1. Cal Trans Defends Tough Safety Standards
12/3/2018

2. Introduction Lorrie L. Wilson Chief, Right of Way Utilities
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
I’ve been with the Department of Transportation since 1980 and have been Chief of R/W Utilities statewide program for the last 5 years. This lawsuit is the first I’ve been involved in, and it was a great victory from a statewide perspective.
12/3/2018

3. Topics of Discussion History of dispute
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) standards vs. Caltrans standards
PG&E Lawsuit
Statewide implications
Court’s Decision
Partnering
District Benefits
12/3/2018

4. History of Dispute
Cal Trans electrical overhead clearance requires greater minimum distance than CPUC
Long-standing controversy
There has been a long-standing controversy between PG&E and CT re: the relocation of PG&E high voltage OH electrical lines within our R/W.
On highway improvement projects when CT would require PG&E to relocate their high voltage OH electrical lines to a minimum distance of 10 feet clearance from any OH traffic signals, traffic signs, lighting or mast arms, PG&E would whip out their Public Utility Commission (CPUC) regulations which requires only a six foot minimum clearance for the same voltage. The Caltrans 10 foot minimum clearance is a California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL/OSHA) requirement. In your handout is included a diagram that outlines the minimum required clearance distance with higher voltages.
In l984, Caltrans adopted this 10-foot clearance requirement as policy for maintenance employees working in the proximity of energized low and high voltage overhead lines. This policy provides a uniform statewide operating procedure with maximum safety for our employees.
12/3/2018

5. Streets and Highways Code
Contain general provisions for apportionment and expenditure of highway funds
Our basis for requiring PG&E to follow our order is included in the Streets and Highways Code which contains general provisions for actions and apportionment of highway funds.
12/3/2018

6. Section 680 (S&H Code)
……The department may require any person who has placed and maintained any pole, pole line, pipe, pipeline, conduit, street railroad tracks, or other structures or facilities upon any state highway, whether under that or any franchise, to move it at his or her own cost and expense to such different location in the highway is specified in a written demand of the department, whenever necessary to insure the safety of the traveling public or to permit the improvement of the highway.
The specific section we cited in the Streets and Highways Code is Section 680 which states in part that the company must move their facility at their own cost and expense to a different location in the highway.
12/3/2018

7. Lawsuit Outlined
Notice to Owner issued to PG&E to relocate power lines to 10 foot minimum clearance from signal pole and extension arm.
2003 – PG&E sends letter of dispute
2004 – Lawsuit filed
2004 – Trial by judge
In 2001, on a specific relocation in Northern California which included the installation of street lights and traffic signs, CT issued a Notice to Owner (our legal demand to the company to relocate their facility). The Notice to Owner demanded that PG&E relocate their aerial power lines to a minimum clearance of 10 feet from the proposed highway improvement (signal pole and mast arm)
In 2003, PG&E sent a letter back to us stating that they were obligated to install their facilities in accordance with the safety orders of the CPUC and that governmental agencies (Caltrans) may not impose safety regulations in excess of those imposed by the CPUC.
In 2004, the lawsuit was filed. PG&E sued CT to recover its relocation costs in excess of the 6 feet clearance while CT maintained that PG&E was responsible for all relocation costs. PG&E further claimed that there was a conflict between the PUC regulations and CT requirement for OH utilities, therefore the PUC regulations were to be followed.
12/3/2018

8. Caltrans Argument
California Law (Streets and Highways code 680) is controlling
PG& E must relocate at their own cost to a minimum distance of 10 feet from any OH high voltage electrical lines, depending on voltage.
CAL/OSHA Regulations
Again, CT felt that Section 680 of the S&H Code is controlling and PG&E was required to pay all relocation costs.
We follow CAL/OSHA which requires a 10 foot clearance from OH electrical lines for non-qualified electrical workers.
12/3/2018

9. Court Decision Judge ruled in Caltrans favor 12/3/2018
After trial, the judge ruled in our favor pursuant to S&H Code. PG&E was required to bear the entire cost for the relocation of their electrical lines. The judge stated that it would be highly inequitable to require State taxpayers to bear the expense of relocating PG&E’s facilities when necessitated by the State exercising it’s duty to maintain state highways.
The Court expressed that CPUC standards provide that the requirements specified for the clearance of electrical lines are expressed as a minimum value. Greater and more ample clearances may be desirable in some cases.
Further the court found no conflict between CPUC standards which set the minimum safety distance for workers and the CT requirements.
12/3/2018

10. Statewide Implications
Short-term cost minimal
Long-term cost huge
Caltrans serious about safety
Had we lost this case, we would have paid PG&E about $4,000 for this specific relocation; however, the potential long-range cost to the Department was huge, as every utility company in this specific circumstance would then be able to impose PUC requirements over our safety requirements.
Another issue we were facing at the time was underground requirements. Our safety requirements require a minimum depth of 42” for underground facilities. Again, the CPUC requirements requires only a depth of 36”. If we had lost this first case, we speculate we would have lost in future safety cases such as the 42” depth issue.
Our safety requirement is to protect our own staff who are non-qualified electrical workers performing maintenance of lighting facilities near electrical facilities. Caltrans has workers whose primary responsibility is to maintain the highways for the safety of the traveling public. CT highway maintenance staff are not and could never be qualified electrical workers because of the varied nature of the highway work and their training and qualifications. CT workers could be called to respond to emergencies at any time and the response could include repairing traffic signals.
12/3/2018

11. Partnering Freeway Master Contract Process Improvements 12/3/2018
Believe it nor not, winning the lawsuit hasn’t hampered our partnering relationship with the utility owners. The Department recently collaborated with five of our major utility owners including PG&E to develop one statewide Freeway Master Contract that addresses cost liability on transportation improvement projects. Streets and Highways statutes for freeway relocation costs were enacted in the late l940’s/early l950’s and immediately lead to confusion and many lawsuits. In l951, Caltrans developed nine different Master Agreements with 9 different companies for freeway projects. Each company was very happy with their own Master Agreement, but there was no equity company to company and R/W Agents had to be an expert on each different Master Agreement. 50 long years later, in the early 2000’s, the five major companies that we deal with most often collaborated with us to develop one Master Contract that we believe simplifies the relocation cost liability for freeway/expressway projects.
As a result of our victory and our successful Master Contract collaborations, we have gained additional respect from the utility owners and we now continue to partner with them to develop additional process improvements.
12/3/2018

12. Districts Benefit from Lawsuit
Takes interpretations and negotiation disputes out of their hands
Statewide consistency
Better working relationships with companies
Department credibility established
The 12 Caltrans districts had been slowed down in their project delivery every time they ran into this aerial clearance specific situation, but now the argument has been put to rest.
There is no more worry that one district office may handle this situation differently than another.
Because this was a court decision, the dispute is over, and we are able to focus on other challenges/goals with the utility owners (like process improvements).
And to dispel any potential misunderstanding that our partnering equals passivity, we have shown that we’re not afraid to go to court if we have to.
12/3/2018

13. Questions?
12/3/2018