exorbitant costs. Id. Instead, Edison argued, failure to comply with the GOs in the first instance should be considered only a or “nonconformance” “variance” with the GOs. The Commission rejected that argument, finding that utilities are required to comply with relevant safety statutes, Commission GOs, and decisions. Id. at 62, Conclusion of Law 3. The Commission stated: a utility “If fails to comply with a GO, it is violating that GO.” Id. at 63, Conclusion of Law 4. The Commission also held that the fact that a utility has limited resources “does not eliminate the existence of a violation but may be a factor in assessing penalties.” Id., Conclusion of Law 6. Because the data gathering and integration mandate cannot be fulfilled with inaccurate data, the presence of inaccurate data in the GIS system can result in a violation of 49 CFR 192.917(b). CPSD witness Stepanian described examples from the NTSB Report as examples of erroneous GIS data: (1) indicating 40 foot depth of cover, (2) showing pipe as seamless, and (3) not reflecting the six Segment 180 pups. Exhibit CPSD-1 at 32. With respect to the first, PG&E believes that the reference to six segments with a 40 feet depth of cover in the NTSB Report is a “simple data entry error” since 4.0 feet is a common depth of cover. PG&E Opening Brief at 68, footnote 352. Those depth-of-cover errors may be simple but we are not prepared to dismiss them as unimportant. On the other hand, CPSD has not persuaded us that the fact that PG&E’s GIS did not reflect the presence of the defective Segment 180 pups is a data gathering and integration error. With respect to the admittedly erroneous GIS data showing several Line 132 segments, including Segment 180, as 30-inch diameter seamless pipe, PG&E witness Keas suggests that such errors are (1) excusable due to the age of
exorbitant costs. Id. Instead, Edison argued, failure to comply with the GOs in the first instance should be considered only a “nonconformance” or “variance” with the GOs. The Commission rejected that argument, finding that utilities are required to comply with relevant safety statutes, Commission GOs, and decisions. Id. at 62, Conclusion of Law 3. The Commission stated: “If a utility fails to comply with a GO, it is violating that GO.” Id. at 63, Conclusion of Law 4. The Commission also held that the fact that a utility has limited resources “does not eliminate the existence of a violation but may be a factor in assessing penalties.” Id., Conclusion of Law 6. Because the data gathering and integration mandate cannot be fulfilled with inaccurate data, the presence of inaccurate data in the GIS system can result in a violation of 49 CFR 192.917(b). CPSD witness Stepanian described examples from the NTSB Report as examples of erroneous GIS data: (1) indicating 40 foot depth of cover, (2) showing pipe as seamless, and (3) not reflecting the six Segment 180 pups. Exhibit CPSD-1 at 32. With respect to the first, PG&E believes that the reference to six segments with a 40 feet depth of cover in the NTSB Report is a “simple data entry error” since 4.0 feet is a common depth of cover. PG&E Opening Brief at 68, footnote 352. Those depth-of-cover errors may be simple but we are not prepared to dismiss them as unimportant. On the other hand, CPSD has not persuaded us that the fact that PG&E’s GIS did not reflect the presence of the defective Segment 180 pups is a data gathering and integration error. With respect to the admittedly erroneous GIS data showing several Line 132 segments, including Segment 180, as 30-inch diameter seamless pipe, PG&E witness Keas suggests that such errors are (1) excusable due to the age of
149264105.docx