recordkeeping. Thus, PG&E is directed to file and serve a report on all known parties, which responds to the following directives: List each factual contention stated, and conclusion reached, by the SED Incident Investigation Reports, regarding PG&E’s recordkeeping, that PG&E contends is incorrect, and provide support for PG&E’s position. What explanation does PG&E offer for each recordkeeping failure claimed in the SED incident investigation reports? What corrective actions has PG&E already in response to the recordkeeping failures identified in the SED incident investigation reports? Provide the names (and titles if employee or agent) of all witnesses to the responses and information in the PG&E report. Provide the name of each such witness with respect to specified portions of the PG&E report. The purpose of PG&E’s report, as directed by the Commission, was to obtain “all reasons of law and fact known to PG&E to support the possibility that the company has committed no violation of law with respect to its gas distribution recordkeeping.” SED does not explain how the fact that A Forms were missing for the DeAnza Division from 1979 to 1991 falls within the Commission’s directive. We note as well that SED did obtain sufficient information from PG&E to illuminate the issue of the missing A Forms well in advance of the due date for SED’s testimony. Accordingly, SED has not shown a clear violation of the Commission’s directive to PG&E and SED, in fact, received the information regarding the missing A forms in sufficient time to prepare the issue for litigation. Therefore, we conclude that no additional penalties for
crew welded tap fitting onto a 1 ¼ inch steel service line that unknowingly contained a plastic insert 2 violations @ $50,000 each. (Also part of failure to minimize recurrence fine) Carmel, March 3, 2014, PG&E crew welded a tapping tee into a 2 inch steel distribution main with unmapped plastic insert, natural gas migrated into the unoccupied residence, collected and exploded hours later. Residence destroyed, value = $302,000 $100,000 2 violations @ $50,000 each Citation for $10.8 million already paid to General Fund. (also part of failure to minimize recurrence fine)
San Ramon, August 12, 2009, contractor damaged unmapped and unmarked 2inch service to restaurant Gas released, service to business interrupted $40,000 2 violations @ $20,000 each Kentfield, contractor struck and damaged unmapped and unmarked plastic main lacking a tracer wire Gas release $20,000 1 violation @ $20,000 each Sacramento, October 31, 2011, contractor struck and damaged 1 ¼ inch plastic service line, marking was faulty due to loss of signal Gas release $20,000 1 violation @ $20,000 each Fresno, September 24, 2014 PG&E crew struck and damaged a mismapped Gas release $100,000 2 violations @ $20,000 each
and mismarked 1inch plastic gas service line. San Jose II, January 20, 2015, contractor hit and damaged 1 ¼ inch stub extending from 4inch main. Stub was not mapped or marked, but main was. Gas release, major traffic diversion and evacuation of 12 businesses $100,000 2 violations @ $50,000 each Colusa, March 19, 2009 PG&E crew struck 2inch steel gas main which was unmarked off of marked 3inch main. Gas release $40,000 2 violations @ $20,000 each Roseville, October 21, 2010, contractor struck and damaged 2inch plastic Gas release, evacuation of 6 buildings $40,000 2 violations @ $20,000 each
violations of § 451 by interrupting service to a customer because PG&E failed to have its system operating in conformance with its plat map and failed to monitor pressure gauges for anomalous readings during the work. The fines to be imposed for the 12 similar incidents should be consistent and graduated based on relative harm imposed and the sophistication of the excavator. PG&E’s crews should be held to a higher standard because they are experts in natural gas systems. Inconvenience and service interruption to customers reflects a greater harm than just release of gas to the atmosphere. The following principles should be applied to determining the fine for each of the 12 similar incidents: (1) if only gas release and PG&E not the excavator, one maximum applicable fine, (2) if only gas release and PG&E the excavator, one additional one maximum applicable fine, (3) if customer evacuations, another one maximum applicable fine. The Commission imposed substantial remedies on PG&E designed to improve its record-keeping as a result of I.11-02-016. Conclusions of Law PG&E has the duty to furnish and maintain safe equipment and facilities to its natural gas customers and the public. SED bears the burden of proof in this investigatory proceeding. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. There are no disputed issues of material fact. The Commission has adopted standards for imposing fines for violations of law or regulations.