
and submit a report within 90 days.
(2) Based on the results of the dedicated
locating team pilot, PG&E shall equip, at
a minimum, two difficult to locate
crews to perform location of facilities
when traditional methods are
unsuccessful.

PG&E OB at 13.

C-12

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

g. Distribution MAOP
Identification: Within 90 days of
a final Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should identify all
of the facilities in its distribution
system in which PG&E applied its
alternative method of using post1970 leak survey records to
establish the MAOP. PG&E
should provide a final list of these
systems with the following data, at
a minimum:
x Distribution line number,
name, or nomenclature used by
PG&E to identify the system
x Location of the system City
and PG&E Division
responsible for operations and
maintenance
x Operating Pressure
x MAOP
x Date installed
x Date placed in service
x Strength test information
date tested, test pressure, and
duration
x Material type
x Size
x Length
x Copy of record/document used
to establish the MAOP.

PG&E agrees to this proposed remedy and proposes alternatives

with respect to date installed, date placed in service, and strength
test information. Regarding date placed in service, PG&E may
have difficultly establishing that date for some systems, so
proposes instead to substitute date installed in those instances.
With respect to strength test information, distribution facilities are
not strength tested and thus that information is not available.
However, they are leak (or pressure) tested, except for pipe
installed prior to the establishment of state and federal code
requirements. In those cases, leak test information was not
recorded in the as-built documentation and may not be available.
In addition, 49 C.F.R. 192.517 requires an operator to retain leak
test records for pipelines operating below 100 p.s.i. for only five
years. PG&E agrees to provide any available leak test information,
where applicable and available.

(1) Within 90 days of a final

Commission decision in this matter,
PG&E shall identify its facilities in its
distribution system in which PG&E
applied its alternative method of using
post-1970 leak survey records to
establish the MAOP. PG&E shall
provide a final list of these systems with
the following data:
x Distribution line number, name, or
nomenclature used by PG&E to
identify the system
x Location of the system City and
PG&E Division responsible for
operations and maintenance
x Operating Pressure
x MAOP
x Material type
x Size
x Length
x Copy of record/document used to
establish the MAOP.
PG&E shall also provide the date placed
in service. Where date placed in service
information is not readily available, it
will provide the date installed. PG&E
shall also provide, where available, leak
test information.
(2) Based on the results of the record
review in item (1), PG&E shall take
additional steps to verify MAOP, as
required, including pressure testing.

C-13

SEDS PROPOSED REMEDIES 27

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

PG&Es Alternative Proposal

h. Distribution MAOP Risk

Analysis: PG&E should conduct a
risk analysis and demonstrate its
basis to conclude that the method
it used for setting MAOP on the
approximately 243 distribution
systems do not create any
additional safety risk. Along with
the final list indicated above,
within 90 days of a final
Commission decision in this
matter, PG&E should provide a
report to the Commission
describing the risk analysis
performed, conclusions from that
analysis, and any proposed
remedial measures. SED reserves
the right to review PG&Es report
and submit a recommendation to
the Commission.

PG&E agrees to this remedy. PG&E has completed the MAOP

risk analysis suggested in SEDs proposed remedy (h) and proposes
to update that analysis once PG&E has completed the MAOP
review identified in SED (g).
PG&E agrees to provide a supplemental report, as necessary, for
any additional distributions systems identified in SEDs Proposed
Remedy (g).

PG&E shall provide a supplemental

report, as necessary, for any additional
distributions systems identified in SEDs
Proposed Remedy (g).

C-14

CARMELS PROPOSED REMEDIES 54

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

1. Executive bonuses: Executive bonuses should be

tied to include safety goals. The Commission should
order that PG&E propose an ambitious model to
more closely link executive pay to safety goals and
measures. The order should include that SED and
Carmel work together to hire an executive
compensation advisor to review and make
recommendations to PG&Es proposal. PG&E
should pay for the compensation advisor.

This proposed remedy is outside the scope of this proceeding.

The relationship between executive compensation and PG&Es
recordkeeping practices and resulting gas distribution system
safety was not an issue raised in this proceeding.
Moreover, the relationship between executive compensation and
meeting safety goals is currently being addressed in other
regulatory proceedings, such as PG&Es 2017 General Rate Case
application, and should not be determined here. 55
This remedy, therefore, should be rejected.

Reject.

2. Safety and Leak Intervenor: The Commission

should order the creation and the endowment of a
safety and gas leak intervenor. This would be similar
to the role of TURN, but an intervenor focused solely
on issues of public safety relating to gas pipelines and
gas leaks. Such an intervenor needs to be an
independent voice, outside of the CPUC.

This proposed remedy is outside the scope of this proceeding and

should be rejected. See supra PG&E Reply Brief, pp. 57-58.

Reject.

3. Safety and Leak Performance Incentives: The

Commission should order that PG&Es authorized
potential rate of return on capital be increased if
PG&Es safety and leak record exceeds industry
average. Conversely, PG&Es authorized potential
rate of return on capital should be reduced if PG&Es
safety and leak record is less than industry average.
PG&Es safety record should include an analysis of
its response time to gas leaks. This does not mean
when PG&E gets there, it means when PG&E fixes
the problem. In order to do this effectively, the
Commission will need to set industry standards for
measuring safety and require all gas utilities in the
state to measure and report using these standards.

The relationship between monetary performance incentives and

safety metrics is outside the scope of this proceeding, and is not
supported by any evidence presented in this proceeding. Such a
remedy would also constitute ratemaking.

Reject.

Proposed Ruling

Carmel OB at 20-25.
See, e.g., Assigned Commissioners Ruling and Scoping Memo, Application of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. for Auth., Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and
Charges for Elec. & Gas Serv. Effective on Jan. 1, 2017, A. 15-09-001, at 7-8 (Dec. 1, 2015).

C-15

CARMELS PROPOSED REMEDIES 54

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Proposed Ruling

4. Independent Review of PG&Es Safety

Culture: The Commission should order an
independent review to analyze PG&Es business
practices, policies, and corporate culture and how the
utility prioritizes safety in its gas pipeline activities.
PG&Es safety protocols may look great on paper,
but the law requires safe implementation. Carmel
takes issue with the Exponent and Lloyds of
London reports because they are purportedly too
cozy with PG&E and their reports are too limited in
scope or just scratch the surface of PG&Es practices.
They are commissioned and paid for by PG&E,
creating an inherent conflict of interest. It is the
implementation that gets overlooked in Lloyds and
Exponents analyses. Carmel proposes that SED
select the expert for an independent review to help
keep them at arms length with its subject. PG&E
should be ordered to pay for the review.

PG&Es business practices, policies, and safety culture are

currently being addressed in other regulatory proceedings, such
as PG&Es 2017 General Rate Case application, and should not
be determined here. 56 Carmels assertion that Lloyds Register
and Exponent are too cozy with PG&E is without basis. See
supra PG&E Reply Brief, pp. 56-57.
This remedy, therefore, should be rejected.

5. Finding that PG&E Caused the Release of

Methane Gas: The Commissions decision should
include a finding that PG&E caused methane, a
greenhouse gas, to be released into the atmosphere as
part of these six incidents and other leaks. Therefore,
these are reportable events pursuant to the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Commission
should confer with the California Air Resources
Board about how to address such releases under the
AB32 cap.

This proposed remedy is beyond the scope of this recordkeeping

Reject.
OII, and the broader issue is already being considered in the
Commissions Order Instituting Rulemaking to Adopt Rules and
Procedures Governing Commission-Regulated Natural Gas
Pipelines and Facilities to Reduce Natural Gas Leakage
Consistent With Senate Bill 1371 (R. 15-01-008). It raises for the
first time an issue for which Carmel has provided no notice or
evidence from which to conclude that any incidents discussed in
this OII were reportable under the Global Warming Solutions
Act.
This remedy, therefore, should be rejected.

See, e.g., id.

C-16

Reject.

CARMELS PROPOSED REMEDIES 54

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

6. Order Additional Safety Remedies: The

Commission should include in its decision the
following binding commitments by PG&E with
respect to improving safety in its communities:
x PG&E to immediately call 911 and otherwise
engage first responders for any future, similar gas
leaks like the one seen in Carmel;
x PG&E to have necessary safety equipment on
trucks doing work for any reasonably foreseeable
accidents that could be caused by such work; and
x PG&E to have relevant safety equipment on first
responder trucks to remedy all but the most
serious incidents.

Emergency response is beyond the scope of this proceeding and

PG&E was not given notice of this issue so that evidence
demonstrating PG&Es emergency response performance could
be presented. PG&E paid a $10.85 million fine in response to a
citation alleging two violations related to the Carmel incident, for
failing to equip its personnel with the tools necessary to stop the
flow of gas and for failing to make the surrounding area safe
despite signs of a possible leak. 57
In any event, PG&E is already addressing emergency response
concerns by developing enhanced work and emergency response
procedures, including equipping all crews in the City of Carmel
with emergency tools, providing first responder training, and
piloting a new protocol for PG&E crews to work more closely
with local first responders. 58
This remedy, therefore, should be rejected.

Proposed Ruling
Reject.

Resolution ALJ-323, Resolves the Appeal of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. from Citation ALJ-274 2014-11-001 Issued by the Safety & Enforcement Div., 2015 Cal.
PUC LEXIS 757, at *1-2.
58
See Letter from Kevin Knapp, PG&E Vice President of Transmission and Distribution Operations, to Elizaveta Malashenko, Deputy Director of SED at 2-3
(Sept, 8, 2014), available at http://ci.carmel.ca.us/carmel/index.cfm/linkservid/F1FD02AB-3048-7B3D-C5189A2F6920D9BF.

C-17

CARMELS PROPOSED REMEDIES 54

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

7. Compensation to Carmel: PG&E should be

ordered to pay Carmel for its damages associated
with the March 3, 2014 blast. Carmel suffered direct
costs through its emergency response efforts, its
remediation and repair costs, its administrative time
and effort, and its consulting and legal costs. It has
also suffered indirect costs through lost opportunity
costs. The explosion also caused indirect costs by
damaging Carmels brand as a quiet, tranquil
coastal town; a house explosion is not attractive to
investment and tourism. The community of Carmel
has been damaged as a result of the explosion. The
explosion caused neighbors anxiety and they suffered
loss of sleep due to the fear of what other unknowns
exist underground.

In the context of an OII, the California Public Utilities Code

authorizes the Commission to order penalties, fines and
restitution as well as equitable remedies, but not to order
damages. 59 Indeed, Carmel has identified no precedent for the
Commission to order direct compensation to a private party or
municipality in an OII, and PG&E is aware of none. 60
Carmel states that it will submit evidence of damages through a
separate, further briefing at some unknown time, outside of the
briefing schedule and testimony set in this proceeding. 61
Carmels request should be rejected.

8. Fines and Penalties Should Be Paid with

Shareholder Money: PG&E shareholders should
pay these penalties rather than ratepayers.

See supra PG&E Reply Brief, pp. 53-55.

Proposed Ruling
Reject.

Compare Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2106 (stating that [a]n action to recover for . . . loss, damage, or injury [caused by a public utility] may be brought in any
court of competent jurisdiction) with Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2107 (granting the Commission the power to impose a penalty on any public utility that fails to
comply with a state law or Commission order) and D. 15-04-024, 2015 Cal. PUC LEXIS 230, at *45-46 (finding that although the Commission is empowered to
impose remedies outside of those available under section 2107, such additional remedies are limited to those equitable in nature); see also Order Instituting
Rulemaking on Regulations Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, and New Online-Enabled Transp. Servs., D. 16-01-014, 2016 Cal. PUC LEXIS 22, at
*90 (stating that [t]he Commission has broad authority to impose fines and penalties on persons subject to the Commissions jurisdiction) (emphasis added).
60
Carmel incorrectly argues that because the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the safety of PG&Es distribution system, this proceeding is the
proper venue for Carmels damages claims. Carmel OB at 24. Although the Legislature has granted regulatory power to the PUC over the safety of gas
pipelines, S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Vernon, 41 Cal. App. 4th 209, 217 (1995) (emphasis added), the Commission is empowered to seek penalties due the State
for violations of law, Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2101, which are generally paid to the States General Fund. See Cal. Pub. Util. Code 2104.5.
61
Carmel OB at 24.

C-18

TURNS PROPOSED REMEDIES 62

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

1. Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedies

(Transmission OII Remedies): The Commission
should extend to gas distribution recordkeeping each
of the 21 transmission recordkeeping remedies
adopted by the Commission in D. 15-04-024 (see
below). 63

As discussed in details below, many of the Transmission OII

Remedies have been implemented for gas distribution in the
course of implementing for Gas Transmission, and many of those
are complete. Many relate to the details of implementing a
Records and Information Management program which is not an
issue in the evidentiary record of this proceeding. 64 Some of the
remedies are clearly inapplicable to the gas distribution assets,
such as those addressing salvaged pipe, which is not used in the
gas distribution system. While a few of the remaining remedies
relate exclusively to transmission, PG&E has adopted similar
principles in its ongoing work to enhance gas distribution
systems, processes, and procedures.
See Adopted Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedies, infra
pp. C-21 to C-36.

Unnecessary.

2. Plastic Inserts: The Commission should order

PG&E to undertake proactive and systematic efforts
to identify and correct in its maps and records all
unmapped or inaccurately mapped records of plastic
inserts in its distribution system and order this work
to be completed within three years.

PG&E is agreeing to SEDs Proposed Remedy (d) to evaluate the

need for a proactive program to identify unknown plastic inserts
in its distribution system. TURNs proposed remedy is
duplicative and unnecessary. See PG&Es Response to SEDs
Proposed Remedy (d), supra p. C-11.

Duplicative of SEDs
Proposed Remedy (d).

3. Stubs: The Commission should order PG&E to

undertake proactive and systematic efforts to identify
and correct its maps and records of all unmapped or
inaccurately mapped stubs in its distribution system
and order this work to be completed within three
years.

PG&E is agreeing to SEDs Proposed Remedy (e) to document a

systemic effort to account for stubs. TURNs proposed remedy is
duplicative and unnecessary. See PG&Es Response to SEDs
Proposed Remedy (e), supra p. C-12.

Duplicative of SEDs
Proposed Remedy (e).

Proposed Ruling

TURN OB at App. A.
See Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. to Determine Violations of Pub.
Util. Code Section 451, Gen. Order 112, & Other Applicable Standards, Laws, Rules & Regulations in Connection with the San Bruno Explosion & Fire on Sept.
9, 2010, D. 15-04-024, 2015 Cal. PUC LEXIS 230 (Transmission Recordkeeping OII), at *417-42.
64
Id. at *430-37, (Remedies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17).
63

C-19

TURNS PROPOSED REMEDIES 62

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

4. MAOP: The Commission should order PG&E to

take the necessary steps to establish MAOP in
compliance with applicable law and, within 90 days,
to submit a compliance plan for Commission
approval, via a Tier 3 advice letter.

PG&E is agreeing to SEDs Proposed Remedy (g) and (h) to

address MAOP issues. See PG&Es Response to SED Proposed
Remedies (g) and (h), supra p. C-13 to C-14. TURNs proposal
is duplicative and TURN has provided no evidence in the record
to support this alternative proposal.

5. Remedies to Be Paid By Shareholders: The

Commission should order that costs incurred by
PG&E related to any remedies ordered in the
proceeding be paid by PG&Es shareholders and not
be recovered from ratepayers.

See supra PG&E Reply Brief pp. 53-55. 65

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure
1. Level 3 Information Maturity
Score: PG&Es gas transmission
organization shall achieve at least a
Level 3 information maturity score
under the Generally Accepted Records
Keeping Principles within three years.

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

PG&Es Gas Operations organization has already

committed to using the Information Governance
Maturity Model for records management developed
by ARMA International to design a Gas RIM
program in accordance with the recordkeeping and
information management guidance in PAS 55 and
ISO 55001. 68 As part of its efforts to achieve
ARMA Level 3 maturity, in August 2015 PG&E
began the electronic records portion of a multi-year
records management initiative, with a focus on
information controls and security. 69 The initiative is
scheduled to be completed in 2018.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal
associated forecast costs in
the appropriate rate setting
proceedings. 70

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

See D. 15-04-024, 2015 Cal. PUC LEXIS 230, at *417-42. For a report on the status of the implementation of these remedies, see Pacific Gas and Electric
Co.s Compliance Plan for Remedies Ordered by D.15-04-024, Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. with Respect to Facilities Records for its Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. Pipelines, I. 11-02-016 (June 8, 2013), available at
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M152/K482/152482664.PDF.
67
This column provides the status of the implementation of the remedy, to the extent that PG&E undertook activities consistent with the intent of the remedy or as
such a remedy was applied to the gas distribution systems in the Transmission Recordkeeping OII. In Progress indicates that the remedy is being implemented
or is ongoing as part of the Transmission Recordkeeping OII. Completed indicates that the remedy has been implemented as to distribution activities through
the Transmission Recordkeeping OII or that PG&E has implemented measures to address the intent of the remedy as part of its ongoing efforts to improve its
distribution records and distribution system safety.
68
Ex. 4 at 2-8:1-4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
69
Ex. 5, Attachment W014 at W014.003 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 114).
70
PG&E requested permission to remove forecast costs from PG&Es 2015 Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) Rate Case (Application of Pac. Gas & Elec.
Co. Proposing Cost of Serv. & Rates for Gas Transmission & Storage Services for the Period 2015-2017, A. 13-12-012) to implement remedies associated with
the Transmission Recordkeeping OII (Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. with
Respect to Facilities Records for its Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. Pipelines, I. 11-02-016). See 2015 GT&S Rate Case Hearing Ex. 137 (Supplemental Testimony
with Errata Remedies, Chapter 24: Impact of Remedies on GT&S Forecast), available at
http://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/ValidateDocAccess?docID=346551; 2015 GT&S Rate Case Hearing Ex. 138 (Workpapers Errata (Clean) Supporting
Chapter 24), available at http://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/ValidateDocAccess?docID=346552. PG&Es supplemental testimony in the 2017 General
Rate Case (GRC) (Application of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. for Auth., Among Other Things, to Increase Rates & Charges for Elec. & Gas Service Effective on Jan. 1,
2017, A. 15-09-001) discusses the forecast costs to implement the remedies that are included in PG&Es gas distribution revenues. See 2017 GRC Exhibit PG&E14 (Impact of Gas Transmission Remedies on GRC Forecast and Update to Enterprise Records and Information Management Program), available at
http://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/ValidateDocAccess?docID=352511; 2017 GRC Exhibit PG&E-14 (Workpapers Supporting Chapter 2: Impact of Gas
Transmission Remedies on GRC Forecast), available at http://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/ValidateDocAccess?docID=352489.

C-21

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

Status 67

PG&Es Response

Proposed Ruling

2. Rejected by the Commission

N/A

3. Corporate Policy and Standard on

Recordkeeping: PG&E shall issue a
corporate policy and standard that will:
a. Communicate recordkeeping
expectations that underlie its post-2010
Corporate Records and Information
Management Policy and Standard for all
departments and divisions across PG&E.
These expectations shall be incorporated
into procedures specific to meet the
needs of every Line of Business.
b. The Information Management and
Compliance Department shall design a
governance controls catalog for
recordkeeping practices to assess
compliance with the corporate policy
and standard, consistency of behavior
with official records being stored in
approved systems of record, and
timeliness of addressing records during
their lifecycle.
c. The retention schedule will support
the policy by providing retention length
for all identified official records to meet
legal and regulatory mandates.

While PWA testified that any violations in this OII

were not the result of defective procedures 71 and
thus are not an issue in this proceeding, PG&E is
already meeting this proposed remedy through its
RIM program, and has provided SED with its
current and updated RIM and record retention
policies. 72

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

PG&E committed to removing the costs described in the 2017 GRC supplemental testimony from the forecast once the Commission issues its decision in the 2015
GT&S Rate Case, as the adjustment is dependent on a Commission decision in the GT&S rate case regarding the recommendation by TURN that all costs to
implement the remedies should be taken out of gas transmission revenues only.
71
Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).
72
Id. at 84 attch. B (PWA Report) (describing PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 2); Ex. 4 at 2-5:18 to 2-6:2; see, e.g., Ex. 5, Attachment W010 (Utility
Standard TD-4016S, Rev. 1, Gas Operations Records and Information Management); id., Attachment W011 (Utility Standard TD-4017S, Rev. 0, Gas Operations
Vital Records Management).

C-22

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

4. Education and Training Program:

PG&E shall develop and implement an
education and training program for the
gas transmission organization in
Records and Information Management
principles and practices within an
information governance framework. The
education and training program shall
include the following:
a. All staff shall be receive [sic] training
to understand the responsibilities and
tasks that relate to managing records.
These education and training programs
shall be updated and offered at regular
intervals, at least twice annually, to
include amendments to the records
management program and for the benefit
of new staff.
b. There shall be specific and additional
training for those staff involved directly
in the management of retention and
disposal of records. These education and
training programs shall be offered at
least annually.
c. There shall be specific and additional
training focusing on all of the
recordkeeping systems used within the
Gas Operations Organization.
Employees and PG&E contractors who
have duties using these programs shall
be required to attend these training
sessions. These education and training
programs shall be offered at least
annually.

In 2014, 98% of the Gas Operations workforce

(consisting of about 5,000 employees) received RIM
training, which included information about defining
a record and a vital record, provided examples of the
difference between a record and a non-record, and
described electronic and paper records. In 2015,
Gas Operations transitioned to an enterprisedeployed Information Governance training, which is
an annual requirement for all employees. As of
October 2015, 82% of Gas Operations employees
had completed that training, and with the exception
of 4% of the employees who were new to the gas
organization, 96% of employees were trained by the
year end. Consistent with the suggestion made in
the PWA Report, Gas Operations plans to develop
and implement a monitoring plan to evaluate the
effectiveness of records-related trainings that are
provided to employees. 73
Further, to raise awareness about the RIM program
and reinforce its importance to PG&Es work, each
local headquarters office includes a RIM
information board that identifies the local RIM
coordinator, the link to the programs website, and
information about the program. The Gas RIM team
provides targeted training to the Gas RIM
Coordinators and supports them as they coach field
office employees in meeting their recordkeeping
responsibilities and implementing the associated
records requirements. 74

Completed. PG&E has

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal
associated forecast costs in
the appropriate rate setting
proceedings. See supra
note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

Ex. 4 at 2-6:16 to 2-7:2 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-23

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

5. Records Management Systems:

PG&E shall develop and deploy the
systems necessary to manage, maintain,
access, and preserve records (physical
and electronic, in all formats and media
types); their related data, metadata, and
geographic location and geospatial
content to the extent appropriate in
accordance with legal and business
mandated rules, utilizing technology that
includes appropriate aids to help
improve data and metadata quality.

PG&E has already implemented a number of

technologies that meet the intent of this proposed
remedy. These platforms enable PG&E to
implement best practices for standardizing
recordkeeping practices and improving its asset
data.
These platforms include GD GIS, which provides
spatial information about distribution assets and
attributes of assets (e.g., size, type, and location),
along with references to work orders and gas service
record numbers. 75 PWA called PG&Es GD GIS
system an innovative practice. 76
SAP includes an asset management database that
contains equipment records, maintenance history
and plans, gas leak data, preventive and corrective
notifications, scheduling and cost collecting orders,
material requisitions, warehouse management,
financials, and cost accounting, as well as an
inventory of data and maintenance plans related to
regulation, valves, corrosion, leak survey, and
instrument calibration for the gas distribution
system. SAP also provides enhanced process
control measures for monitoring the time to
complete mapping after construction has been
completed. 77 PWA praised the expanded use of
SAP as a positive technology addition. 78

Completed. PG&E has

already made significant
progress in implementing
these systems for distribution
that address the goal intended
by the remedy.

74
75
76
77
78

Id. at 2-7:20-27 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-11:25-29 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
Ex. 1 at 59 (PWA Report).
Ex. 4 at 2-14:9-24 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 4-11:28 to 4-14:16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
Ex. 1 at 56:3-5 (PWA Report).

C-24

Proposed Ruling
Unnecessary.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

(continued)

Documentum serves as PG&Es primary electronic

records depository, and stores both record content
and record metadata (e.g., record creation date,
author, editor, versions, format, and lifecycle status),
with full-text search capabilities. 79
The three systems interface with each other to
provide information necessary to manage assets in
real-time for prompt decision making, and can
provide advanced analytic capabilities to improve
the accuracy of asset data. 80 For example, PG&E
can identify and correct GD GIS records by
comparing leak repair information in SAP with its
gas distribution maps. 81

6. Senior Management
Accountability: PG&E shall establish
accountability for development and
implementation of a PG&E governance
strategy across gas transmission that
shall rest with PG&E Senior
Management and a method of
accountability shall be developed and
implemented.

This proposed remedy does not relate to

recordkeeping and is therefore outside the scope of
this proceeding.

79
80
81

Ex. 4 at 2-14:30 to 2-15:23 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-15:31 to 2-16:17, 2-18:11-14 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
Id. at 2-20:4-6 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-25

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented this
remedy, for both transmission
and distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding with the
implementation of the Gas
Operations Records and
Information management
structure and governance.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal
associated forecast costs in
the appropriate rate setting
proceedings. See supra
note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in
the Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

7. Employees for RIM: PG&E shall

identify and document the employees
responsible for implementing the
Records and Information Management
program for gas transmission.

As of the third quarter of 2014, Gas RIM had eight

full-time employees dedicated to the implementation
and oversight of gas records management, with
plans to add additional resources starting in 2016.
Gas Operations has also established a Gas RIM
Coordinator Network consisting of approximately
120 employees across its 152 field offices. RIM
Coordinator responsibilities include functioning as
subject matter experts for assigned locations,
providing guidance and support to their offices, and
work groups on management, protection, and
control of records. 82

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented this
remedy, for both transmission
and distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal
associated forecast costs in
the appropriate rate setting
proceedings. See supra
note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in
the Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

8. Consistent Standard Practices:

PG&E shall develop consistent standard
practices that include gas transmission
records management linked to corporate
polices on information governance.

While PWA testified that any violations in this OII

were not the result of defective procedures 83 and
thus are not at issue in this proceeding, PG&E sent
copies of its updated RIM policies, standards and
procedures to SED during discovery and their
quality, completeness and usefulness was not raised
by SED as an issue in this proceeding. 84

Completed. PG&E has

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in
the Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

Proposed Remedial Measure

82
83
84

Id. at 2-7:8-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).
Id. at 84 attch. B (PWA Report) (describing PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 2).

C-26

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

9. Retention Periods: PG&E shall

implement mandated retention periods
for all records relevant to gas
transmission.

While PWA testified that any violations in this OII

were not the result of defective procedures 85 and
thus are not at issue in this proceeding, PG&E has
provided SED with its current and updated record
retention policies. 86 See PG&Es Response to
Adopted Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedy
8, supra p. C-26.

Completed. PG&E has

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in
the Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

10. Standards to Conform with RIM

Policies: PG&E shall ensure that each
gas transmission standard conforms with
Records and Information Management
(RIM) policies for gas transmission.

PWA testified that any violations in this OII were

not the result of defective procedures 87 and are
therefore not at issue in this proceeding. Regardless,
PG&E is already meeting this proposed remedy with
regard to gas distribution through its development
and implementation of its RIM program.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

Proposed Remedial Measure

85
86
87

Id. at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

Id. at 84 attch. B (PWA Report) (describing PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 2).
Id. at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-27

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

11. Treatment of Active and Inactive

Records: PG&E shall include the
treatment of active and inactive records
in its Records and Information
Management (RIM) Policy for gas
transmission.

PG&E is already meeting this proposed remedy with In Progress. PG&E is

regard to gas distribution through its development
implementing this remedy, for
and implementation of its RIM program.
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal
associated forecast costs in
the appropriate rate setting
proceedings. See supra
note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

12. Traceable, Verifiable, and

Complete Standard: PG&Es records
management processes shall be managed
and maintained in accordance with the
traceable, verifiable, and complete
standard, including retention of physical
and digital pipeline records for the life
of the asset.

PG&E implemented a process for distribution

activities that addresses the goal intended by this
remedy. The traceable, verifiable, and complete
records standard is defined to include gas
distribution records contained in PG&Es job files.
PG&Es standard, Gas As-Built Packages, TD
4461S, defines job file, which includes the
information necessary to validate MAOP.
Moreover, PG&Es record retention schedule
includes retention periods for the records contained
in job files.
The intent of this remedy has already been
implemented by PG&E.

Unnecessary.

C-28

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented a
process for distribution
activities that addresses the
goal intended by the remedy.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

13. Accuracy of Records: The

accuracy and completeness of data
within gas transmission records shall be
traceable, verifiable, and complete and
when errors are discovered, the record
shall be corrected as soon as correct
information is available and the
reason(s) for each change shall be
documented and kept with the record.

PG&E has already implemented processes for

distribution activities that address the goal intended
by this remedy. PG&E has two processes to update
as-builts or make changes to the records in the gas
distribution GD GIS system to ensure accuracy and
completeness.
The first is in creating the as-built. As PG&E
testified, it has implemented a number of process
improvements to the process of creating and
documenting as-builts. 88
The second process is in Mapping corrections. As
PG&E testified, PG&E upgraded and documented a
new Map Correction procedure TD-4460P-11 Gas
Map Corrections, effective October 17, 2014. 89
This new process allows any PG&E employee to
submit map corrections directly to mapping through
CAP via a mobile application, web page, or directly
into SAP. These are then tracked, completed by
mapping, and closed. The record from the field (e.g.,
correction form or drawing) is stored within SAP
under the CAP notification number.

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented
processes for distribution
activities that address the goal
intended by the remedy.

Proposed Ruling
Unnecessary.

Ex. 4 at 4-9:3-14 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at 5-12:20 to 5-13:9 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); see Ex. 5, Attachment W017 (TD-4461P-20F01, Checklist for Distribution Mains and Services As-Built Packages); Ex. 7, Attachment W080 (TD-4461M, Rev. 0, As-Built Drawing Handbook).
89
Ex. 4 at 4-5:22 to 4-6:15 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino); id. at 5-22:22-28, 5-25:14-26 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); see Ex. 6, Attachment W029
(Utility Procedure TD-4460P-11, Rev. 0, Gas Map Corrections).

C-29

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

14. Standard Format for Job Files:

PG&E shall create a standard format for
the organization of a job file so that
PG&E personnel will know exactly
where to look in a file folder, or set of
file folders, to find each type of
document associated with a job file. At
a minimum, a job file will contain
traceable, verifiable, and complete
records to support the MAOP of the
pipeline segment installed; design
documentation; purchase documentation
showing the sources and specifications
of equipment purchased; permits;
environmental documents; field notes;
design, construction, and as-built
drawings; x-ray reports and weld maps;
pressure test records; correspondence
with the CPUC; and inspection reports
and correspondence.

PG&E has already implemented processes for

distribution activities that address the goal intended
by this remedy. See supra PG&Es Response to
Adopted Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedy
12.
PG&E is agreeing to SEDs Proposed Remedies (g)
and (h) to address MAOP issues. See PG&Es
Response to SEDs Proposed Remedies (g) and (h),
supra pp. C-13 to C-14.
Finally, distribution job files, which do not require
all of the same documentation (such as x-ray reports
and weld maps), are currently accessed through
SAP.

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented
processes for distribution
activities that address the goal
intended by the remedy. See
also PG&Es Response to
SEDs Proposed Remedies
(g) and (h), supra pp. C-13 to
C-14.

Unnecessary.

15. Job File Data To Be Immediately

Accessible: Job file data, including
drawings, for all parts of the active
PG&E gas transmission system shall be
immediately accessible from multiple
locations. The development of a
complete and accurate catalog of job
files that can be searched immediately
shall be included within this objective.

PG&E has already implemented processes for

distribution activities that address the goal intended
by this remedy. See supra PG&Es Response to
Adopted Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedy
12, supra p. C-28.
Distribution job file information is accessed
electronically through SAP.

Completed. PG&E has

already implemented
processes for distribution
activities that address the goal
intended by the remedy.

Unnecessary.

C-30

Proposed Ruling

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

16. Missing Records: The information

that was contained in PG&Es historic
records and documents, and that has
been identified as missing or disposed
of, and is necessary to be retained for
the safe operation of the pipelines,
pursuant to laws, regulations and
standards, and the PG&E retention
schedule, shall be recovered. This
recovery shall include but not be limited
to:
a. updating and verification of data in
engineering databases, such as the leak
database, GIS, and the integrity
management model,
b. updating plat sheets and other
engineering drawings, and
c. updating and organizing job files.
When PG&E cannot locate records, it
may apply conservative assumptions
consistent with the requirements of
Ordering Paragraph 1 of D. 11-06-017.
PG&E shall be required to fully
document any engineering-based
assumptions it makes for data that has
been identified as missing or disposed
of. Such assumptions must be clearly
identified and justified and, where
ambiguities arise, the assumption
allowing the greatest safety margin must
be adopted.

PG&Es responses to SEDs Proposed Remedies

(a)(e) address the recordkeeping issues raised in
this proceeding. Moreover, PG&Es gas plat sheets
are now updated in GD GIS and distribution job
files are maintained in SAP. See PG&Es
Responses to SEDs Proposed Remedies (a) and (c),
supra pp. C-5 to C-7, C-10, and PG&Es Responses
to Adopted Transmission Recordkeeping OII
Remedies (5), (14), and (15), supra pp. C-24 to C25, C-30. Thus, this remedy is duplicative to those
proposed remedies.

In Progress. See PG&Es

responses to SEDs Proposed
Remedies (a)(e), supra
pp. C-5 to C-12.

Inapplicable to
distribution assets
and duplicative of
PG&Es
Responses to
SEDs Proposed
Remedies (a)(e).

C-31

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure
17. Document Changes to Policies,
Standards, and Procedures: PG&E
shall document adoption of, and changes
and amendments to, policies, standards
and procedures within the Gas
Operations Organization (or its
successor division(s) with responsibility
for design, construction, operations,
maintenance, testing, safety, and
integrity management of PG&Es
natural gas pipeline system). The
documentation shall include the reasons
for adoption, amendment, or
cancellation of the policies, standards,
and procedures. An audit trail of
changes shall be maintained and
retained for as long as the standard is in
effect. If a policy, standard, or procedure
is cancelled, a copy of the policy,
standard or procedure in effect at the
time of cancellation, as well as the
reason for its cancellation, shall be
preserved permanently, taking heed of
potential changes in technology that
may render documents unreadable in the
future.

PG&Es Response
While PWA testified that any violations in this OII
were not the result of defective procedures 90 and
thus are not at issue in this proceeding, PG&E
already currently tracks and maintains changes to
policies and procedures.

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-32

Status 67

Proposed Ruling

Completed. PG&E has

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in
the Transmission
Recordkeeping
OII proceeding.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure
18. Identification of Salvaged and
Reused Pipes: PG&E will identify each
section of pipe that has been salvaged
and reused within the PG&E gas
transmission system. For each section of
pipe identified, PG&E will change the
installed date in its GIS and its IM
model to the date the pipe was originally
installed in the PG&E pipeline system.

Status 67

PG&Es Response
PG&E does not use salvaged pipe in its Gas
Distribution system. This proposed remedy is
therefore inapplicable to this proceeding.

C-33

N/A

Proposed Ruling
Inapplicable to
gas distribution.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

Status 67

PG&Es Response

PG&E does not use salvaged pipe in its Gas

19. Rejected. TURN proposed
Distribution system, and therefore, this proposed
remedy 1 adopted instead:
remedy is inapplicable to this proceeding.
TURN Proposed Remedy 1
Centralized Database to Track ReUsed Pipes: PG&E shall create a
centralized database to track where it
has placed reused or otherwise
reconditioned pipe in its system. For
each such segment, the database should
show the date of manufacture of the
segment, if known. If this date is
unknown, the database should so
indicate, to ensure that the segment is
given appropriate attention in integrity
management. The database should
include a link to reliable and readily
accessible documentation showing, for
each reused or otherwise reconditioned
pipe segment, that all steps necessary to
prepare the segment for installation were
performed and inspected. If such
documentation is unavailable, the
centralized documentation should so
indicate so that the segment will be
given appropriate attention in integrity
management. PG&E will maintain this
database so long as there are sections of
reused pipe in the PG&E operating gas
transmission pipeline system.

C-34

N/A

Proposed Ruling
Inapplicable to
gas distribution.

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure

Status 67

PG&Es Response

Proposed Ruling

20. PwC Recommendations: PG&E

shall implement the recommendations
included in the final
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit
report. (TURN Exhibit 16, Appendix B).

The PwC report is dated March 31, 2012, and many See PwC Recommendations,
of its recommendations have been implemented as
infra pp. C-37 to C-63.
ordered in the Gas Transmission Records OII.
Ordering these recommendations again is
duplicative. Others, while still implemented, are not
germane to the disputed issues in this case. Two of
the recommendations, C.1 and C.2, relate to ongoing
RIM training and are appropriate in this context, but
duplicative because already ordered and in progress
as a result of the Transmission Recordkeeping OII
proceeding. The PwC recommendations, therefore,
are duplicative, unnecessary, or not relevant to
issues in this proceeding.
See PG&Es Responses to PwC Recommendations,
infra pp. C-37 to C-63.

See PwC
Recommendation
s, infra pp. C-37
to C-63.

21. Audit of Recordkeeping Practices:

Using independent auditors, CPSD will
undertake audits of PG&Es
recordkeeping practices within the Gas
Transmission Division on an annual
basis for a minimum of 10 years after
the final decision is issued in OII. 11-02016.

PG&E currently works with SED through SEDs

division audit process to identify and correct gas
distribution deficiencies including those associated
with records, and will continue to do so as the
Commission directs.
Additionally, PG&E uses a robust system of internal
auditing, which is directly overseen by senior
management, and which includes audits of
recordkeeping practices. 91
PG&E has also made extensive use of independent
auditors and experts, such as Lloyds Register. 92
PWA has commended PG&Es use of both internal
and external audits. 93
There has been no evidence presented in this
proceeding that suggests a separate, independent
auditor is necessary.

Unnecessary.

91
92
93

Ex. 4 at 3-23:3-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).

Id. at 1-22:1-32 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 2-8:13-16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
Ex. 1 at 69:3-4, 75:1-6 (PWA Report).

C-35

N/A

ADOPTED TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII REMEDIES PROPOSED BY CPSD 66

Proposed Remedial Measure
22. Correct Deficiencies Identified
From Audits: PG&E will correct
deficiencies in recordkeeping discovered
as a result of each CPSD audit and will
report to CPSD when such deficiencies
have been corrected.

Status 67

PG&Es Response
See PG&Es Response to Adopted Transmission
Recordkeeping OII Remedy 21, supra p. C-35.

C-36

N/A

Proposed Ruling
Unnecessary.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

A.1. RIM Program: Seek

commitment to be a gas utility with
a leading RIM program by
highlighting benefits and declaring
the objectives with tangible
milestones such as industry awards
and presenting at industry
conferences on RIM initiatives.

PG&Es Gas Operations organization has already

committed to using the Information Governance
Maturity Model for records management
developed by ARMA International to design a
Gas RIM program in accordance with the
recordkeeping and information management
guidance in PAS 55 and ISO 55001. 96 As part of
its efforts to achieve ARMA Level 3 maturity, in
August 2015 PG&E began the electronic records
portion of a multi-year records management
initiative, with a focus on information controls
and security. 97 The initiative is scheduled to be
completed in 2018.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
Thus, this remedy is duplicative.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

A.2. RIM Program: Strive to be a

gas utility with a top RIM program
by leveraging leading practices
from within gas and other
industries.

See PG&Es Response to PwC Recommendation

A.1, supra.

See PG&Es Response to PwC

Recommendation A.1, supra.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Proposed Ruling

For a report on the status of the implementation of these remedies, see Pacific Gas and Electric Co.s Compliance Plan for Remedies Ordered by D.15-04-024,
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. with Respect to Facilities Records for its
Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. Pipelines, I. 11-02-016 (June 8, 2013), available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M152/K482/152482664.PDF.
95
This column provides the status of the implementation of the remedy, to the extent that PG&E undertook activities consistent with the intent of the remedy or as
such a remedy was applied to the gas distribution systems in the GT Records OII. In Progress indicates that the remedy is being implemented or is ongoing as
part of the GT Records OII. Completed indicates that the remedy has been implemented as to distribution activities through the Transmission Recordkeeping
OII or that PG&E has implemented measures to address the intent of the remedy as part of its ongoing efforts to improve its distribution records and distribution
system safety.
96
Ex. 4 at 2-8:1-4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
97
Ex. 5, Attachment W014 at W014.003 (PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 114).

C-37

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

A.3. RIM Program: Leverage the

RIM Principles and the attributes of
RIM Maturity to devise a Gas RIM
strategy that seeks to move the Gas
organization to a higher maturity
level.

See supra PG&Es Response to PwC

Recommendation A.1, supra p. C-37.

See supra Response to PwC

Recommendation A.1, supra p.
C-37.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

B.1. Corporate Records

Management: Align with
Corporate Records Management
Policy and Retention Schedule; at a
minimum including Legal (with
possible Outside Counsel review)
Corporate Secretary, and Corporate
Information Governance Council.

While PWA testified that any violations in this

OII were not the result of defective procedures 98
and thus are not an issue in this proceeding,
PG&E has already implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

B.2. Gas Governance Structure:

Create Gas Governance Structure,
including Gas Information
Governance Council, Gas Steering
Committee, Gas RIM Director
Role, Regional/Business Unit
Managers, and Coordinators

The gas governance structure is not an issue in

this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-38

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

B.3. RIM Project Plan: Gas RIM

Director/Council should create and
own the RIM Project Plan/PMO
and track progress, challenges,
milestones reached, and evaluate
necessary changes to plan and
timelines, etc.

The role of the RIM director is not an issue in this Completed. PG&E has already
proceeding.
implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

B.4. Gas Compliance

Organization: Consider creating a
formal Gas Compliance
organization leveraging the existing
Standards and Policies function.

Creation of a Gas Compliance organization is not

an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

B.5. Retention Schedules:

Consolidate and update Retention
Schedules. Retention schedule to
apply to all content regardless of
storage medium (e.g., database,
paper files, image system,
microfiche, backup tape, etc.)

Retention schedules are not an issue in this

proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-39

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

B.6. Corporate Records

Management Policy:
Update/Enhance Corporate Records
Management Policy.

The Corporate Records Management Policy is

not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

B.7. Corporate Records

Management Policy and
Retention Schedule: Embed the
Corporate Records Management
Policy and the Retention Schedule
within each Gas function.

The Corporate Records Management Policy and

the Retention Schedule are not an issue in this
proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-40

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

C.1. RIM Training: Provide RIM

training to all Gas Operations
employees.

In 2014, 98% of the Gas Operations workforce

(consisting of about 5,000 employees) received
RIM training, which included information about
defining a record and a vital record, providing
examples of the difference between a record and
a non-record, and describing electronic and paper
records. In 2015, Gas Operations transitioned to
an enterprise-deployed Information Governance
training, which is an annual requirement for all
employees. As of October 2015, 82% of Gas
Operations employees had completed that
training, and with the exception of 4% of
employees who were new to the gas organization,
96% of the remaining Gas Operations employees
were trained by the end of the year. Consistent
with the suggestion made in the PWA Report,
Gas Operations already has plans in place to
develop and implement a monitoring plan to
evaluate the effectiveness of records-related
trainings that are provided to employees. 99

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.2. Gas Operations Training:

Create a holistic Gas Operations
learning curriculum that provides
timely, job-specific, technical, and
soft-skills training, and includes
RIM concepts and principles.

RIM concepts and principles were incorporated

into Gas Operations courses as part of the Gas
Operations curriculum training development
strategy. 100

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Proposed Ruling

Ex. 4 at 2-6:16 to 2-7:2 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.s Compliance Plan for Remedies Ordered by D.15-04-024, Order Instituting Investigation on the Commns Own Motion into the
Operations & Practices of Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. with Respect to Facilities Records for its Nat. Gas Transmission Sys. Pipelines, I. 11-02-016, at 89 (June 8,
2013), available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M152/K482/152482664.PDF
100

C-41

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

C.3. Additional Training: After

Change Management training is not an issue in
initial RIM training courses are
this proceeding.
conducted, identify functions and/or
individuals that require additional
Change Management and training
assistance.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.4. Gas RIM Program

Communication Plan: Develop
and execute a Gas RIM Program
Communications plan to enhance
and sustain executive support for
the RIM initiative, and educate all
employees on the importance of an
effective RIM program.

The Gas RIM Program Communication plan is

not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.5. A Day in the Field Visits:

Promote cross-level camaraderie
and knowledge sharing by having
leadership conduct a day in the
field visits at least once a year, and
observe the work, including the
RIM-related practices.

The need for cross-level camaraderie is not an

issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
There were no incremental costs
to apply this to distribution
activities.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-42

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

C.6. Additional Resources:

Identify additional resources
(internal or external) with
appropriate skill sets and
experience to work at direction of
identified PG&E resources with
Quality Control and Vendor
Management expertise. Leverage
resources execute on planned
temporary or interim activities to
resolve any backlog of work (filing,
mapping, other functions as deemed
appropriate), and to help prep and
organize records at locations in
advance of larger digitization
efforts.

PG&E is already addressing this remedy through

its implementation of the RIM program.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.7. Cross-Functional
Teamwork: Promote CrossFunctional Teamwork to improve
processes, including data accuracy
and quality.

The need for cross-functional teamwork is not an

issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-43

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

C.8. Employee Feedback and

Incentives: Solicit, evaluate and
respond to feedback from
employees. Provide incentives to
employees for generating cost
savings and other innovative ideas,
without compromising quality.

The need for employee feedback and incentives is Completed. PG&E has already
not an issue in this proceeding.
implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.9. Gas Employee of the Month:

Consider creating a Gas Employee
of the Month program to highlight
employees who have demonstrated
positive impact to RIM culture.

The need to highlight employee impact on RIM

culture is not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C.10. Gas Records Management

Day: Consider creating a Gas
Records Management Day to
promote and get employees
involved in various RIM activities.
Leverage as an employee morale
event/teaming event/training.

Employee engagement in RIM activities is not an

issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-44

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Status 95

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

C.11. Consolidating Gas

Distribution Mappers: Consider
consolidating Gas Distribution
Mappers to centralized location to
facilitate consistency and controls.
Retain 1-2 local field resources for
local requests and M&C assistance.

PG&E provided testimony in this proceeding on

the structure of its Mapping organization, which
has been significantly consolidated. 101 None of
the parties raised any issues on the remaining
distributed mapping workforce. No evidence was
presented to suggest that the current practice is
not operating well or that a change at this time
would facilitate consistency and controls.

Completed.

Duplicative of actions
PG&E has taken
regarding its gas
distribution mapping
function.

C.12. Success Criteria and

Metrics: Develop appropriate
success criteria, and appropriate
metrics with quality aspect.
Leverage the metrics in a positive
light to promote progress and
achievements. Recognize employee
contributions to support the
organization's goals as it relates to
RIM principles and initiatives.

Employee recognition is not an issue in this

proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.1. Standard on Metrics: Create

a Standard that indicates that all
reporting metrics must include a
Quality component, or a footnote as
to the method in which the quality
of the metrics was
supported/confirmed.

PWA testified that any violations in this OII were

not the result of defective procedures 102 and thus
are not an issue in this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

101
102

Ex. 4 at 4-3:1 to 4-4:18 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-45

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

D.2. RIM Issues Reporting:

Create a requirement and protocol
for reporting any potential systemic
data quality or RIM issues to
immediate Supervisor and Gas RIM
Director.

PG&Es procedures go beyond this

recommendation. PG&Es CAP program is used
to identify, track, and resolve recordkeeping and
other issues. Any PG&E employee can report
any issue in CAP and the issue is assigned to the
appropriate personnel. This ensures that the
issues are assigned to the appropriate, responsible
personnel, who may or may not be the RIM
supervisor or director. None of the parties raised
any issues about RIM reporting.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.3. Employee
Departure/Transfer
Process/Procedure: Review and
update the process/procedure for
Employee Departure/Transfer to
ensure transition of Gas Records
from employee custody or on hard
drives/servers to corporate storage
and management.

Employee departure and ensuing transfer of

records is not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.4. Disposition Procedure:

Create a formal Disposition
Procedure to address records
eligible for disposition, including
preservation obligations, approval
for disposition, and appropriate
disposition techniques.

Records disposition is not an issue in this

proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-46

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure
D.5. Integrate RIM Controls:
Integrate RIM controls within Gas
Operations business processes.

103

PG&Es Response
RIM controls were not raised as an issue in the
evidentiary record of this proceeding. However,
PG&E has made significant investment in its
RIM program, as described in testimony. 103

Ex. 4 at 2-7:4 to 2-8:25 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-47

Status 95
In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Proposed Ruling
Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure
D.6. Guidelines for Storage of
Physical Records: Create formal
guidelines for the storage of
physical records, including
temperature/moisture conditions,
and consideration of fire-safe
location for vital physical records.

PG&Es Response

Status 95

PG&E has already published two standards that

address this proposed remedy.
First, PG&E recently published Gas Operations
Records Information Management standard (TD4016S), 104 which defines what a record is and
sets forth general rules for the retention, storage,
and disposal of both paper and electronic records.
Moreover, the Enterprise Records and
Information Management Physical Storage
Standard was published on February 25, 2016.
This standard specifies the requirements for the
storage of physical records to insure that
necessary controls are in place to prevent damage
due to environmental hazards or natural disasters.
Second, PG&E published Vital Records
Management standard (TD-4017S), 105 which
describes the requirements for creating and
handling those records that are essential to
PG&Es ongoing gas operations and for
complying with its legal or business obligations.
It requires Gas Operations to create an inventory
of vital records, which must be updated at least
annually, as well as a plan to protect and ensure
access to those records.
PG&E sent copies of these record information
management policies and procedures to SED
during discovery and their quality, completeness,
and usefulness was not raised by SED as an issue
in this proceeding. 106

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

104

Proposed Ruling
Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Ex. 5, Attachment W010 (Utility Standard TD-4016S, Rev. 1, Gas Operations Records and Information Management). This document was published on
October 15, 2014. Id.
105
Id., Attachment W011 (Utility Standard TD-4017S, Rev. 0, Gas Operations Vital Records Management). This document was published on December 4, 2013.
Id.
106
Ex. 1 at 84 attch. B (PWA Report) (describing PG&Es Response to SED Data Request No. 2); see also Ex. 4 at 2-5:18 to 2-6:2 (PG&E Reply Testimony,
Singh).

C-48

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

D.7. Iron Mountain Records:

Develop and execute plan for
evaluating historical Gas Paper
Records currently at Iron Mountain
(post Cow-palace review effort in
2011) and determine what should
be scanned, and appropriate
disposition.

Iron Mountain records are not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.8. Alignment With Corporate

Records Management Policy and
Refresh Schedule: Establish
process and protocol to align with
Corporate Records Management
Policy, and refresh Retention
Schedule, Gas RIM standards, Gas
guidelines and procedures, Gas
process maps, and Gas data
inventory based on a defined
refresh schedule (Annual Review or
other trigger such as a new
Regulation).

PWA testified that any violations in this OII were

not the result of defective procedures 107 and
alignment with Corporate Records Management
Policy is not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

107

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-49

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure
D.9. Records and Information
Inventory: Create a gas records
and information data inventory to
identify and locate all (paper and
electronic) Records and
Information populations.

PG&Es Response

Status 95

PG&E has already implemented this remedy for

gas distribution records. In 2014, Gas Operations
RIM published a revised Gas Operations Records
Retention Schedule which was based on the gas
records inventory. This inventory involved
interviews with subject matter experts in each of
the respective Gas Operations functional groups.
The gas records inventory will be updated, as
additional records are identified. An updated
Records Retention Schedule was published in
January 2016 as an attachment to the revised
corporate standard, GOV-7101S. Gas Operations
RIM is currently conducting the periodic review
of the inventory, to include interviews with
subject matter experts and the validation of
inventory by supervisors and managers. The
inventory certification of the updated inventory
by directors and officers is scheduled for October
31, 2016.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

C-50

Proposed Ruling
Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

D.10. Records in Unstructured

Data Stores: Identify Records in
Unstructured data stores, such as
Shared Drives and Intranet.

Unstructured data stores are not an issue in this

proceeding.
In any event, PG&E has already implemented
measures to address unstructured data stores for
its distribution records. Specifically, as detailed
in Chapter 2 of PG&Es Reply Testimony, in
2015, PG&Es Gas Operations organization
initiated a multi-year effort to address the
electronic records portion of the initiative,
including the migration of certain electronic
records from unstructured systems (such as
SharePoint, share drives, and hard drives) to
centralized structured databases (such as
Documentum). 108
Documentum is an electronic document
management system that is being implemented to
serve as PG&Es primary electronic records
repository for unstructured data, such as word
processor documents, PDFs, and images. 109
Once fully integrated, Documentum will interface
with GD GIS and SAP and PG&E personnel will
be better able to electronically standardize the
records management processes and access the
associated records.

In Progress. PG&E is already

implementing the intent of this
remedy.

Unnecessary.

D.11. Migration From Discrete

Storage Locations: Develop a
strategy and process to migrate
active and historical electronic
information from discrete storage
locations (i.e., shared drives, PCs,
etc.) to a centralized repository (i.e.,
Documentum).

Migration of electronic data in discrete storage

locations are not an issue in this proceeding.
In any event, PG&E has already implemented an
initiative to migrate unstructured data to
Documentum. See PG&Es Response to PwC
Recommendation D.10, supra p. C-51.

See PG&Es Response to D.10,

supra p. C-51.

Unnecessary.

108
109

Ex. 4 at 2-6:8-14 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-15:1-6 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-51

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

PG&Es Response

Status 95

D.12. Compliance Review on

RIM Program Components:
Perform Gas Operations
Compliance review on RIM
Program components, such as
Corporate Records Management
Policy, Retention Schedules, and
other related RIM procedures.

While RIM Program components are not an issue

in this proceeding, PG&E has made significant
investment in its RIM program, as described in
testimony. 110
Moreover, PG&E sent copies of its updated RIM
policies, standards and procedures to SED during
discovery and their quality, completeness and
usefulness was not raised by SED as an issue in
this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.13. Interim Audit Plans:

Create interim Audit Plans (assess
risk, define frequency, scope, type
of audit) for Quality Assurance and
Internal Audit, and define RIM
controls for audit plans.

PG&E uses a robust system of internal auditing,

which is directly overseen by senior management,
and which includes audits of recordkeeping
practices. 111 Internal Auditing group performs
audits to evaluate the effectiveness of controls on
new and existing business processes, which
allows management to then address any control
gaps and check whether the processes are being
implemented effectively. 112 As a reflection of the
value PG&E places on its internal audit process, a
risk compliance committee comprised of senior
management is responsible for ensuring that
corrective actions are implemented following an
internal audit or any other QM review. 113
Thus, PG&Es current internal audit program
goes beyond this proposed remedy.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
There were no incremental costs
as PG&E already has an ongoing
audit process.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Proposed Remedial Measure

110
111
112
113

Id. at 2-7:4 to 2-8:25 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 3-23:3-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).
Id. at 5-22:16-19 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).
Ex. 1 at 76:4-6 (PWA Report); Ex. 4 at 1-8 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Howe); id. at 3-23:9-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Higgins).

C-52

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

D.14. Enhance Long Term Audit

Plans: Once the RIM program is
stabilized, update and enhance long
term Audit Plans (assess risk,
define frequency, scope, type of
audit) for Quality Assurance and
Internal Audit, and define RIM
controls for audit plans.

See PG&Es Response to PwC Recommendation

D.13, supra p. C-52.

In Progress. See PG&Es

Response to PwC
Recommendation D.13, supra p.
C-52.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.15. Review Gas Ops Business

Processes: Review the current list
of Gas Operations business
processes to validate and document
a comprehensive list of all gas
operational processes (that should
follow the full information
lifecycle).

Gas Ops business processes are not an issue in

this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
There were no incremental costs
as PG&E already has a list of
processes and periodically
updates them.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.16. Gas Business Process

Maps: Evaluate and refresh Gas
business process maps for the
newly defined/validated list of
processes, instituting a rigorous
protocol for standardization and
approval by process owners.

Gas business process maps are not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-53

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

D. 17. Revise Standards and

Work Procedures: Align and
revise all Standards and Work
Procedures to the updated list of all
Gas Operations Processes.

PWA testified that any violations in this OII were

not the result of defective procedures 114 and thus
are not an issue in this proceeding. Gas business
processes are also not an issue in this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

D.18. Log of Special Projects and

Initiatives: Develop and maintain
comprehensive log of all Gas
Operations special projects and
initiatives to ensure any new
Records or data stores that may be
created as a part of the effort has
appropriate RIM practices.

New records or data stores created as a result of

special projects and initiatives are not an issue in
this proceeding and PWA noted PG&Es control
processes associated with GD GIS
implementation. 115 PG&Es RIM team functions
across Gas Operations to assure appropriate
controls are established for gas distribution
records.

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

114
115

Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

See, e.g., id. at 55:30 to 56:8, 58:1-10, 58:19-26 (PWA Report).

C-54

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

D.19. Challenges and Backlog of

Gas Maps: Address known
challenges and backlog of Gas
Maps.

PG&E already has a robust process to track the

timely progress of distribution mapping updates
and corrections. The Mapping Department
utilizes SAP to track progress and monitor the
status of mapping corrections with a target goal
of completion within 30 days. 116 Mapping
management meets monthly to discuss Gas
Mapping Department performance based on a
monthly Placemat, a dashboard the Mapping
Department generates each month that tracks
various performance metrics of the team. 117

Completed. PG&E has already

implemented a process for
distribution activities that
addresses the goal intended by
the remedy.

Unnecessary.

D.20. Review of RIM Standards:

Add RIM Program standards to the
five year standards review process
in Gas Operations.

PWA testified that any violations in this OII were

not the result of defective procedures 118 and thus
are not an issue in this proceeding. RIM
standards are also not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

116
117
118

Ex. 4 at 4-11:29 to 4-12:3 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).

Id. at 4-3:8-12 & fig. 4-1 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
Ex. 1 at 1:22-23 (PWA Report).

C-55

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

PG&Es Response

Status 95

D.21. RIM Program

Improvements: Once RIM
program and processes achieve
stability, identify and develop
continuous improvement activities
for the Gas RIM Program.

PG&E has already committed to using the

Information Governance Maturity Model for
records management developed by ARMA
International to design a Gas RIM program in
accordance with the recordkeeping and
information management guidance in PAS 55 and
ISO 55001. 119 The Company has made
significant improvements since the publication of
the PwC report four years ago.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

E.1. Data Cleansing Effort:

Conduct rigorous and thorough
Data Cleansing effort prior to any
consolidation or migration of
electronic data into new or interim
systems.

As discussed in PG&Es response to SED

proposed remedy (a), PG&E undertook a number
of initiatives to identify discrepancies and gaps in
its distribution records during the migration to
GD GIS. See PG&Es Response to SED
Proposed Remedy (a), supra pp. C-5 to C-7.

Completed. PG&E is already

implementing the intent of this
remedy.

Unnecessary.

E.2. Identify Data Gaps: Identify

potential data completeness gaps
through results of Data Cleanse
exercises.

See PG&Es Response to PwC Recommendation

E.1, supra p. C-56.

Completed. PG&E is already

implementing the intent of this
remedy.

Unnecessary.

Proposed Remedial Measure

119

Ex. 4 at 2-8:1-4 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-56

Proposed Ruling

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

E.3. Information for Future

Processes: As part of Business
Requirements gathering efforts,
evaluate what Information should
be gathered to support future state
Gas Operations processes and
advancement of Integrity
Management analysis.

While this is not an issue raised in this

proceeding, PG&E already gathers information
for future processes and integrity management
analysis. As discussed in PG&Es Response to
SED Proposed Remedy (a) and Adopted
Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedy 5,
PG&E undertook an enormous effort to migrate
its distribution records to GD GIS, SAP, and
Documentum. It also implemented a number of
initiatives using data analytics to improve the
state of its records. See PG&Es Response to
SED Proposed Remedy (a) and Adopted
Transmission Recordkeeping OII Remedy 5,
supra pp. C-5 to C-7, C-24 to C-25.

Completed. PG&E is already

implementing the intent of this
remedy. Gas distribution has the
desired analytic capabilities with
the implementation of GD GIS,
continued use of SAP, and
growing use of Documentum.

Unnecessary.

E.4. Capture Paper-Based

Records and Documents
Electronically: Building on
Records digitization efforts from
the MAOP Validation project,
continue to capture paper-based
records and documents
electronically.

This proposed remedy is not applicable to this

proceeding. Moreover, PG&E is using digitized
records in its distribution MAOP analysis.

Completed. PG&E is already

implementing the intent of this
remedy. PG&E is already using
digitized records to perform its
distribution MAOP analysis.

Unnecessary.

E.5. Stand-Alone Repositories:

Standardize the use of stand-alone
repositories such as SharePoint and
email so they can align and
potentially integrate with RIM
procedures going forward.

Stand-alone repositories are not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-57

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

E.6. Email Storage: Create and

execute process to transfer data
captured in emails to appropriate
permanent repositories and
discourage the use of email as a
data store/personal electronic
filing cabinet.

Email storage is not an issue in this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

E.7. Shared Drives and Hard

Drives: Identify and migrate
official Records stored on network
Shared Drives and local personal
computer hard drives to a
designated central repository
(Documentum). Consider
eliminating Shared Drives for some
functions.

The use of shared drives and hard drives is not an

issue in this proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

E.8. Off-line Data Stores:

Identify, develop, and execute
remediation plan for other
electronic off-line data stores
such as floppy/hard disks,
CDs/DVDs, USB drives, external
hard drives, etc.

Off-line data stores are not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-58

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

E.9. Detailed Business

Requirements Gathering:
Enhance Detailed Business
Requirements Gathering for
Technology Systems. This should
include specific discussions with
various relevant workforce
populations on: User Interface, Gas
Processes Work Flows,
Reporting/Metrics, Taxonomy,
Metadata, Security Access, and
Protection Model.

Business requirements gathering is not an issue in

this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

C-59

Proposed Ruling
Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

E.10. Target Operating Model:

Develop a holistic Gas Operations,
Business Applications Target
Operating Model that includes all
Gas (Distribution and
Transmission) systems, Records,
and data stores.

Gas Operations operating model is not an issue in

this proceeding.
Moreover, PG&E has already implemented a
number of technologies that meet the intent of
this proposed remedy. These platforms enable
PG&E to implement best practices for
standardizing recordkeeping practices and
improving its asset data.
These platforms include GD GIS, which provides
spatial information about distribution assets and
attributes of assets (e.g., size, type, and location),
along with references to work orders and gas
service record numbers. 120
SAP includes an asset management database that
contains equipment records, maintenance history
and plans, gas leak data, preventive and
corrective notifications, scheduling and cost
collecting orders, material requisitions,
warehouse management, financials, and cost
accounting, as well as an inventory of data and
maintenance plans related to regulation, valves,
corrosion, leak survey, and instrument calibration
for the gas distribution system. 121
Documentum serves as PG&Es primary
electronic records depository, and stores both
record content and record metadata (e.g., record
creation date, author, editor, versions, format, and
lifecycle status), with full-text search
capabilities. 122

120
121
122

Status 95
In Progress. PG&E is already
implementing the intent of this
remedy.

Id. at 2-11:25-29 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-14:9-20 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh); id. at 4-11:29 to 4-14:16 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Trevino).
Id. at 2-14:32 to 2-15:23 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-60

Proposed Ruling
Unnecessary.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

(continued)

The three systems interface with each other to

provide information necessary to manage assets
in real-time for prompt decision making, and can
provide advanced analytic capabilities to improve
the accuracy of asset data. 123

E.11. Data Entry Quality

Control: Ensure all system user
interfaces in which new information
or data points are entered,
incorporate appropriate
preventative and detective controls
to help minimize data quality issues
at point of entry.

PG&Es testimony describes data quality

management in detail. For example, PG&E
implemented the use of a mobile A Form, which
includes many validation rules that allow the leak
repair information to be captured completely and
accurately as the leak is repaired in the field. 124

Completed. PG&E has

implemented the intent of this
remedy for distribution
activities.

Unnecessary.

E.12. Intranet as Resource:

Leverage the PG&E Intranet Gas
Operations page for a centralized,
searchable, and easily navigable
resource of all Gas Policies,
Procedures, and Standards
(including RIM-related).

Accessibility of Gas policies, procedures, and

standards is not an issue in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

123
124

Id. at 2-15:24 to 2-16:17, 2-18:11-14 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

Id. at 2-20:14-18 (PG&E Reply Testimony, Singh).

C-61

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure

PG&Es Response

Status 95

Proposed Ruling

E.13. Legal Hold: Develop and

execute formal Hold In Place
process for Documentum to
facilitate preservation under Legal
Holds. Ensure reporting/auditing of
Holds In Place is also included.

Legal hold process is not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
PG&E has identified and
proposed for removal associated
forecast costs in the appropriate
rate setting proceedings. See
supra note 70.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

E.14. Contract Management

System Plug In/Interface to
Documentum: Consider a
Contract Management System plugin/interface to Documentum system
to facilitate robust, consistent, and
controlled Gas Contracting
lifecycle process.

Contract management is not an issue in this

proceeding.

In Progress. PG&E is
implementing this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
There were no incremental costs
to implement this remedy for
distribution activities.

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

E.15. Technology and Systems

Landscape: Reassess/re-examine
the existing Technology and
Systems landscape periodically to
determine if Gas Operations needs
are still being met in the future.

As discussed throughout PG&Es testimony,

PG&E is continually evaluating its technology
and systems to improve its gas distribution
recordkeeping practices. In any event,
technology and systems landscape is not an issue
in this proceeding.

Completed. PG&E has already

Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

C-62

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN TRANSMISSION RECORDKEEPING OII 94

Proposed Remedial Measure
E.16. Gas IT Technical Support:
Create and implement a Gas IT
technical support sub-group (via the
phone help line) that can more
specifically address Gas Operations
systems issues.

PG&Es Response
IT technical support is not an issue in this
proceeding.

C-63

Status 95
Completed. PG&E has already
implemented this remedy, for
both transmission and
distribution activities, in
response to the Transmission
Recordkeeping OII proceeding.
There were no incremental costs
to implement this remedy for
distribution activities.

Proposed Ruling
Duplicative of
remedies already
ordered and
implemented in the
Transmission
Recordkeeping OII
proceeding.

Automotive Diagnostic Systems: Understanding OBD-I & OBD-II Revised
From Everand
Automotive Diagnostic Systems: Understanding OBD-I & OBD-II Revised
Keith McCord
4/5 (3)
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College - Plaintiffs' Brief - Punitive Damage Caps Are Unconstitutional
No ratings yet
Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College - Plaintiffs' Brief - Punitive Damage Caps Are Unconstitutional
13 pages
Aeration Control System Design: A Practical Guide to Energy and Process Optimization
From Everand
Aeration Control System Design: A Practical Guide to Energy and Process Optimization
Thomas E. Jenkins
No ratings yet
كتالوج الشيلرات
No ratings yet
كتالوج الشيلرات
54 pages
Mapic 2016 Programme
No ratings yet
Mapic 2016 Programme
22 pages
Safety and Enforcement Division's Application For Rehearing 9-26-16
No ratings yet
Safety and Enforcement Division's Application For Rehearing 9-26-16
11 pages
Safety and Enforcement Division's Appeal of Presiding Officer's Decision 7-01-16
No ratings yet
Safety and Enforcement Division's Appeal of Presiding Officer's Decision 7-01-16
31 pages
10000017315
No ratings yet
10000017315
8 pages
ORDER NO. 89685: Annotated Code of Maryland, 5-304 (A) (1) - The Explosion Occurred at An Office
No ratings yet
ORDER NO. 89685: Annotated Code of Maryland, 5-304 (A) (1) - The Explosion Occurred at An Office
11 pages
City of Carmel Reply Brief
No ratings yet
City of Carmel Reply Brief
11 pages
SpaceX Ex Parte Re D
No ratings yet
SpaceX Ex Parte Re D
5 pages
Cbts's Appeal of The Presiding Officer's Decision 6-28-16
No ratings yet
Cbts's Appeal of The Presiding Officer's Decision 6-28-16
14 pages
Tva Nov PDF
No ratings yet
Tva Nov PDF
4 pages
20 1+NoticetoClaim-Disruption PDF
No ratings yet
20 1+NoticetoClaim-Disruption PDF
2 pages
Gasp Et Al Comment On Plains Marketing 2020 T5 Renewal
No ratings yet
Gasp Et Al Comment On Plains Marketing 2020 T5 Renewal
16 pages
Construction Contract Claims
100% (1)
Construction Contract Claims
158 pages
PSC National Grid
No ratings yet
PSC National Grid
119 pages
2012 05896
No ratings yet
2012 05896
61 pages
San Onofre Investigation OII Draft 168791
No ratings yet
San Onofre Investigation OII Draft 168791
27 pages
Exhibit 11B
No ratings yet
Exhibit 11B
25 pages
Sprague Electric Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 330 F.2d 1005, 1st Cir. (1964)
No ratings yet
Sprague Electric Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 330 F.2d 1005, 1st Cir. (1964)
5 pages
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
No ratings yet
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
4 pages
DBE Proposed Program Changes
No ratings yet
DBE Proposed Program Changes
160 pages
Disruption PDF
No ratings yet
Disruption PDF
9 pages
Revenue Distribution Worksheets 2024
No ratings yet
Revenue Distribution Worksheets 2024
1,673 pages
Letter of Opposition From Citizens February 27 2017 City Council Item 16
No ratings yet
Letter of Opposition From Citizens February 27 2017 City Council Item 16
81 pages
Filed: Patrick Fisher
No ratings yet
Filed: Patrick Fisher
10 pages
SDGE PYD PD Reply Comments
No ratings yet
SDGE PYD PD Reply Comments
7 pages
13.09 Overview of SEC Disclosure Requirements: Due Diligence 13.09
No ratings yet
13.09 Overview of SEC Disclosure Requirements: Due Diligence 13.09
60 pages
2013-14-02
No ratings yet
2013-14-02
7 pages
Sanders Nagata20592 PDF
No ratings yet
Sanders Nagata20592 PDF
8 pages
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
No ratings yet
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
8 pages
Before The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
No ratings yet
Before The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
32 pages
WWW Treasury Gov/ofac/enforcement
No ratings yet
WWW Treasury Gov/ofac/enforcement
4 pages
Easa Ad Us-2018-03-10 1
No ratings yet
Easa Ad Us-2018-03-10 1
7 pages
North Carolina Utilities Comm v. FERC, 4th Cir. (2014)
No ratings yet
North Carolina Utilities Comm v. FERC, 4th Cir. (2014)
27 pages
Aug 03 Concurrent Delays - A Practical Approach (Part I)
No ratings yet
Aug 03 Concurrent Delays - A Practical Approach (Part I)
5 pages
Supreme Court of The United States: Limelight Networks, Inc. V. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
No ratings yet
Supreme Court of The United States: Limelight Networks, Inc. V. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
13 pages
When The Going Gets Tough
No ratings yet
When The Going Gets Tough
11 pages
By Electronic Mail: Covington Burling
No ratings yet
By Electronic Mail: Covington Burling
5 pages
10000020435
No ratings yet
10000020435
22 pages
Easa Ad Us-2018-23-51 1
No ratings yet
Easa Ad Us-2018-23-51 1
8 pages
Judge Koh Orders New Trial For Some Damages in Apple-Samsung
No ratings yet
Judge Koh Orders New Trial For Some Damages in Apple-Samsung
27 pages
13-03-01 Apple V Samsung Final Order On Damages
No ratings yet
13-03-01 Apple V Samsung Final Order On Damages
27 pages
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 US 398 (2003)
No ratings yet
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 US 398 (2003)
3 pages
ECF No. 69 - PLS' Reply ISO Swales Mot
No ratings yet
ECF No. 69 - PLS' Reply ISO Swales Mot
11 pages
Equifax Inc., A Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 678 F.2d 1047, 11th Cir. (1982)
No ratings yet
Equifax Inc., A Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 678 F.2d 1047, 11th Cir. (1982)
11 pages
Comercial Procedure
No ratings yet
Comercial Procedure
16 pages
API Iadc Noia Ipaa Ooc Ewtc Usoga Final Proposed Wcr Comments
No ratings yet
API Iadc Noia Ipaa Ooc Ewtc Usoga Final Proposed Wcr Comments
14 pages
Faa Ad 2011-18-04
No ratings yet
Faa Ad 2011-18-04
7 pages
PSC WV American Water Surcharge 2023
No ratings yet
PSC WV American Water Surcharge 2023
22 pages
2018-20-05
No ratings yet
2018-20-05
8 pages
Issue 1,2 and 3
No ratings yet
Issue 1,2 and 3
12 pages
NRC Special Inspection Report
No ratings yet
NRC Special Inspection Report
35 pages
NCTA V Frey Order
No ratings yet
NCTA V Frey Order
7 pages
In The United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit: Plaintiffs-Appellees
100% (1)
In The United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit: Plaintiffs-Appellees
20 pages
Nov. 23 CPUC Penalty Filing
No ratings yet
Nov. 23 CPUC Penalty Filing
11 pages
In Conclusion Following The Above Said The Best Advice For The Contractor Is: To Give Notice Timeously, in Writing, and in Terms and Condition of The Contract To Keep Adequate Records
No ratings yet
In Conclusion Following The Above Said The Best Advice For The Contractor Is: To Give Notice Timeously, in Writing, and in Terms and Condition of The Contract To Keep Adequate Records
8 pages
Bates V Post Office: Steve Parker Witness Statement 3
No ratings yet
Bates V Post Office: Steve Parker Witness Statement 3
6 pages
Failure to Launch: From Big Data to Big Decisions
From Everand
Failure to Launch: From Big Data to Big Decisions
Forte Wares
No ratings yet
Licensing Process for the Construction, Commissioning and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
From Everand
Licensing Process for the Construction, Commissioning and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants
IAEA
No ratings yet
California Infrastructure Projects: Legal Aspects of Building in the Golden State
From Everand
California Infrastructure Projects: Legal Aspects of Building in the Golden State
Ernest C. Brown Esq. PE
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
2 pages
Councilmember Announcements 12-03-18
100% (1)
Councilmember Announcements 12-03-18
1 page
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
5 pages
Appointments Monterey-Salinas Transit Board 12-03-18
No ratings yet
Appointments Monterey-Salinas Transit Board 12-03-18
2 pages
Agenda City Council Special Meeting 12-03-18
No ratings yet
Agenda City Council Special Meeting 12-03-18
3 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
5 pages
Appointments FORA 12-03-18
No ratings yet
Appointments FORA 12-03-18
2 pages
Minutes City Council Special Meeting November 5, 2018 12-03-18
No ratings yet
Minutes City Council Special Meeting November 5, 2018 12-03-18
1 page
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
2 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Agenda
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Agenda
5 pages
MPRWA Agenda Packet 11-08-18
No ratings yet
MPRWA Agenda Packet 11-08-18
18 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
2 pages
Proclamation Celebrating AMBAG' Fiftieth Anniversary 11-06-18
No ratings yet
Proclamation Celebrating AMBAG' Fiftieth Anniversary 11-06-18
2 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
3 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
4 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
8 pages
Destruction of Certain Records 11-05-18
No ratings yet
Destruction of Certain Records 11-05-18
41 pages
Monthly Reports September 2018 11-05-18
No ratings yet
Monthly Reports September 2018 11-05-18
55 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved By: Subject
4 pages
Special Meeting Minutes October 1, 2018 11-05-18
No ratings yet
Special Meeting Minutes October 1, 2018 11-05-18
1 page
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
4 pages
Minutes Mprwa September 27, 2018
No ratings yet
Minutes Mprwa September 27, 2018
2 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
7 pages
MPRWA Agenda Packet 10-25-18
No ratings yet
MPRWA Agenda Packet 10-25-18
6 pages
Monthly Reports August 10-02-18
No ratings yet
Monthly Reports August 10-02-18
48 pages
City Council Agenda 10-02-18
No ratings yet
City Council Agenda 10-02-18
3 pages
MPRWA Agenda Closed Session 10-25-18
No ratings yet
MPRWA Agenda Closed Session 10-25-18
1 page
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
30 pages
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
No ratings yet
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea City Council Staff Report: TO: Submit T Ed By: Approved by
4 pages
Second Amendment Employment Agreement Between City & Rerig10!02!18
No ratings yet
Second Amendment Employment Agreement Between City & Rerig10!02!18
7 pages
Code Summary Worksheet
No ratings yet
Code Summary Worksheet
8 pages
Full Driving and Engine Cycles 1st Edition Evangelos G. Giakoumis (Auth.) Ebook All Chapters
No ratings yet
Full Driving and Engine Cycles 1st Edition Evangelos G. Giakoumis (Auth.) Ebook All Chapters
54 pages
Level II - Ata 36-21-30 Air Systems
No ratings yet
Level II - Ata 36-21-30 Air Systems
88 pages
Submerged Arc Welding: Joint Design
No ratings yet
Submerged Arc Welding: Joint Design
8 pages
NTPC Training Report - Saket Sahoo
No ratings yet
NTPC Training Report - Saket Sahoo
33 pages
CSR Assignment Coca-Cola India Group No:4
No ratings yet
CSR Assignment Coca-Cola India Group No:4
14 pages
Internal Flow: General Considerations: Sections 8.1 Through 8.3
No ratings yet
Internal Flow: General Considerations: Sections 8.1 Through 8.3
21 pages
19XJ1A0348 - Calibration of Orifice, Rotameter, Venturimeter
No ratings yet
19XJ1A0348 - Calibration of Orifice, Rotameter, Venturimeter
7 pages
Photoelectric Effect Lecture Notes
No ratings yet
Photoelectric Effect Lecture Notes
33 pages
User Guide X1 IEC
No ratings yet
User Guide X1 IEC
31 pages
An Investigation Into The Impact of Movable Solar Shades On Energy
No ratings yet
An Investigation Into The Impact of Movable Solar Shades On Energy
9 pages
Document15 1
No ratings yet
Document15 1
34 pages
Chemistry Test 2 Review With Answers
No ratings yet
Chemistry Test 2 Review With Answers
4 pages
Astrology Chart, Birth Chart, Solar Return, Astrology Compatability, Yearly Forecast
No ratings yet
Astrology Chart, Birth Chart, Solar Return, Astrology Compatability, Yearly Forecast
5 pages
QD 77 Ms
No ratings yet
QD 77 Ms
1,052 pages
Alarnia LLC 2022 Shipyard Project
No ratings yet
Alarnia LLC 2022 Shipyard Project
16 pages
New Facilities at South Northants Leisure Centreplxlf PDF
No ratings yet
New Facilities at South Northants Leisure Centreplxlf PDF
2 pages
Chap 8 Mohan (Laminas) PDF
No ratings yet
Chap 8 Mohan (Laminas) PDF
41 pages
Specs
No ratings yet
Specs
27 pages
Summer Training Presentation.PPT
No ratings yet
Summer Training Presentation.PPT
26 pages
Design of Pressure Vessel
No ratings yet
Design of Pressure Vessel
136 pages
3 2 Selection of Generator and Excitation System
No ratings yet
3 2 Selection of Generator and Excitation System
54 pages
Fluid Coupling CKDM
No ratings yet
Fluid Coupling CKDM
32 pages
Pumped Storage
100% (2)
Pumped Storage
20 pages
TAG News Release 5-18-11
No ratings yet
TAG News Release 5-18-11
3 pages
PDC Lab Manual
90% (10)
PDC Lab Manual
46 pages
Study On Calcium Phosphate Cement Slurries
No ratings yet
Study On Calcium Phosphate Cement Slurries
1 page
A05-004 - Inspection Test Plan - Shell & Tube Heat Exchangers - 5-210D-HA-01 A B C D
100% (4)
A05-004 - Inspection Test Plan - Shell & Tube Heat Exchangers - 5-210D-HA-01 A B C D
14 pages