Editors’ note: As Sept. 9 marks the anniversary of the gas explosion in San Bruno, Current offers two views on future gas pipeline safety. One year after the tragic Pacific Gas & Electric gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, the California Public Utilities Commission is struggling to enhance its staff and budget to protect state residents against such disasters in the future. Take that struggle away from the commission. Instead, move those involved in pipeline safety at the CPUC to another agency, such as the California Environmental Protection Agency, and place them into a new high-profile office of hazardous materials safety management. This office would be run by engineers and scientists to vigilantly oversee not only the state’s natural gas pipelines, but also its 6,525 miles of pipeline to transport gasoline, crude oil, hydrogen, and other flammable and explosive liquids, as well as the hundreds of tanks holding sizable quantities of ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, chlorine, sulfuric acid, and other hazardous chemicals stored at refineries, chemical plants, and industrial facilities. These are currently regulated by an array of state and local agencies, from fire departments to local air districts. The new office would consolidate and coordinate hazardous materials’ regulation and have strong enforcement power. It would be funded by a small unit fee levied on the materials it regulates. The office’s sole function would be promoting hazardous materials safety. It would not be subject to competing or shifting priorities. Instead, it would provide a consistent and long-term emphasis on safety long after the tragedy in San Bruno fades from the headlines and the CPUC becomes embroiled in some unknown future controversy. If left with the CPUC, the safety task is daunting. The state has 12,009 miles of high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline operated by gas utilities, as well as 102,659 miles of distribution lines, according to the federal Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Much of it is aging and in need of replacement. San Bruno showed the decrepit state of California’s pipelines and in doing so shook up the CPUC. Unlike previous accidents, the blast was just too big to ignore. The CPUC simply had to come to grips with it and take a critical look at its own shortcomings. As a result, it’s initiated a recruitment to hire more people to work on gas pipeline safety. But the question is whether this alone will be enough and whether the CPUC’s new found resolve will last or fade? Since 2001, Safety Administration data show California has experienced 12 serious incidents involving natural gas transmission pipelines operated by utilities under the CPUC’s purview. The causes included corrosion, excavation damage, welding and equipment failures, and other problems. Exclusive of the San Bruno disaster which killed eight, injured 51, and caused an estimated $220.4 million in property damage, according to the federal agency, these other 11 accidents together caused one death, two injuries, and $12.3 million in property damage. All occurred since 2005, so that’s an average of more than two serious incidents annually on natural gas transmission lines. In addition, there have been 62 distribution system accidents since 2001, killing three, injuring 14, and causing $14.4 million in property loss, an average of more than six a year. Almost 3 years after the PG&E distribution accident in Rancho Cordova in 2008-- which killed one and injured two--the CPUC is still weighing a monetary penalty for the company. Until the Sept. 9, 2010, San Bruno blast, Rancho Cordova brought barely a peep from the CPUC. Needless to say, the record shows that prior to San Bruno gas pipeline safety was not a high priority for the CPUC. Indeed, that was one of the chief findings of an outside task force the commission brought in following San Bruno to provide advice on how to improve safety. Now, a contrite CPUC pledges to upgrade its capability in pipeline safety regulation and reform its own culture to make safety a higher profile activity within the organization. It sounds good and no doubt is in earnest, but it may be so difficult to do on a sustained basis that it’s time for the state Legislature to consider another approach. After all, the CPUC is an organization dominated by attorneys and economists chiefly and rightly charged with protecting consumers against the monopoly power of utilities through economic regulation. Pipeline safety, on the other hand, is the province of engineers, metallurgists, geologists, construction managers, and other scientific and technical personnel who are the equivalent of odd ducks at the CPUC. With so much on its plate regarding regulation of utilities during a time of economic stagnation and massive technological change in every industry the CPUC covers, there’s a basic question: Is it wise for the commission to get diverted by refocusing its attention on natural gas pipeline safety? The shift to a dedicated office frees the CPUC for its crucial duty to protect consumers against unjust and unreasonable charges by monopoly utilities, while moving them toward cutting edge technology and environmental performance.
