CPUC Public Agenda 3284 Thursday, November 10, 2011, 9:00 a.m. 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco Commissioners: Michael R. Peevey Timothy Alan Simon Michel

CPUC Public Agenda 3284Thursday, November 10, 2011, 9:00 a.m.

505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco

Commissioners: Michael R. Peevey

Timothy Alan Simon Michel Peter Florio

Catherine J.K. SandovalMark J. Ferron

www.cpuc.ca.gov

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/

Public Comment• Per Resolution ALJ-252, any member of the public who wishes to address the CPUC about matters before the Commission must either sign up at the Commission's webpage section "Public Comment Sign-Up" or with the Public Advisor before the meeting begins.

• Public speakers must visit the Public Advisors table before the start of the meeting on the day of the Commission Meeting to ask our staff to mark their presence.

• Once called, each speaker has up to 3 minutes at the discretion of the Commission President, depending on the number of speakers.

• A sign will be posted when 1 minute remains.

• A bell will ring when time has expired.

•Those who sign up after 9:00 a.m. will only have 1 minute.

The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment:Item: 17, 28, 34, 35 & 36All items on the Closed Session Agenda



• Once called, each speaker has up to 2 minutes to address the Commission.

• A sign will be posted when 1 minute remains.


•Those who sign up after 9:00 a.m. will only have 1 minute.

The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment:Item: 17, 28, 34, 35 & 36All items on the Closed Session Agenda



• Once called, each speaker has up to 1 minute to address the Commission.


•The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment:Item: 17, 28, 34, 35 & 36All items on the Closed Session Agenda

Agenda Changes• Items shown on the Consent Agenda will be taken up and voted on as a group in one of the first items of business of each CPUC meeting.

• Items on Today’s Consent Agenda are: 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38

• Any Commissioner, with consent of the other Commissioners, may request an item from the Regular Agenda be moved to the Consent Agenda prior to the meeting.Item: 47 from the Regular Agenda has been added to the Consent Agenda.

• Any Commissioner may request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion on the Regular Agenda prior to the meeting. Item: 9 has been moved to the Regular Agenda.

• Items: 3 & 5 have been withdrawn.

• The following items have been held to future Commission Meetings:

Held to 12/1/11: 6, 7, 8, 12, 21, 33, 39, 40, 44, 44a, 48, 48a & 49

Held to 12/15/11: 13

Regular Agenda

• Each item on the Regular Agenda (and its alternate if any) will be introduced by the assigned Commissioner or CPUC staff and discussed before it is moved for a vote.

• For each agenda item, a summary of the proposed action is included on the agenda; the CPUC’s decision may, however, differ from that proposed.

• The complete text of every Proposed Decision or Draft Resolution is available for download on the CPUC’s website: www.cpuc.ca.gov.

• Late changes to agenda items are available on the Escutia Table.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/

Regular Agenda – Energy OrdersItem #9 [10705] Modifications to Southern California Edison Company’s Summer Discount Plan

A10-06-017 In the Matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company for Summer Discount Plan Program.

Ratesetting Comr. Peevey/ ALJ Sullivan-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Authorizes modifications to enable competitive dispatch of Southern California Edison Company’s Summer Discount Plan, enabling service curtailments when warranted by market prices.

• Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

• $26.6 million, but costs are offset by avoided purchases of power and power

resources.

Regular Agenda – Energy OrdersItem #21 [10746] Implementation of New Public Utilities Code Section 399.16 Establishing Renewables Portfolio Standard Portfolio Content Categories

R11-05-005 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Implementation and Administration of California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.

Ratesetting Comr. Ferron/ ALJ Simon-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Implements new Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) portfolio content categories.

• Establishes new requirements for investor-owned utility advice letters seeking approval of RPS procurement contracts.

• Establishes new requirements for determining retail sellers’ compliance with new RPS portfolio content categories.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Unknown – Subject to Commission approval of individual contracts.

Regular Agenda – Energy Resolutions and Written Reports

Item #41 [10711] Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement with Mojave Solar, LLC – OPTION A

Res E-4433, Advice Letter 3876-E filed on July 19, 2011 and Supplemental Advice Letter 3876-E-A filed on August 29, 2011 - Related matters.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Denies cost recovery for the long-term renewable power purchase agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Mojave Solar, LLC, an affiliate of Abengoa Solar, Inc.

ESTIMATED COST:

• None.


Item #41a [10712]

OPTION B------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Approves cost recovery for the long-term renewable power purchase agreement (PPA) between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Mojave Solar, LLC, an affiliate of Abengoa Solar, Inc.

• The PPA is approved with modifications.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Costs of the PPA are confidential at this time.


Item #41b [10765]

ALTERNATE TO ITEM 10711 AND ITEM 10712------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:


• The PPA is approved.

ESTIMATED COST:


Resolutions E-4433 (Option A & B) & Alternate Resolution E-4433

(Agenda Items 41, 41a and 41b)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) requests approval of a renewable energy

contract with Mojave Solar, LLC.

Presented by Edward Randolph, Director Energy Division

Contract Summary

Three Options

•Option A (Item 41) denies the PPA on the basis of price, value and need.

•Option B (Item 41a) approves the PPA with modifications

•Alternate Resolution (Item 41b) approves the PPA without modifications

Generating facility

ResourceContract Length

Megawatt Capacity

Expected Annual Deliveries

Expected Online Date

Location

Mojave SolarThermal

Solar, New25

years250 MW 617 GWh/yr July, 2014

San Bernadino County, CA

Option A (Denies PPA)Item 41

• PPA was compared to contracts available to PG&E or executed by PG&E during the time the PPA was negotiated and executed.

• PPA is higher in price and lower in value than: (1) executed bilaterals, and (2) comparable shortlisted projects from PG&E’s 2009 and 2011 RPS Solicitations.

• PG&E has not demonstrated a definitive need for the project to justify the costs.

Option B (Approve with modifications)Item 41a

• Commission approval is based on the Project (1) being highly viable and (2) providing resource diversity to California’s renewable generating capacity and PG&E’s renewable portfolio.

• PPA modification eliminates the need for Mojave Solar to compensate PG&E for the value of resource adequacy (RA) beyond 2020.

• Intention is to (1) improve the value of the Project for ratepayers; (2) maintain the high viability of the Project

Alternate (Approve without modifications)Item 41b

• Benefits of the Project outweigh the costs

– The Project is highly viable

– The incremental value that the Project adds to California’s fleet of renewable generation

– The resource diversity of solar thermal allowing for the enhancement of PG&E’s RPS and overall energy portfolio.

– Potentially increases ratepayer benefits in the event the transmission line is not approved by requiring Mojave Solar to compensate PG&E for the value of replacement RA


Item #41 [10711] Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement with Mojave Solar, LLC – OPTION A

Res E-4433, Advice Letter 3876-E filed on July 19, 2011 and Supplemental Advice Letter 3876-E-A filed on August 29, 2011 - Related matters.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Denies cost recovery for the long-term renewable power purchase agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Mojave Solar, LLC, an affiliate of Abengoa Solar, Inc.

ESTIMATED COST:

• None.


Item #41a [10712]

OPTION B------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:


• The PPA is approved with modifications.

ESTIMATED COST:



Item #41b [10765]

ALTERNATE TO ITEM 10711 AND ITEM 10712------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:


• The PPA is approved.

ESTIMATED COST:


Regular Agenda – Communication Orders

Item #42 [10781] New Order Instituting Rulemaking

R._____________ Order Instituting Rulemaking into the Review of the California High Cost Fund-A Program.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Initiates a review of the California High Cost Fund A to determine how it is functioning and to determine if changes should be made.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Unknown at this time, but potentially significant impacts depending on outcome.

ITEM 42:ITEM 42:ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING REGARDING ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING REGARDING

CALIFORNIA HIGH COST FUND-A PROGRAMCALIFORNIA HIGH COST FUND-A PROGRAM

Michael AmatoCarrier Oversight & Programs Branch

California Public Utilities Commission

November 10, 2011

The CHCF-A ProgramThe CHCF-A Program• The High Cost Fund program was established in 1988 with D.88-07-022 to The High Cost Fund program was established in 1988 with D.88-07-022 to

promote universal service by subsidizing the costs of providing telephone promote universal service by subsidizing the costs of providing telephone service in rural high cost areas.service in rural high cost areas.

• The CHCF-A Program has been growing. In 2005, the fund distributed $25M The CHCF-A Program has been growing. In 2005, the fund distributed $25M in subsidy support to small incumbent local exchange carriers. Today the fund in subsidy support to small incumbent local exchange carriers. Today the fund distributes $38M to 10 of 14 eligible carriers with a combined 81,000 access distributes $38M to 10 of 14 eligible carriers with a combined 81,000 access lines.lines.

• Program implementation rules were established over 20 years ago in D.91-09-Program implementation rules were established over 20 years ago in D.91-09-042.042.

• This proposed OIR has been prepared pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 4 of This proposed OIR has been prepared pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 4 of Commission Decision 10-02-016 Regarding Application to Modify Eligibility Commission Decision 10-02-016 Regarding Application to Modify Eligibility Rules for the California High-Cost Fund-A Program.Rules for the California High-Cost Fund-A Program.

• There have been many market, regulatory, and technological changes since There have been many market, regulatory, and technological changes since the California High Cost Fund program was last examined. the California High Cost Fund program was last examined. – Landline subscriptions are decreasing while alternatives increase.Landline subscriptions are decreasing while alternatives increase.– Subsidy per landline and size of the fund in absolute terms are increasing.Subsidy per landline and size of the fund in absolute terms are increasing.– The federal high cost subsidy program is shifting focus to broadband funding The federal high cost subsidy program is shifting focus to broadband funding

potentially impacting the A-Fund.potentially impacting the A-Fund.

Discussion TopicsDiscussion Topics• Evaluating CHCF-A Subsidy ProgramEvaluating CHCF-A Subsidy Program

– Should the program be continued, altered or discontinued?Should the program be continued, altered or discontinued?• Reviewing Program Implementation RulesReviewing Program Implementation Rules

– Should the approach of relying on GRC’s to assess carrier subsidy levels Should the approach of relying on GRC’s to assess carrier subsidy levels continue or are there simpler alternatives?continue or are there simpler alternatives?

• Implementing a Cap on the CHCF-AImplementing a Cap on the CHCF-A– Would a cap on the subsidy promote efficiency?Would a cap on the subsidy promote efficiency?

• Determining Urban Rate CapsDetermining Urban Rate Caps– As CHCF-A rural rates are not to exceed 150% of California’s urban rates, how As CHCF-A rural rates are not to exceed 150% of California’s urban rates, how

should rural rates be determined now that urban rates are deregulated?should rural rates be determined now that urban rates are deregulated?• Standardizing Accepted Costs Among CarriersStandardizing Accepted Costs Among Carriers

– Should the program promote standardization of costs to promote consistency Should the program promote standardization of costs to promote consistency and reduce complexity?and reduce complexity?

• Considering a Per Access Line SubsidyConsidering a Per Access Line Subsidy– Could the CHCF-B support mechanism be appropriate for the A-Fund?Could the CHCF-B support mechanism be appropriate for the A-Fund?

• Monitoring Affiliate TransactionsMonitoring Affiliate Transactions– Is closer monitoring necessary to ensure unregulated services are not Is closer monitoring necessary to ensure unregulated services are not

subsidized?subsidized?• Opening Small ILEC Territories to CompetitionOpening Small ILEC Territories to Competition

– Would it be appropriate to open the small ILEC territories to wireline competition?Would it be appropriate to open the small ILEC territories to wireline competition?

ScheduleSchedule

• Day 1Day 1– Order Instituting Rulemaking issuedOrder Instituting Rulemaking issued

• Day 16Day 16– Deadline for requests to be on service listDeadline for requests to be on service list

• Day 61Day 61– Initial Comments filed and servedInitial Comments filed and served

• Day 91Day 91– Reply Comments filed and servedReply Comments filed and served

• Assigned Commissioner and ALJ to review Assigned Commissioner and ALJ to review comments and determine the need/extent of comments and determine the need/extent of further procedural steps.further procedural steps.

Regular Agenda – Communication Orders

Item #42 [10781] New Order Instituting Rulemaking

R._____________ Order Instituting Rulemaking into the Review of the California High Cost Fund-A Program.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Initiates a review of the California High Cost Fund A to determine how it is functioning and to determine if changes should be made.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Unknown at this time, but potentially significant impacts depending on outcome.

Regular Agenda – Communication Resolutions and Reports

Item #43 [10643] Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Grant Program Application for the Godfrey Ranch Line Extension Project

Res T-17316-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Requests a California High Cost Fund-A funding for the construction of the Godfrey Ranch Line Extension Project by the Siskiyou Telephone Company.

ESTIMATED COST:

• $1,444,100.


Item #45 The California Broadband Coalition and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Funded Digital 395 Project

Res T-17347------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the California Broadband Coalition America Recovery and Reinvestment Act/California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) funded broadband project.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Approves the CEQA required for 20% CASF matching grant of

approximately $20 million.

California Broadband CooperativeDigital 395 Project

Infrastructure Permitting and CEQAEnergy Division

November 10, 2011

Presentation Outline

• Part I – CASF Program Background

• Part II – Status of CASF Projects

• Part III – California Broadband Cooperative -Digital 395 Project

Program Background

• The Commission established the CASF program in December 2007 to encourage the deployment of broadband services in unserved and underserved areas by funding 40% of the costs of broadband infrastructure through grants.

• Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation (Chapter 393, 2008) in September 2008 codifying the Commission’s formation of the CASF.

• In subsequent Commission rulings in 2008 and 2009, the Commission established various CASF program requirements, criteria and timelines.

• In 2009, the Commission expanded the CASF and the Governor signed legislation (Chapter 24, Stats 2009) allowing entities other than telephone corporations to obtain 10% infrastructure grant funding from the CASF provided CASF funding is pursued in conjunction with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Status of CASF Projects• The current total of CASF awards to date is $39.09 million for 31

projects covering 6,598 square miles and benefiting 254,102 households

o Unserved areas: $ 2.31 million for 15 projects covering 191 square miles and benefiting 16,530 households

o Underserved areas: $36.79 million for 16 projects covering 6,407square miles and benefiting 237,572 households

• Although the Commission had approved 50 CASF projects to date, the Commission has needed to rescind the funding for 19 previously approved projects because applicants: opted out of the project or are unable to secure funding either through loans, private investments or through the Recovery Act

• 14 projects have been completed in 12 counties across the state with actual broadband subscribership reaching 872 out of an estimated target of 2,743 households.

• Remaining projects are either under construction or undergoing pre-construction activities

CASF / ARRA Funded Projects

Project NameRecovery Act Funding

(in millions)CASF Funding

(in millions)

Ponderosa Cablevision Auberry Project $3.85 $1.16

Calaveras Poker Flat Project $4.09 $0.64 Digital 395 Middle Mile Project $81.15 $19.30

Plumas Sierra Telecommunications (PST) Middle Mile Project $13.77 $1.72

Audeamus Last Mile Project $5.48 $1.15

Central Valley Independent Network, LLC (CVIN) & the Corporation for Educational

Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) Last Mile Project $46.62 $6.66

TOTAL $154.96 $30.63

California Broadband Cooperative (CBC) - Digital 395 Project

• The California Broadband Cooperative Inc. (CBC) Digital 395 project proposes to construct a 593-mile 10 Gigabit high capacity fiber optic middle mile / backhaul route along US Highway 395 from Barstow, California in San Bernardino County in the south to the Nevada State line at Topaz Lake in Mono County in the North.

• The network will establish a future-proof broadband "middle mile" link to over three dozen communities, stimulate broadband edge-out in the local communities, and fill-in wireless voice and data transmission gaps along the well-traversed US Highway 395 corridor.

• The area that the CBC Digital 395 wholesale middle mile network proposes to serve contains 28,127 households, 2,571 businesses, and 168 community anchor institutions, including 74 educational, 12 health care, 11 libraries and 26 public safety entities.

• Download speeds will be 100 mbps up to Gigabit Ethernet and upload speeds will also be 100 mbps up to Gigabit Ethernet.


• The major project components include the following:

•Construction of a new, approximately 479-mile backbone fiber route

•Construction of approximately 62 miles of new distribution lines

•Placement of approximately 52 miles of fiber in existing utility conduit

•Construction of 16 nodes or pre-fabricated building to support wireless systems


• Date Approved: December 3, 2009 in Resolution T-17232

• Location: Topaz, Coleville, Bridgeport, Mono Lake, June Lake, Crowley

Lake, Benton, Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, Big Pine, Independence,

Lone Pine, Cartago / Olancha, Boron, China Lake, Ridgecrest, Inyo, Kern, Johannesburg,

Kramer Junction and Red Mountain in

Mono, Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties

• Grant: $19,294,717• Projected Completion Date: July 2013• Projected Ready for Service Date: March 2012-July

2013

California Broadband Cooperative (CBC) – Digital 395 Project

Digital 395 Middle Mile Network Shapefile


• CBC has applied for authority to operate as a competitive provider of full facilities-based and resold local exchange and interexchange telecommunications service on September 16, 2011

• CBC changed project alignment in some portions because of environmental concerns but still maintains proposed connections to anchor institutions

• CBC accepted bids from prospective contractors on September 22

• CBC is currently on the permitting phase CPUC CEQA review: The CEQA review is complete and a Final

Mitigated Negative Declaration is before you today for adoption in Resolution T-17347

Encroachment permit expected from Caltrans after NTIA/CPUC review

CBC has applied for authority to operate as a competitive provider of full facilities-based and resold local exchange and interexchange telecommunications service on September 16


• Completing the CEQA review for this project required tremendous coordination between both the Federal and State agencies, as well as a high degree of coordination within State agencies

• The Governor’s Office was instrumental in establishing a process whereby the NTIA and CPUC could effectively coordinate all the necessary agencies

• The State of California was able to effectively leverage its linear resources to streamline the siting and review process by using existing State Rights-of-Way whenever possible

• The federal timelines for ARRA-funded projects are extremely tight: we have managed to complete the CEQA portion of the environmental review well within the established timelines


Item #45 The California Broadband Coalition and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's Funded Digital 395 Project

Res T-17347------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the California Broadband Coalition America Recovery and Reinvestment Act/California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) funded broadband project.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Approves the CEQA required for 20% CASF matching grant of

approximately $20 million.

Regular Agenda – Water/Sewer OrdersItem #46 [10492] New Order Instituting Rulemaking

R.____________ Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motion into Addressing the Commission’s Water Action Plan Objective of Setting Rates that Balance Investment, Conservation, and Affordability for the Multi-District Water Utilities of: California-American Water Company, California Water Service Company, Del Oro Water Company, Inc., Golden State Water Company, and San Gabriel Valley Water Company.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Initiates a Rulemaking consistent with the Commission’s Water Action Plan of 2010 and 2005, to evaluate a regionalization or consolidation of rates (postage stamp rates) of the multi-district water utilities.

ESTIMATED COST:

• None.

Regular Agenda –Water/Sewer Orders

Item #46a [10812] ALTERNATE TO ITEM 10492

Comr. Florio-----------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Initiates a Rulemaking consistent with the Commission’s Water Action Plan of 2010 and 2005, to evaluate a regionalization or consolidation of rates (postage stamp rates) of the multi-district water utilities.

• Limits Rulemaking to consideration of consolidation or “high-cost” fund mechanisms on a general policy basis.

• The Commission will not adopt utility-specific “high-cost” funds or order any water district consolidations in this proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

• None.

Regular Agenda – Transportation/Rail Safety Resolutions and Reports

Item #13 [10722] Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority to Construct 27 New Light Rail Crossings in Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica

Res SX-100-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Approves construction of 16 new at-grade and 11 grade-separated Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings as part of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project-Phase 2 in the Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, Los Angeles County.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Not within scope of this resolution.

Resolution SX-100 Authorizing Crossings for the Exposition Line Phase 2 Light Rail Transit Project

Rail Crossings Engineering Section Safety Evaluation

Jose Pereyra, Utilities Engineer, Rail Crossings Engineering SectionDaren Gilbert, Manager, Rail Transit and Crossings Branch


November 10, 2011

Presentation Overview

Exposition Line (Expo) Phase 2 Light Rail Transit Project

CPUC General Order 164-D, Section 10 Requirements

Rail Crossing Hazard Analysis Report (RCHAR) Development and RCES Safety Evaluation

Public Comments Received

Expo Phase 2 Light Rail Transit Project

• Expo Light Rail Transit Project will extend from Downtown Los Angeles to City of Santa Monica for a total of 15.2 miles

• Metro Exposition Line Construction Authority is the builder of the system, which will be turned over to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) for operations

• Expo Phase 1 extending from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City was authorized by CPUC in 2010

– approved through CPUC’s formal application process after hearings over two crossing locations

• Expo Phase 2 extends from Culver City to City of Santa Monica for 6.6 miles• Expo Board certified FEIR on February 4, 2010• Includes 7 new stations and 27 new crossings

– 11 Grade Separated and 16 At-Grade– 16 At-grade crossings include 9 along exclusive alignment and 7 on the street-running

portion• Construction scheduled to begin January 2012• RCES began working with Expo Authority in 2009


• General Order (GO) 164-D - Rules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systems

• Section 10 - Requirements for At-Grade Rail Crossings– Revised GO 164-D adopted May 3, 2007 included alternative to

Formal Applications for approving rail crossings• http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/FINAL_DECISION/67451.htm

– Provides rules for authorizing at-grade crossings on fixed guideway systems• Formal Applications• Rail Crossing Hazard Analysis

• EXPO Phase 2 is only the 2nd project seeking authorization through GO 164-D vs formal application process:

– SX-92 SFMTA Central Subway Project (3 new at-grade crossings along 4th St & modification to 1 existing at-grade crossing)

– Expo Phase 2 is first large-scale project (6.6 miles & 27 crossings) to pursue this process.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/FINAL_DECISION/67451.htm


• Section 10.2 – Initial Phase: Emphasizes early involvement between Rail Transit Authority (RTA) and RCES during development of DEIR and prior to initiating preliminary engineering

– RTA to provide data: current & projected rail operations; current & projected highway usage; existing & projected facilities/traffic generators; and preliminary drawings/designs

– RCES provides feedback by letter to RTA (comment letter to DEIR)

• Section 10.3 – Second Phase: RTA formally requests CPUC authorization for each crossing during the preliminary engineering phase of project. RTA has option to either:

– File formal application in accordance to CPUC Rules of Practice & Procedure

– File a Rail Crossing Hazard Analysis Report (RCHAR)

• Expo Authority chose to file a RCHAR for Phase 2

RCHAR Development and RCES Safety Evaluation

• Rail Crossing Hazard Analysis Report (RCHAR) includes: – detailed engineering drawings– proposed rail operations – updates to data provided during consultation (Initial

Phase)– analysis of identified hazards at each crossing– identified hazard mitigation measures

• July 2009 – RCHAR Scoping Meeting– RCES & RTSS met with Expo Authority to discuss

development of RCHAR


• Initial consultation resulted in a consensus on an approach to identify potential hazards– Train and roadway speed– Angle/Skew of grade crossing– Restricted pedestrian and/or vehicle sight distance– Unsafe turns from intersection/driveway onto or across crossing– Automobile traffic queue onto crossing from nearby intersections– Automobile traffic queue from crossing into nearby intersections– Vehicle driven around lowered gate arms at crossings– Parallel roadways and driveways to tracks/crossing– Pedestrian crossing tracks with train approaching– Potential pedestrian surges


• Mitigation Measures selected based on– Established measures included in PUC General

Orders, regulations, and policies– CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices – City of Los Angeles and Santa Monica design

requirements– Industry Standards– LACMTA Policies– Past experiences with similar light rail projects


• September & December 2009 - RCES met with Expo Authority, LACMTA, and Cities of Los Angeles & Santa Monica to review draft RCHAR and preliminary engineering drawings

• June 2010 - Expo Authority submitted complete Draft RCHAR for RCES review

RCHAR Development and RCES Safety Evaluation (cont.)


• RCES reviewed engineering drawings for compliance with:– CPUC GOs:

• 75-D: Regulations Governing Standards for Warning Devices for At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings in the State Of California

• 143-B: Safety Rules And Regulations Governing Light-Rail Transit• 164-D: Rules And Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight Of

Rail Fixed Guideway Systems

– Safety policies: Pedestrian treatments, ADA compliance– CA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

• Regulatory & warning signs• Pavement striping and legends• Traffic signal designs – general layout and operations



• July/August 2010 – Office meetings & field diagnostics held with RCES, Expo Authority, LACMTA, Cities of Los Angeles & Santa Monica

• Resulted in modifications to proposed designs– RCES safety requirements– LACMTA policy requirements– LA/Santa Monica traffic signal requirements


• November 2011 – RCES provided preliminary recommendations on Draft RCHAR– Agreement on 10 grade separated & 14 at-grade crossings provided

modifications identified in diagnostics are incorporated – Requested review of 3 proposed at-grade crossings for closure or grade

separation

• March 2011 – Expo Authority submitted Final RCHAR addressing RCES concerns

• April 2011 – Expo Authority submitted plans conveying Expo Authority Board decision to grade separate Sepulveda Blvd

• August 2011 – Expo Authority submitted revised plans for I-10 Freeway Box grade separation


• August 2011 – RCES drafted Resolution SX-100 authorizing Expo Authority’s request to construct its EXPO Phase 2 Project– 27 new light rail transit crossings of which 11 are grade

separated and 16 are at-grade– 9 at-grade on exclusive right of way that will cross existing

roadways• Gates and warning lights, pedestrian gates, fencing

– 7 at-grade on semi-exclusive right-of-way oriented in a street-running alignment down center of Colorado Ave in City of Santa Monica

• Each crossing is an existing street intersection• Traffic signals, train signals, activated “TRAIN” warning signs

Public Comments Received in Support of SX-100

• Over 100 e-mails not following the official comment submittal process were received by Commissioners and their advisors.

• 28 individual comments supporting adoption of Resolution SX-100, in addition to a petition of support containing 312 signatures

• Letters of support from the following politicians and organizations– State Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, 41st District– Jaime de la Vega, General Manager, City of Los Angeles Department of

Transportation– John M. Nachbar, City Manager, City of Culver City– Los Angeles County Board of Supevisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, 3rd District,

and Chairman of the Exposition Light Rail Authority– State Senator Ted W. Lieu, 28th District– The Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter– Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce– Friends 4 Expo Transit– Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor, City of Los Angeles

Public Comments Received in Opposition to SX-100

• 2 individual comments in opposition of SX-100– These 2 individual comments cite general concern for traffic impacts at

the intersection of Stewart/Olympic with the proposed at-grade crossing at Stewart Ave (s/o Olympic Blvd)

• United Community Associations (UCA), a community organization composed of residents from the communities through which the Expo Phase 1 segment is being constructed– Were the primary party of opposition in proceedings addressing Expo

Phase 1 Project (Downtown LA to Culver City) in 2010– Asserts RCES has not provided Commission with accurate/wise

information or guidance– Mischaracterizes Expo Phase 1 Proceeding and rulings regarding

Western Ave and Farmdale Ave at-grade crossings– Does raise concern over lack of offering due process to the community

surrounding the Expo Phase 2 Project– Asks PUC to require Expo Authority to correct its EIR with the

deficiencies remediated

Public Comments Received in opposition to SX-100 (cont.)

• Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR), a community organization composed of residents from the Cheviot Hills community through which the Expo Phase 2 Project is planned

– Filed suit in L.A. Superior Court challenging adequacy of FEIR– States EXPO Authority made significant changes to Project after certification of

FEIR that result in new impacts related to safety, traffic and noise• I-10 Box – impacts of physical changes to existing structure• Street closures in Santa Monica (RCHAR) – 15th, 16th, Euclid & 12th, 10th, 9th,

5th not included in FEIR– States New information now available

• Casden Sepulveda Project & Sepulveda Grade Sep – Expo Authority didn’t account for cumulative impacts of this project

– Asserts that PUC as a responsible agency (CEQA) must prepare a Supplemental EIR adopting mitigations to address new impacts based on changes and new information

• Compel grade separations at Overland Ave, Westwood Blvd & Sepulveda Blvd (located next to residences & schools)

– States PUC should not approve grade separation of Sepulveda Blvd due to inadequate study in FEIR


Item #13 [10722] Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority to Construct 27 New Light Rail Crossings in Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica

Res SX-100-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Approves construction of 16 new at-grade and 11 grade-separated Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings as part of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project-Phase 2 in the Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, Los Angeles County.

ESTIMATED COST:

• Not within scope of this resolution.


Item #49 [10749] Establishes Citation Procedures for the Enforcement of Safety Regulations for Violations of General Orders and Code of Federal Regulation by Gas Corporations

Res ALJ-274----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPOSED OUTCOME:

• Delegates to Consumer Protection and Safety Division Staff the authority to issue citations and levy fines on gas corporations for violations of General Order 112-E and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, and 199.

• Sets forth specific Citation Procedures and an Appeal Process in Appendix A.

• Penalties are assessed at the maximum amount set forth in Public Utilities Code § 2107.

• Penalty payments are the responsibility of shareholders of the gas corporations and shall not be charged to ratepayers.

ESTIMATED COST:

• No costs to ratepayers.

Commissioners’ Reports

Management Reports

Regular Agenda – Management Reports and Resolutions

Item #50 [10769] Report and Discussion by Consumer Protection and Safety Division on Recent Safety Program Activities -------------------------------------------------------------------------

66

Risk Assessment

Julie HalliganDeputy Director of CPSD


November 10, 2011

Presentation Overview

• Formation of the Risk Assessment Unit

• Risk Assessment Unit Staff

• Risk Assessment General Methodology

• First Tasks

• Approach to Identifying Hazards

• Questions or Comments?

Formation of the Risk Assessment UnitIn the area of utility safety, the Commission historically has focused its resources on inspections and accident investigations. These programs mostly look back at past events or conditions. In light of the San Bruno tragedy, we identified a clear need to improve our skills necessary for risk identification, analysis and management. This concept was supported by the Legislature, and also in the final report of the Independent Review Panel which recommended that “the CPUC should significantly upgrade its expertise in the analytical skills necessary for state-of-the-art quality risk management work”.

The Risk Assessment Unit StaffLast Spring, we requested and received approval for an additional nine positions for our utility safety team. Of these new positions, four were specifically identified to be members of a newly established Risk Assessment Unit. We completed staffing appointments to the Risk team in September.

The first four members of the team are all Utilities Engineer Specialists. They are Joyce Steingass, Claudia Lam, Steve Haine and Chuck Magee.

Risk Assessment General Methodology

1. Identify hazards to public safety.

2. Assess the risks associated with the hazards by examining the frequency and consequence of the hazard.

3. Using safety as the top priority, examine and decide on the most cost-effective method to mitigate the hazards and prevent accidents.

Risk Assessment Unit First TasksThe first priority for the RA Unit will be to assess hazards to the gas system. Assessment of other types of utility hazards will follow. The Risk Assessment Unit is already at work on the following tasks:

1.Establishing contacts and working relationships with federal and state agencies, gas regulatory agencies, utilities, divisions and branches within the CPUC and others.

2.Identifying hazards to the gas system.

3.Training

Approach to Identifying Hazards• Conducting surveys and interviews of regulatory

agency representatives from other states, experts in gas safety, critics of gas safety, academics, gas utility employees, utility worker unions, USRB, first responders and others.

• Compiling hazards identified by the NTSB accident report, the Independent Panel Report on the San Bruno explosion, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) database, the USRB database, and various inspection, accident and risk reports worldwide as they are identified.

• Inspections of gas transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Questions or Comments?

Regular Agenda – Management Reports and Resolutions

Item #50 [10769] Report and Discussion by Consumer Protection and Safety Division on Recent Safety Program Activities -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Management Reports

The CPUC Thanks YouFor Attending Today’s Meeting

The Public Meeting is adjourned.

The next Public Meeting will be:

December 1, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.in San Francisco, CA

Documents

CPUC Public Agenda 3284 Thursday, November 10, 2011, 9:00 a.m. 505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco Commissioners: Michael R. Peevey Timothy Alan Simon Michel