HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 18, 1987 (51)Continued November 1�, 1987 (4JO
NOVEMBER 18, 1987
PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
APPLICATIONS
CC -7(f)
City Clerk Reimche presented the following information
pertaining to applications before the Public Utilities
Commission:
a) Pacific Gas and Electric Company Application Nc.
87-10-019 asking recovery in rates for the costs of 22
separate environmental compliance projects to be
undertaken during 1987 and 1988.
b) Application of Southern California Edison Company
(U 338-E) for a certificate that the present and
future public convenience and necessity require or
will require Edison to invest and participate in the
construction and operation of the applicant's share of
a 500 kv AC transmission line starting at the
California -Oregon border and going through Alameda,
Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Modoc,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano,
Tehama, and Yolo Counties in California, known as the
California -Oregon Transmission Project.
c) Application of AT&T Communications of California,
Inc., asking for the right to introduce new services
on the same conditions as their competitors --and to
adjust their prices up or down within a limited range
for their existing services provided in California.
d) Notice of investigation for the purpose of
establishing a list for the fiscal years 1988-89 and
1989-90 of existing and proposed crossings at grade of
city streets, county roads, or state highways most
urgently in need of separation or protects effecting
the elimination of grade crossings by removal or
relocation of streets or railroad tracks, or existing
separations in need of alternation or reconstruction
as contemplated by Section 2452 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
LTC; f s
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE CW GALiPbRN-A
In the Matter of the Application of
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC (U 902-E) for
a Certificate that Present and Future
Public Convenience and Necessity
Require or Will Require SDG&E to
Participate in the Construction and
Operation of a 500 kV Transmission.
Line from Southern Oregon Along the
Existing Malin -Meridian 500 kV
Transmission Line to Central California
Near the Tesla Substation, Known as the
California -Oregon Transmission Project.
Application of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY For A Certificate Of Public
Convenience And Necessity Authorizing
Participation In The California -Oregon
Transmission Project.
(U 39 E)
In the Matter of the Application of
Southern California Edison Company
(U 338-E) for a Certificate That the
Present and Future Public Convenience
and Necessity Require or Will Require
Edison to Invest and Participate in the
Construction and Operation of
Applicant's Share of a 500 kV AC
Transmission Line Starting at the
California -Oregon Border and Going
Through Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa,
Glenn, Merced, Modoc, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano,
Tehama, and Yolo Counties in California,'
Known as the California -Oregon
Transmission Project.
Application 87-10-016
Applicaticn 87-10-018
Application 87-10-023
A..87-10-016 et al. LTC%fs
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING
REGARDING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S
OCTOIBER 23 , 1987 NOTION
On October 23, 1987, Southern California Edison Company
(Edison) filed a Motion requesting a ruling that it be authorized
to file direct testimony on one issue in this proceeding on
January 26, 1988 rather than November 20, 1987. The issue in
question is San Diego Gas and Electric's (SDG&E's) request that
Edison's certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPC&N)
for the California -Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) be
conditioned if SDG&E does not retain its proportional share of
Pacific Intertie facilities after April 2007 (the so-called "2007
issue").
Under the established procedural schedule for the COTP
proceeding, Edison's prepared direct testimony is due November 20,
1987 and interested parties' testimony is due January 26, 1988
(Attachment to AW 's October 26, 1987 letter to Counsel). Edison
notes that the Commission must accept or reject SDG&E's COTP
application, filed October 14, 1987, by November 13, 1987 (General
Order 1111-C, § VII.B).
If the Commission accepts SDG&E's Application, Edison
indicates it will file a motion to strike the 2007 issue, soon
after November 13, 1987. If Edison's forthcoming motion to strike
is granted, obviously the necessity to file direct testimony
addressing the 2007 issue, would no longer exist, although Edison
would still be required to submit direct testimony supporting its
own application on November 20, 1987. If the motion to strike is
denied, Edison presumably would be required to review SDG&E's
direct testimony on the 2007 issue, submitted November 20, 1987,
and thereafter respond to the issue via interested party testimony
on January 26, 1988.
- 2 -
A.67-10-016 et al. LTCffs
Subsequent to receipt of Edison's October 23rd Potion,
the undersigned ALJ convened an informal conference on November 3,
1387, attended by Counsel for Edison, SDG&E, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PGandE), and the Commission's Division of
Ratepayer Advocates (DRA). At that time, counsel for the concerned
parties reached the following agreements:
1. Assumi-I the 2007 issue remains in the
proceeaing, Edison and PG&E will submit
"interested party" testimony on the issue
on January 13, 1988. SDG&E will submit
testimony responsive to this testimony on
January 26, 1988.
2. Motions to strike the 2007 issue will be
filed on or about November 20, 1987
and parties wishing to respond to the
motion(s) will have ten calendar days to do
SO.
IT IS HEREBY RULED that:
1. The procedural schedule is modified to the extent
necessary to make it consistent with the agreements reached at the
informal conference of November 3, 1987.
2. The original and twelve copies of all motions and
responses thereto shall be filed with the Commission's Docket
office, and served on all parties of record. Until the
November 20, 1987 Prehearing Conference, when a list of official
appearances will be available, "'parties of record"' is deemed to
mean all persons included on the five-page mailing list appended to
the AL3's October 26, 1987 letter to counsel.
Dated November 10, 19II7, at San Francisco, California
I s Z L NN CAREW
Lynn Carew
Assistant Chief
Administrative Law Judge
- 3 -
A.87-10-031-5 et al. LTC/fs
CBR`PIFICATE O.' SERVICE
I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy
of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling
Regarding Southern California Edison Company's October 23, 1987
Motion on all parties of record in this proceeding or their
attorneys of record.
Dated November 10, 1987, at San Francisco, California.
Zsl FANNIE SID
Fannie Sid
A.87-10-016 et al. LTC/fs
Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities
Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA
94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to
receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number of the
service list on which your name appears.
October 16, 1987
i -t . +-
State of Culifor;,�n
a attorney G4erai�, O ra�.�....e ,�
of General Services, County and City Officials:
Jn October 16, 1987 Pacific Gas and Electric Company
filed Application No. 87-10-01.9 with the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking recovery in rates for the
costs of 22 separate environmental compliance projects to be
undertaken during 1987 and 1988. These projects will cost
approximately $19.4 million. PG&E proposes that these costs be
recovered in future electric and gas rate adjustment proceedings
if the CPUC finds such costs to be reasonable.
These environmental compliance projects -- required by
law -- will consist primarily of improving equipment at power
plants which is used to treat, handle or store various hazardous
substances. These improvements will provide better environmental
protection by enhancing the power plants' ability to ensure that
there are no uncontrolled releases of substances such as oil,
boiler cleaning wastes and asbestos.
The proposal asks the CPUC initially to review the
projects, but delay a detailed review of the projects'
reasonableness and costs for a future rate adjustment proceeding.
The CPUC would then adjust PG&E's rates in upcoming electric or
gas adjustment proceedings to recover the projects' costs.
The state counties, and municipal corporations, and
other interested parties in the above mentioned filing will be
furnished a copy of Application No. 87-10-019 and related
exhibits, upon written request made to PG&E at P. 0. Box 7442,
San Francisco, California 94120, Attention: Kenneth D. Oleson.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
GFG
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODUAISSION OF THE STATE; 0-F C:ALIFG}RNIA
In the ?Matter of the Appiicat"ion of
Southern California Edison company
(U 338-E) for a Certificate That the
Present and Future Public
Convenience and Necessity Require or
Will Require Edison to Invest and
Participate in the Construction and
Operation of Applicant's Share of a
500 kV AC Transmission Line Starting
at the California -Oregon Border and
Going Through Alameda, Colusa, Contra
Costa, Glenn, Merced, Modoc,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta,
Siskiyou, Solano, Tehama, and Yolo
Counties in California, Known as the
California -Oregon Transmission
Prrject.
Applicaticn Nos. 87-10-023,
87-10-016, and 87-10-018
(to be consolidated)
MOTION REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING
THAT EDISON BE AUTHORIZED TO FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY ON
JANUARY 26, 1988 RATHER THAN NOVEMBER 20, 1987 ON
SDG&E -S REQUEST THAT EDISON'S CPCN FOR COTP BE CONDITIONED
RICHARD K. DURANT
PHILIP WALSH
CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE
Attorneys for Applicant
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Post Office Box 800
Rosemead, California 91770
Telephone: (818) 302-1337
October 23, 1987
TABS() F -CP NTE_ TENT-*
i
Section Title
I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................
A. Summary Of The Request ...........................
B. Background Of The COTP ...........................
C. Background Of The Procedural Schedule .............
II. EDISON REQUESTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEANINGFULLY RESPOND
TO SDG&E'S APPLICATION WHICH CONSTITUTES SDG&E -S.
SHOWING IN SUPPORT OF THE COTP AND RAISES A NEW
ISSUE REGARDING CONDITIONS ON EDISON'S CPCN FOR COTP...
A. Edison Intends To File A Motion To Strike This
New Issue After SDG&E's Application Has Been
Accepted For Filing ..............................
B. If Edison's Motion To Strike Is Not Granted,
Edison Requests Permission To File Direct
Testimony On This New Issue On January 26;
1988 After Edison Reviews SDG&E's Direct
Testimony Filed On November 20, 1987 .............
III. CONCLUSION ............................................
ATTACHMENT A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-i-
Pa
1
I
2
2
3
4
5
6
BEFORE THE PUB; IC UTI%ITIES CoWlISSIui� CF TnE ETn"E OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matte_ of the Application of }
Southern California Edison Company }
(U 338-E) for a Certificate That the }
Present and Future Public )
Convenience and Necessity Require or }
Will Require Edison to Invest and }
Participate in the Construction and ) Application Nos. 87-10-023,
Operation of Applicant's Share of a } 87-10-016, and 87-10-018
500 kV AC Transmission Line Starting } (to be consolidated)
at the California -Oregon Border and }
Going Through Alameda, Colusa, Contra }
Costa, Glenn, Merced, Modoc, }
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, }
Siskiyou, Solano, Tehama, and Yolo )
Counties in California, Known as the )
California -Oregon Transmission )
Project. )
MOTION REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING
THAT EDISON BE AUTHORIZED TO FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY ON
JANUARY 26, 1988 RATHER THAN NOVEMBER 20, 1987 ON
SDG&E'S REQUEST THAT EDISON'S CPCN FOR COTP BE CONDITIONED
I
•RM IMMITIN
Southern California Edison Company ("Edison") requests an
Administrative Lasa Judge's ("ALJ") Ruling to authorize Edison to
file direct testimony on January 26, 1988 rather than November
20, 1987 on San Diego Gas & Electric Company's ("SDG&E") request
that Edison's certificate of public convenience and necessity
("CPCN") for the California -Oregon Transmission Project ("COTP")
-1-
be conditioned if SDG&E does not retain its gFGj�f3rtiviicil �: 3re .n�
Pacific Intertie faciaitie� � after Apr" , 2007.
B . Bs3_QkQ round Of The COTP
On April 8, 1987, Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
("PGandF"), and SDG&E ("investor-owned utilities" or "IOUs")
filed applications for CPCNs to participate and invest in the
COTP. _Z/ The Commission's Public Staff Division ("PSD")
determined that those applications were incomplete, and the IOUs
were notified on May 8, 1987 that the applications would not be
accepted for processing. Subsequently, on May 29, 1987, the
Commission issued D.87-05-060, D.87-05-067 and D. 87-05-068
administratively closing the application dockets. The
Commission's action was taken without prejudice, and the IOUs
were encouraged to file new applications in a timely fashion.
C. Background Qf The Procedural Schedule
On July 6, 1987, Edison informed the Commission of its
intention to file a new application to participate and invest in
COTP on October 1, 1987. In anticipation of the October 1, 1987
refiling, the ALJ assigned to this proceeding held an informal
l/ The existing Pacific Intertie facilities consist of two 500
kV AC transmission lines extending from the Pacific Northwest
to California and one 1,000 kV DC transmission line which
parallels the AC transmission lines through Nevada and
extends into Los Angeles. If constructed, the COTP will add
a third 500 kV AC transmission line from the Pacific
Northwest to California.
2/ Application Thos. 87-04-012, 87-04-010, and 87-04-008,
respectively.
-2-
zeeting of the project participants, PSD, and all interested
parties to discuss scheduling matters on September 2.1 1.987. O
September 22, 1987, the ALJ sent a letter to t ,ose who atve ,ued
to memorialize the outcome of that meeting. The letter
attached a procedural schedule which contemplated that the IOUs
would file their applications on October 1, 1987. The procedural
schedule indicated that applicants would file direct testimony on
November C, 1987 and that interested parties would file direct
testimony on January 12, 1987.
All three IOUs filed their applications on October 14, 1987.
The dates in the ALJ's procedural schedule assured an October 1,
1987 filing and should be moved back by two weeks. So, the
applicants' direct testimony would be filed November 20, 1987 and
the interested parties direct testimony would be filed January 26,
II.
EDISON. REQUESTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO tjKAX1N!QFULLX a.Fa-PQNjP
• _... •' IN SUPnRTH• • AND RAISES
In SDC&E•s application filed October 14, 1987, SDG&E
requested the Commission to impose conditions on the CPCN
granting Edison the right to participate in the COTP if Edison
and PGandE do not agree to renewal of SDG&E's proportional share
3/ See Attachment A.
-3-
of existing transmission service over the existing Pacific
Intertie facilities that: (1) SDG&E's existing rights to Pacific
In.tertie transmission service be extended beyond 2007; or (2)
SDG&E's ownership interest in the C.OTP be increased to maintai^
SDG&E's relative share of the Pacific Intertie facilities after
April, 2007. Edison intends to respond to SDG&E's request by
filing a motion to strike this issue as soon as possible after
SDG&E's application is accepted for filing.
If the IOUs' applications are accepted as complete for filing
on November 13, 1987, SDG&E, as well as Edison and PGandE, will
file direct testimony in support of their applications on
November 20, 1987. If Edison's motion is not granted, Edison
should be allowed to review SDG&E's direct testimony supporting
the request that Edison's CPCN for the COTP be conditioned filed
on November 20, 1987 before filing Edison's direct testimony on
this issue on January 26, 1988.
A. Edison IntendsTo Eile PA Mation To StrikeNew Issue
Att,a SM&E's Application -Has Been Accepted FQr Filing
The Commission must accept or reject SDG&E's application
filed on October 14, 1987 as complete for filing by November 13,
1987.4/ If the Commission accepts SDG&E's October 14, 1987
filing as complete on November 13, 1987, Edison intends to file a
motion to strike this new issue raised by SDG&E regarding the
period after April, 2007 as soon as possible after November 13,
1987. If the Commission grants this motion, Edison would not
file any direct testimony on this issue in this proceeding.
4/ Commission General Order 131-C, §VII.B.
-4-
T� mss-.-; kA TR -Not Granted . Edison
$. it L'azsQn _S t�SC}�iti i3 1V Vt. -
Regtles�.s Permission Toi.le Direct i im nY On 'Ii
New Issue Qn Jlanuaiy 26, IM Air Edison Reviey5
SDG&E's Direct Testimony Filed On NQvember 2Q, 1987
On October 14, 1987, Edison and SDG&E each filed an applica-
tion for a CPCN to participate in the COTP individually, whether
or not any other IOU was granted such a CPCN. Edison requested
in its application that it be granted a CPCN to participate and
invest in the COTP. If Edison's application is accepted as com-
plete for filing on November 13, 1987, Edison will file direct
testimony to support its application when applicants file direct
testimony on November 20, 1987.
Edison made no request that its CPCN be conditioned if SDG&E
does not retain its proportional share of the Pacific Intertie
facilities including the COTP after April, 2007. Edison should
be allowed to file direct testimony on a request contained in
SDG&E's Application, and not in Edison's application, after re-
viewing SDG&E's direct testimony filed November 20, 1987 support-
ing its request. The procedural schedule should be modified to
indicate that Edison may file direct testimony on SDG&E's request
on January 26, 1988 when interested parties file direct testimony. 5/
9/ On October 22, 1987 , Edison sent SDG&E a letter by telecopy
requesting SDG&E to inform Edison by letter if SDG&E had any
objection to Edison filing its direct testimony on the
conditions that SDG&E's application requests to Edison's CPCN
on January 26, 1988. In a telephone conversation on October
22, 1987, SDG&E's counsel indicated that he did not believe
that SDG&E would object to Edison filing its direct testimony
on the conditions that SDG&E's application requests to Edison's
CPCN on January 26, 1988; however, SDG&E would respond by
letter after reviewing Edison's motion. As soon as Edison
receives SDG&E'.s letter, Edison will forward it to the ALJ.
-5-
III.
CQn_LLJS ICT
Edison respectfully requests that the ALJ issue a ruling
authorizing:
1. Edison to file direct testimony regarding the new issue
raised by SDG&E on conditions to Edison's CPCN for COTP
on January 26, 1988, instead of on November 20, 1987; and
2. Granting such other relief as the Commission deems
necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD K. DURANT
PHILIP WALSH
CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE
By: Carol A. Schmid -Frazee
Attorneys for
SOUTHERN C XLT_FORNIA EDISON COMPANY
October 23, 1987
AOORxxx ALL COYMUN-CATIC-3
TO TN-- CO—lfti 0!s
CA-PORhIA STATE @UILO!N6
SAN FRANC!SC P. CS LrFQi1N?► ya�rj
TLLtnnpNx. 1.131 537.
ablir Itili#irs TOMMission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
September 22, 1987
John W. Busterud
Attorney at Law
Pacific Gas S Electric Co.
Post Office Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
Carol A. Schmid -Frazee
,attorney at Law
Sou'_hern California Edison Company
Post Office Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
C. Edward Gilson
Senior Course:
San Diego Gas s Electric
Post Office Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Counsel:
Re: California-Oreaon Transmission Proiect
This 'letter will memorialize the outcome of yesterday's Pre -filing
Session in the COT proceeding.
The Schedule
The procedural schedule developed as a result of yesterday's
discussions is attached to this letter as Appendix A. The
schedule contemplates that IOU applications will bi filed
October 1st, that the Commission will accept those applications
thirty days thereafter, and that TANC will issue its NOD on
November 18, 1987. If any of these crucial dates slip, the
schedule must be modified accordingly.
However, in order to keep things moving along, the October 21
workshops and Noveiber 20, 1987 Prehearing Conference are
considered firm dates, to remain was scheduled" regardless of
the actual CPCN application filing date or the TANC NOD issuance
date.
Under the proposed schedule, evidentiary hearings begin January 25,
1988, but their duration remains an open question, to be addressed
at the January 15, 1988 Prehearing Conference, after all direct
A-1
,io^n ti. Busterud, Attorney: at Law
Ca -o i A. Scn-Imid--rraze' , At crney at Law
C. Edward C_pson, Senior Counsel
September 22, 1987
Page 2
and rebuttal testimony has been submitted. This purpcseful
fuzziness, together with the IOU agreement to submit testimony
as early as November 6, 1987, to allow more time for PSD review,
seems a feasible interim solution to the Commission's scheduling
concerns, given the IOUs' unwillingness to consent to a three-
month extension at the outset of the proceeding. I believe all
parties recognize the proposed sc';edule would result in a de facto
extension of some sort, i extensive hearing time is required to
develop the record.
Filing of Applications
The IOUs indicated they plan to serve their COTP applications on
all project participants, and on other parties who have expressed
interest in the proceeding. I have attached a copy of the sign-up
sheet from yesterday's session (Appendix B), since that list con-
tains the names of other individuals who have now expressed interest
in the proceeding, and who should be served as well.
The ICUs have also agreed, within a few days after the applications
are filed, to serve accompanying workpapers on those who specifi-
cally request such additional data. Such requests were made
yesterday by Clyde E. Hirschfeld on behalf of the Cogenerators
of Southern California (CSC); William B. Marcus on behalf of
Positive Resolution of Powerline Problems; and Bob Weatherwax on
behalf of Sierra Energy and Risk Assessment, Inc. Anyone wishing
to make.a similar request should contact the attorney representing
the particular IOU in question.
Discovery Matters
It was agreed that copies of all data requests would be served by
the requesting party on all other parties. Until the November 20,
1987 Prehearing Conference an official appearance list will be
unavailable. In the interim, "all other parties" includes the
IOUs, and those individuals and/or entities shown in Appendix B.
z
Data request responses need not be served on all other parties,
but only on the requesting party and other parties who have
requested such service in writing.
The proposed schedule includes various "discovery deadlines."
Failure to meet these deadlines may adversely impact the ability n
of the noncomplying party to insert previously nondisclosed
i
A-2
john W. Busterwd, ..__=ev at Law
Carol A. Sc^m_f-Frazee, attorney at Law
C. Edward Glbs3n, Senior Counsel
Se"; -eamher 22, 1587
Page 3
information int-_ the record. However, the dates are merely cutoff
points and are not intended to encourage the "stockpiling" of data
requests or responses until the very last minute. To that end, i�
was mutually agreed that parties would begin their discovery in
timely fashion and that those receiving data requests would respond
to them within 5-7 working days Of receipt.
I recognize the proposed schedule imposes some time constraints on
interested parties attempting to conduct discovery of PSD's direct
case, although these same parties are given far greater latitude
in conducting d-scovery of the IOUs direct showings. I am open
to suggestions for modifying the schedule to correct the former
problem.
Any party seeking formal resolution of a discovery dispute should
contact me by telephone (415-557-2674) to request a discovery con-
ference. In most cases I will ask that party to arrange a telephone
conference call open to all disputing parties. As we discussed
yesterday, this is the preferred discovery conference format, given
the need to resolve such disputes quickly in this proceeding. None-
theless I do not rule out the more formal motion practice in situa-
tions where ttat seems more appropriate. In all cases, however,
the party seeking affirmative relief should demonstrate that it
has made at least one serious attempt at informal resolution of
the dispute before escalating it to the discovery conference level.
In Conclusion
The Pre -filing Session resolved some, but not all, key procedural
issues. Parties are free to raise any other procedural points at
the November 20th Prehearing Conference in San Francisco. A formal
notice of that PHC will follow.
very truly yours,
> Kj, T.
LYNN T. CAREW, Assistant Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:lk
Attachments
cc: Pre -filing Session Mailing List w/attachments
Craig Conley/Bob Weatherwax w/attachments
C. Hayden Ames w/attachments
Richard C. Harper w/attachments
William B. Marcus w/attachments
Commissioners w/Attach. A
A-3
A_DoEND:X A
Procedural Schedule (California -Oregon Transmission
Project) (Developed at September 21, 1987 Pre -Filing Session)
File CPCN Application 10/01/87
Workshops on engineering/1102 issues 10/21/87
CPCN Appl. Accepted or Rejected 10/30/87
PG&E, Edison, SDG&E submit testimony 11/06/87
TANC's NOD on COTP 11/18/87
Prehearing Conference (10 am/SF) 11/20/87
PSD deadline to submit data requests
to IOUs re IOU direct showings 12/01/87
IOU deadline to respond to PSD
12/15/87
data requests re IOU direct showings
PSD submits testimony
12/30/87
Deadline for Interested Parties to
submit data requests to IOUs and
01/05/88
PSD relative to their direct showings
=
Deadline for IOUs and PSD to respond
to interested parties' data
01/08/88
requests re IOU/PSD direct showings
Interested parties submit testimony
01/12/88
Prehearing Conference (to assess issue
of length of hearings)
01/15/88
IOU Rebuttal Testimony
01/15/88
Deadline for IOUs to submit data
requests to PSD/Interested Parties
01/18/88
re PSD/Interested Parties' direct
showings
Evidentiary Hearings Begin
01/25/88
s
Deadline for PSD/Interested Parties
to respond to IOU data requests re
PSD/Interested Parties' direct
showings
Deadline for PSD/Interested Parties
to submit data requests to IOUs re
IOU rebuttal testimony
Deadline for IOUs to respond to PSD/
Interested Parties' data requests
re ICU rebuttal testimony
Duration of Evidentiary Hearings
Briefs due
Decision Drafting and Internal
Review of ALJ Draft Decision
AIJ Draft Decision Published
Commission Decision Issued
A-5
01/28/88
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
01/25/88 to ?
30 days after
hearings conclude
Completed within
5 weeks after
receipt of briefs
30 days before
decision conference
(Section 311)
30 days after
publication of
ALJ Draft Decision
APPENDIX B
SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
REPRESENTING
/m SC ?r r
�f•,6 ,'Gj
,60
, 7 ZZ s st �' IYA
S feRAn tN�R�y tl�uK sc,,,r L
SAC2)HI`'ro CA
FD
SCE
CA �1776
Jo m
e.�. gL
pQ�: �'� Crus
S Acv 4��-tscc�, LA
9 `!I f�6
zcv t(a 3
'�iC►V\ D�4e_'ib cA,
g-,LIIZ
.�'�► D��c a, C4
92
A-6
NAME
N1 1—' Z /.r-.
de 0
w s4exa�,cck
SIGN-UP SHEET
MAILING ADDRESS
r57C,—
'71 7 7 0
SCIS
6c y
%4r Col : or+o. r c• t S,..is, 1io 0
$w ��as�wco� « 441o�i •21vg
it�.cw -reuoa►ke� � �Ssec.�i.
L��cacl i�aF�♦ TOrs e f Su,:� 10 0
c�a.s� tOtcS,.v 't7a3 i.
L.pdy►, Si .c �
4 7AoI-(r4 t4
REPRESENTING
C- s c)
e S. C
a
7 c,"r,Y
5f4pt0o6d*n
1 7 z z T. 5 fv-eJ e� A
S-tcvCnr%%tr+0 , C
gStriy
CPUCy tcwi
Sas K,eU��f��`�l►.
.. C-._. - - O^,I n11 ?--. A-7
ILI 1�y
CJSy
7 c,"r,Y
5f4pt0o6d*n
1 7 z z T. 5 fv-eJ e� A
S-tcvCnr%%tr+0 , C
gStriy
CPUCy tcwi
Sas K,eU��f��`�l►.
.. C-._. - - O^,I n11 ?--. A-7
NAME
1
SIGN-UP SHEET
MAILING ADDRESS
eo�r„d, eft 9s�6i�
W tS1G rM ArrCi ! l --e v-
54
rS4
REPRESENTING
Ivo 7AC ffmr4'-ctPfRj7/
15CC� Ch 9Ybf� 4s
PGS
vl�1.
w _
A-8
WA
C.o h P [-�
DL,)Ii�_
:.AMEn
W; 46 A(-uf
SIGN-UP SHEET
MAILING ADDRESS
�i1Zo�
REPRESENTING
' zv., E1e ajolux C/"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused the foregoing MOTION
REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING THAT EDISON BE
AUTHORIZED TO FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY ON JANUARY 25, 1988 RATHER
THAN NOVEMBER 20, 1987 ON SDG&E'S REQUEST THAT EDISON'S CPCN FOR
COTP BE CONDITIONED to be served upon all appearances herein
pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
1987.
Dated at Rosemead, California, this 23rd day of October,
CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE
Attorney for SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
8181302-1337
SERVICE LIST
Application, No.
(California -Oregon Transmission Line Project)
David R. Branchcomb
HE14WOOD ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
2555 Third Street, Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95818
William B. Marcus
JBS ENERGY, INC.
311 D Street, Suite A
West Sacramento, CA 95605
Michael Holstein
ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES,
100 Northcreek, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30327
Frank Hahn
District Operations
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST.
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95852-1880
Frank M. Tindal
Acting TANC Treasurer/Controller
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST.
P.O. Boz 15830
6201 S Street
INC. Sacramento, CA 95852-1830
John W. Busterud
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94106
Dale Pohlman, Asst. Gen. Manager
Power Resources
CITY OF ANAHEIM
P.O. Box 3222
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Robert J. Haywood Eldridge Sinclair
Vice Pres. of Power Contracts Director of Public Utilities
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CITY OF BANNING
77 Beale Street, Room 2313 P.O. Box 998
San Francisco, CA 94106 161 W. Ramsey
Banning, CA 92220
C. Edward Gibson
SAN 'DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
101 Ash Street, P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Gary D. Cotton
Senior Vice President
Electric Operations
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
101 Ash Street
San Diego, CA 92112
George Fraser
Director, Planning
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL U'T'ILITY DIST.
P.O. Box 15830
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95852-1830
Bruce V. Malkenhorst
City Administrator
CITY OF VERNON
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
David G. Coleman
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
1825 Bell Street
Sacramento, CA 95825
Horace W. Rupp, Jr.
Manager of Contracts Admin.
LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF WATER & POWER
111 N. Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90051
svclist.285 - 1 -
SERVICE LIST, cont,
Application No. 87-04-012
(California -Oregon Transmission Line Pro;ect)
Paul Richins
EL DORADO HILLS COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
831 Redwood Lane
E1 Dorado Hills, CA 95630
Michael Cobb, Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO
'50 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bernard Pfile, Manager
PLUMAS-SIERRA RURAL ELECTRIC COOP.
P.O. Box 2000
Highway 70
Portola, CA 96122-2000
Hays Hickey
Councilperson
CITY OF UKIAH
203 S. School Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Harold Mayfield
City Engineer
CITY OF BIGGS
P.O. Box 307
464 B Street
Biggs, CA 95917
Jack R. Shepard
General Manager
Bureau of Electricity
CITY OF ALAMEDA
2000 Grand Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Michael McDonald
Comm. for City of Healdsburg
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
180 Cirby Way
Roseville, CA 95678
Archer F.. Pugh
Management Committee Liaison
PACKARD & PUGH
P.O. Box 4648
1300 West Street
Redding, CA 96099
Sam Lindley
Director, Electric Department
CITY OF REDDING
760 Parkview Avenue
Redding, CA 96001-3396
J. Scott Carter
Council Member
CITY OF REDDING
760 Parkview Avenue
Redding, CA 96001-3396
Robert E. Courtney
City :tanager
CITY OF REDDING
760 Parkview Avenue
Redding, CA 96001-3396
Randall A. Hays
City Attorney
CITY OF REDDING
760 Parkview Avenue
Redding, CA 96001-3396
Norman B. Moseley
Assistant General Manager
MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1231 Eleventh Street
P.O. Box 4060
Modesto, CA 95352
Dennis W. De Cuir, Esq.
MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 950
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lewis Reid
MARRON, REID & SHEEHY
601 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Gene Varanini
MARRON, REID & SHEEHY
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1515
Sacramento, CA 95814
svclist.285 - 2 -
SERvIVE LIST, cont.
Application No. 87-04-012
(California -Oregon Transmission Line Project)
Jerry Jordan Joseph F. Hsu
Executive Director Utility Director
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES CITY OF AZUSA
ASSOCIATION P.O. Box WWW
1.213 K Street, Suite 103 777 N. Alameda Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814 Azusa, CA 91702
Robert P. Will
ATTORNEY AT LAW
955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Robert A. Olson
Project Managing Director
TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
1010 Hurley Way, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95866
James W. Beck
Director of Electric Utility
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Fred M. Reid, Mayor
CITY OF LODI
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Henry J. Rice
Electric Utility Director
CITY OF LODI
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Gale A. Drews
Electrical Utility Director
CITY OF COLTON
650 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
Robert C. Wales
Acting Pub. Utilities Director
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
3900 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
Viju Patel
Chief, Energy Division
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES
1801 6th Street
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001
Richard D. Lambert, Director
CARMICHAEL WATER DISTRICT
7001 Fair Oaks Blvd.
Carmichael, CA 95608
Jack Hansen
SAN JUAN SUBURBAN WATER DISTRICT
P.O. Box 85
Orangevale, CA 95662
Glenn J. Bjorklund Ronald D. Young
vice President General Manager
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. SHASTA DAM AREA PUBLIC
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue UTILITY DISTRICT
Rosemead, CA 91770 1650 Stanton Drive
Central Valley, CA 96019
Carol A. Schmid -Frazee
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Karl Braun
Councilperson
CITY OF LOMPOC
100 Civic Center Plaza
Lompoc, CA 93438
svclist.285 - 3 -
SERVICE LIST, cont.
Application No. 87-04-012
(California -Oregon Transmission Line Project)
Ernest Geddes James Scarff
General ?tanager CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO?v;v;.
TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT Legal Division
P.O. Box 949 505 Van Ness Avenue
333 East Canal Drive San Francisco, CA 94102
Turlock, CA 95380
Kenneth A. Weisel
Electric Utility Director
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
316 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Clifton Shi€flet
Councilperson
CITY OF GRIDLEY
685 Kentucky Street
Gridley, CA 95948
Kenneth H. McKinney
Chief, Electric Resource Planning
MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1231 Eleventh Street
Modesto, CA 95352
Wallace L. Duncan
DUNCAN, WEINBERG AND MILLER
1615 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Michael P. Alcantar .
LINDSAY, HART, NEIL & WEIGLER
222 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1800
Portland, OR 97201-66:.8
Mike Burke
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM.
Public Staff Division
1107 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Bob Weatherwax
SERA
1722 "J" Street, Ste. 19A
Sacramento, CA 95814
Thomas D. Miller
Office of General Counsel
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
1002 N.E. Holladay Street
Portland, OR 97232
Steve Wright
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
2101 Webster Street, Ste. 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
C. Hayden Ames
CHICKERING & GREGORY
Two Embarcadero Center
Suite 740
San Francisco, CA 94111
Richard Charles Harper
Clyde E. Hirschfeld NOSSAMAN, GUTHDER, KNOX &
LINDSAY, HART, NEIL & WEIGLER ELLIOTT
345 California Street, Suite 2200 100 The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94104-2269 San Francisco, CA 94605
Donald W. Schoenbeck
DRAGEN-BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES
Lloyd Center Tower, Suite 1060
825 N.E. Muttonmah Street
Portland, OR 97232
John Quinley
141t) Dawes Street
Novato, CA 94947
Dian M. Grueneich, Esq.
380 Hayes Street, Ste. Four
San Francisco, CA 94102
Michael W. Danna
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
101 Ash Street
San Diego, CA 92112
svclist.285 - 4 -
AT&T NIOT;-s OF Ar," L,CAT!ON FOR
LWITED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ,
In order to respond more effectively to the needs of our custbmers `aind to
the demands of the competitive long distance market, AT&T Communications
of California, Inc. ("AT&T") has filed an application with the California
Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") asking for the right to
introduce new services on the same conditions as our competitors --and to
adjust our prices up or down within a limited range for our existing
services provided in California.
In our application, we request the authority to introduce new services
by notifying the Commission five days before the effective date of the
service's availability as our competitors are currently permitted to do.
Presently, we are required to advise the Commission forty days in
advance. With respect to existing services, we request that the
Commission establish narrow ranges around our existing prices, and that
we be permitted to raise or lower our prices within those ranges, without
prior Commission approval. We also request authority to provide certain
services under contract in response to unique customer demands and
requests for competitive bids. As an integral part of our application,
we propose a comprehensive monitoring plan which will provide the
Commission an opportunity to measure the effects of any service
Introduction or pricing change on competition and customer satisfaction.
If the Commission approves our proposal, there will be no immediate
effect on your AT&T Long Distance bill since there is no automatic
increase or decrease in AT&T's intrastate prices associated with this
application. Rather, we are requesting advance aut,iority to adjust our
prices within the narrow ranges described below, and whether your bill
goes up or down in the future will depend on the combined effect of your
AT&T Long Distance usage patterns and any adjustments we make within the
price ranges. Our proposal offers an alternative to the current form of
utility regulation which is designed for less competitive circumstances.
As part of our commitment to California consumers, we will continue to
provide high quality service, maintain statewide average prices. and will
not withdraw our service from any community.
The following price ranges are proposed for each of our existing services.
AT&T LONG DISTANCE
• For calls up to -0 miles in length, we could raise or lower
our prices by one cent per minute. For example, the
current rate for a direct dialed call from Sacramento to
Stockton is 34 cents for the first minute; we could reduce
the price as low as 33 cents or increase it as high as 35
cents.
_i_
s For calls 71 to 1o^ _iv les `n length, we could raise or
lower our prices by two cents per minute. For example, the
current rate for a direct dialed call from San Francisco to
Sacramento is 38 cents for the first minute; we could
reduce the price as low as 36 cents or increase it as high
as 40 cents.
• For calls over 100 miles in length, we could raise or lower
p -ices by three cents per minute. For example, the current
rate for a direct dialed call from Los Angeles to San
Francisco is 44 cents for the first minute; we could reduce
the price as low as 41 cents or increase it as high as 47
cents.
The following chart depicts our complete in-state long distance schedule,
by mileage step, with our proposed price ranges, using current prices as
the mid -points for each range:
MILEAGE
DIAL
STATION
COIN DIAL
STEP
INITIAL MINUTE
INITIAL
3 MINUTES
.20
.19- .21
.23
.21- .25
Mid-
Proposed
Mid-
Proposed
.28
Point
Price Range
Point
Price Range
0-20
S.23
5.22-$.24
5.60
3.55-3.65
21-40
.32
.31- .33
.85
.80- .90
41-70
.34
.33- .35
.95
.90-1.00
71-100
.38
.36- .40
1.00
.90-1.10
101-150
.41
.38- .44
1.15
1.05-1.25
151-330
.43
.40- .46
1.25
1.15-1.35
OVER 330
.44,
.41- .47
1.30
1.20-1.40
ALL CLASSES OF
SERVICE EACH
ADDITIONAL MINUTE
Mid-
Proposed
Point
Price Range
$.11
$.10-3.12
.19
.18- .20
.20
.19- .21
.23
.21- .25
.24
.21- .27
.27
.24- .30
.28
.25- .31
We also request the opportunity to adjust the 20% Evening discount and
the 40% Night/Weekend discount applicable to long distance calling. For
such discounts, we are requesting a narrow range of plus -or -minus five
percent to be established around the current discount levels.
- 2 -
AT&T OPERATOR ASSISTANCE SERV!CES
We propose the following price ranges be adopted for our
long distance
charges attributable to operator assistance, calling card, operator
handled station-to-station and perSin-to-person calls --
using current
prices as the mid-point of each range:
Mid-Point
Proposed
• Operator Service Charges (Per Msg.)
Price Range
Oper. Asst. Calling Card $ .50
$ .40-$ .60
Oper. Asst. Station-
to-Station, Collect.
or 3rd Plumber Billing $1.00
S .75-51.25
Person-to-Person $3.00
$2.50-$3.SO
• Verification/Interrupt Charges
Verify $1.00
$ -8541.15
Interrupt $1.50
$1.3041.70
• Directory Assistance $ .35
S .25-$ .45
AT&T WATS AND 800 SERVICE
We request the following price ranges for our WATS and 800 Services, with
the mid-point for each range set at current prices:
AT&T WATS SERVICE
(Rate Per Hour*)
First Next Next
Over
15 Hrs 25 Hrs 40 Hrs
80 Rrs
HALF STATE ($8.40-$11.40) ($7.30-$ 9.90) ($6.65-$ 8.95) ($6.1048.30)
FULL STATE ($9.55-$12.95) ($9.00-$12.15) ($7.95-$10.75) ($6.95-$9.35)
AT&T 800 SERVICE
( Rate Per Hour")
BUSINESS DAY OFF PEAK
HALF STATE ($11.10-$15.00) ($4.40-$6.00)
FULL STATE ($13.90-$18.80) ($5.55-$7.55)
• Plus set-up charge of $.15 per message (WATS).
•' Plus set-up charge of $.05 per message (800).
- 3 -
AT&T BUSINESS PRIVATE LINE SERVICES
We reauest that price ranges for our private line services, both
recurring and non-recurring, be established to permit adjustments of
plus -or -minor 1014 for each price element using current prices as the
mid -point for each price element.
COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION
The Commission staff will review our application and may propose
changes to the request we have made. The Commission staff consists
of engineers, accountants, economists and attorneys who will
evaluate this proposal and present their analyses and
recommendations to the Commission. Other interested parties may
also make recommendations. Although a variety of proposals may be
submitted, the final determination will be made by the Commission.
A copy of the application and the related monitoring plan may be
examined at the offices of the California Public Utilities
Commission, State Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102 or State Building, 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles,
CA 90012; at AT&T Headquarters at 795 Folsom Street,
San Francisco, CA 94107 or the following AT&T Offices:
23461 S. Pointe Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 or 611 W. 6th Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90017.
A copy of the Application and related attachments will be furnished
upon written request to C. W. Ensign, AT&T, 795 Folsom Street, Room
220, San Francisco, CA 94107.
For information about this notice or other AT&T services, please
call:
Residence Customers: 800-222-0300 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. M -F
Business Customers: 800-221-0400 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM, M -F
- 4 -
- DY
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF C iT:':zz r
Investigation for the purpose of )
establishina a list for the }
fiscal years 1988-89 an; 1989-90 }
of existing and proposed cross- }
Ings at grade of city streets, )
county roads, or state highways }
most urgently in need of }
separation, or projects effecting)
the elimination o f qrade )
crossings by removal or -reloca-
tion of streets or railroad )
tracks, or. existing separations }
in need of alternation or )
reconstruction as contemplated )
by Section 2452 of the Streets }
and Highways Code. }
}
J L E D
;OCT 281987
SAN
:,,:oT 87 10 433
ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION
By July 1 of each year, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) is required to establish and furnish to the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) a priority list of those
railroad grade separation projects, including the elimination of
existing or proposed grade crossings; the elimination of grade
crossings by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks;
and the alteration or reconstruction of existing grade separations
most urgently in need of separation or alteration. The list, based
on criteria established by CPUC, includes projects on city streets,
county roads, and State highways which are not freeways as defined
in Section 257 of the Streets and Highways (S&3) Code.
-1-
Funding for projects included on each annual priority
list is provided through Section 190 of the S&F Code, and the basis
for allocation and State requirements is contained in Sections
2450-2461 of the S&H Code. On protects which eliminate an existing
crossing or alter or reconstruct an existing grade separation, an
allocation of 80% of the estimated cost of the project is made,
with the local agency and railroad each contributing 10$,. An
allocation of 50% of the estimated cost of the project is made for
a proposed crossing project, with the remaining 50% contributed by
the local agency.
Subsequent to CPUC's issuance of the Annual Grade
Separation Priority List, applications to CTC for an allocation of
funds are accepted no later than April 1 of each fiscal year.
Requirements for filing an application for an allocation of funds
are more specifically set forth in the California Administrative
Code, Title 21, Chapter 2, Subchapter 13, Grade Separation
Projects -Applications for Allocations or Suppl e.•nental Allocations.
A copy of Subchapter 13 is included herein as Appendix 1.
By Decision (D.) 87-06-016"dated June 15, 1987, CPUC
established the 31st annual priority list of 53 projects for the
1987-88 fiscal year. The list will expire on June 30, 1988,
necessitating the establishment of a new priority list for the
1988-89 and 1989-90 fiscal years.
From time to time, various parties have questioned the
need to hold hearings each year to establish the priority list
which CPUC is required to furnish to CTC by July 1 of each year.
In general, the parties have alleged that hearings could be held
every other year and still permit CPUC to furnish the .required list
to CTC on an annual basis.
In advocating a two-year program, parties have given a
number of reasons in justification, therefor: The hearing process
requires considerable CPUC staff time which could be used to better
advantage on other projects. Likewise, the nominating agencies
must expend considerable time and effort each year to submit data,
which changes little each year, in support of projects which are
nominated. It is also alleged that a two-year program would enable
nominating agencies to better anticipate the funding of projects
and therefore be better prepared to go forward at such time as a
project is funded. We are persuaded by these arguments.
Beginning with this proceeding, the Commission will
institute a two-year separation priority list program. Under the
two-year program, nominations will be submitted and hearings will
be held every other year. In the year during} which hearings will
be held, the procedures will remain the same as the present. In
the alternate year, CPUC will submit a list to CTC which has been
revised to delete those projects actually funded for tha fiscal
year during which hearings are held.
ALL AGENCIES CONTEMPLATING THE POSSIBLE NOMINATION OF A
PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 ARE HEREBY PLACED ON NOTICE THAT
THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90.
THEREFORE, TO ASSURE ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING OF A PROJECT DURING
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90, IT MUST BE NOMINATED FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR
1988-89 & 1989-90 GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST.
CPUC will consider projects nominated by cities,
counties, cities and counties, the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS), and the various railroad companies
operating within the State for inclusion on the 1988-89 & 1989-90
Grade ;separation Priority List. The criteria which CPUC staff
proposes to use in evaluating each nominated project are similar to
those found in D.87-06-016.
-3-
! - T; RDY
Section. 2460. of the S&F? Code authorizes a local agency to
construct a project on the priority list prior to the tune that
it reaches a high enough position for funding. The following
conditions will be applied to prioritization of grade separation
projects on which construction has commenced:
1. The project must have been nominated for the
fiscal year during which construction commences'..
2. The project must be renominated for the fiscal
year during which funding consideration is desired.
3. Tte nomination must include the same data as included
in the nomination for the fiscal year during which
construction corunenced with the exception of cons-
truction cost data.
4. Cost data included in the nomination shall be:
a. Final costs for completed projects.
b. Currently anticipated final costs
for projects still under construction.
5. All projects nominated under the provisions of
Section 2460.7 shall also comply with the filing
requirements set forth in this order.
IT IS ORDERED that an investigation on the California
Public Utilities Commission's own motion is instituted for the
purpose of establishing a new priority list for fiscal years
1988-89 and 1989-90 of existing or proposed railroad grade
crossings of public streets, roads, or highways most urgently in
need of separation; projects effecting the elimination of grade
crossings by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks;
and existing separation structures most urgently in need of
alteration or reconstruction as contemplated by Section 2452 of
the S&H Code.
-4-
D'.
ucl_c - e _. s ="P ha' _ '- e hel
before Administrative Law Judge commencing a, --
10:00
t10:00 a.m. on April 5 and may continue on April 6, 1988, in the
courtroom of the California Public Utilities Commission, State
Office Buildina, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, and
commencing at 10:00 a.m. on April 12 and may continue on April
13, 1988, in the courtroom of the California Public Utilities
Commission, State Building, 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles.
The Executive Director of the California Public Utilities
Commission shall have a copy of this order mailed tc the following:
Every city, county, or city and county in which there is
a railroad
Every railroad corporation
California Department of Transportation_
California Transportation Commission
League of California Cities
County Supervisors Association
Public agencies or railroad corporations desiring to 'have
a particular crossing or crossings, separation or separations
considered for inclusion in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 list, to be
established under Section 2452 of the S&H Code, shall file the
original and three copies of their nomination(s) with the
California Public Utilities Commission, Transportation Division,
Rail,/Transit Planning & Policy Branch, State Office Building, 505
Vaii Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. All nominations shall
be received by the California Public Utilities Commission in San
Francisco no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 28, 1987. Each
nominating oody is also required to provide two copies of its
nomination to CALTRANS, one copy to the appropriate railroad (see
addresses contained in Appendix 2), one copy to each of the
additional parties listed in Appendix 2, and any other affected
party.
-5-
1
Each nomination shall include the following data:
1. A statement indicating the need for the project.
2. A statement indicating that the nominating agency can or
cannot complete the pre -allocation requirements, as set forth in
Section 2456 of the S&H code, prior to April 1, 1989.
3. A location map of the project, on paper 8-1/2 inches by
11 inches in size (scale 1" = 500' +), showing existing streets;
highways, and railroads. "ITie proposed alignment o --.ne grade
separation shall also be shown.
4. Two photographs (minimum size, 3-1,/2 inches by 5 inches)
of the crossing, one from each direction of approach.
S. A statement indicating the type of project.
5.1. For existing or proposed crossings nominated for
separation or elimination, a completed Nomination Form GSN-1
(Revised 8-87) as shown in Appendix 3.
5.2. For proposed crossing projects, a discussion of the
physical practicability of constructing an at -grade crossing in the
general area of the proposed separation. The discussion shall be
supported by a plan and centerline profile of an at -grade crossing
reproduced on paper 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in size. No
discussion of economic feasibility is required, only a description
of the physical features of the surrounding terrain which would
allow the construction of an at -grade crossing. If sufficient
evidence is not presented that construction of an at -grade crossing
is practicable, the project will be excluded from the list.
5.3. For existing grade separations nominated for alteration
or reconstruction, a completed Nomination Form GSN-2 (Revised 8-87)
as shown in Appendix 4. A description of the existing and proposed
separation structures, including acute structural deficiencies,
shall be included with the nomination.
-6-
Each nomination shall include the following data:
1. A statement indicating the need for the project.
2. A statement indicating that the nominating agency can or
cannot complete the pre-allocation requirements, as set forth in
Section 2456 of the S&H Code, prior to April 1, 1989.
3. A location map of the project, on paper 8-1/2 inches by
11 ;.nches in size (scale 1" = 500' +), showing existing streets,
highways, and railroads. `file proposed alignment of the grade
separation shall also be shown.
4. Two photographs (minimum size, 3-1/2 inches by 5 inches)
of the crossing, one from each direction of approach.
5. A statement indicating the type of project.
5.1. For existing or proposed crossings nominated for
separation or elimination, a completed Nomination Form GSN-1
(Revised 8-87) as shown in Appendix 3.
5.2. For proposed crossing projects, a discussion of the
physical practicability of constructing an at-grade crossing in the
general area of the proposed separation. The discussion shall be
supported by a plan and centerline profile of an at-grade crossing
reproduced on paper 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in size. No
discussion of economic feasibility is required, only a description
of the physical features of the surrounding terrain which would
allow the construction of an at-grade crossing. If sufficient
evidence is not presented that construction of an at-grade crossing
is practicable, the project will be excluded from the list.
5.3. For existing grade separations nominated for alteration
or reconstruction, a completed Nomination Form GSN-2 (Revised 8-87)
as shown in Appendix 4. A description of the existing and proposed
separation structures, including acute structural deficiencies,
shall be included with the nomination.
I.�
Nominations shall not include projects which are clearly
severable as it precludes the Commission from effectively
determining which projects are most urgently in need of separation
or alteration as required by Section 2452 of the S&H Code.
Projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings and for the
elimination of proposed grade crossings shall also not be combined
in a single nomination. More particularly,. if a nomination is to
be considered as a project for the elimination of existing grade
crossings, and eligible for 80 percent funding, all data included
in the nomination must be premised on the crossings to be closed.
A nominating agency may elect to exclude preconstruction
costs (engineering, right-of-way, preparation of environmental
impact reports, and utility relocation), as such costs would be
construed for the purpose of Section 2457 of the S&H Code, from
project costs included in a nomination. In order for
preconstruction costs to be eligible for exclusion, the funds must
have been expended.on or before March 31st of the year in which the
hearings are being held and the involved agency may be required to
submit evidence in support of the fact that the funds have been
expended. To the extent that preconstruction costs are excluded from
a project's cost for the purpose of a nomination, the costs will be
considered as non -participating; i.e., the railroad will not be
required to contribute 10 percent of the excluded preconstruction
costs.
Instructions for collecting the required data and
completing the Grade Separation Nomination Forms GSN-1 and GSN-2
are included in Appendix 5. Data submitted in the nomination must
be based on verifiable facts occurrin4 on or before the nomination
filing date. Speculative data involving events anticipated to
occur at some time in the future will not be considered.
-7-
i R L V
Agencies nominating projects shall file, with their
nomination, prepared testimony which fully supports the nomination.
Nominating agencies shall promptly furnish a copy of their
nomination and prepared testimony to any party making a written
request to the nominating agency. The use of prepared testimony is
required to reduce hearing time and expedite the proceeding for the
benefit of all concerned.
All nominations shall be verified by the nominating
party. Verification may be made before a notary public or by
certification or declaration under penalty of perjury.
In addition to submitting the Grade Separation Nomination
Form, each party, or its representative, nominating a crossing for
inclusion in the Grade Separation Priority List, is required to
appear in person at either the San Francisco or Los Angeles
hearings to present evidence concerning its nomination. Supple-
mental data may be submitted at the hearings in support of a.
nomination. The data may include facts not known at the time of
the nomination filing date, such as crossing accidents, occurring
after the nomination filing date but on or before March 31st of the
year during which the hearings are held, unless otherwise noted on the
nomination form. verification of all supplemental data must be
received by the Staff no later than one week after the last scheduled
day of hearing.
Appearance schedules will be published after all
nominations have been received. Appearances will be limited to one
witness per project. All information relating to the urgency of the
project shall be filed with the nomination, in affidavit form.
LY
Section 2454 (g) of the S&H Code states:
"(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of
Subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, the total
of such allocations for a single project shall
not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000)
without specific legislative authorization,
except that the amount for a single project may
be increased to either (1) an amount that
includes the federal construction cost index
increase each year since 1976, or (2) an mount
which does not exceed one-third of the total
funds appropriated for grade separation
projects for the year of allocation, whichever
amount is less, as determined each year by the
Public Utilities Commission."
Agencies anticipating the need for an allocation greater
than $5,000,000 should be prepared to present evidence at the Grade
Separation Priority List hearings to justify the additional award.
S&H Co3e Section 2452, as amended, includEs a requirement
that, in the case of projects of otherwise equal priority, the
Commission shall give greater priority to projects for which a city
or county contributes at least 50% of the cost. Unless a later
statute so provides, this provision shall remain in effect only
until July 1, 19n1.
In order to implement amended S&H Code Section 2452, it
will be necessary that cities and counties indicate on the
Nomination Forms GSN-1 and GSN-2 if it is their intention to
contribute 50% it more of the cost of a project. As a matter of
information, it should be noted that S&H Code Section 245,,_
effectively requires Lhat a city or county contribute 50% of the
test of all project which eliminate a proposed grade crossing.
RDY
Failure to supply all of the requested information or to
appear before the Commission will constitute grounds for exclusion
of a project from the 1988-89 and 1989-90 Grade Separation Priority
List.
'phis order is effective today.
Dated C1 - p'QQ7 at San Francisco, California.
STANLEY W. HULETr
President
DONALD VIAL
FREDERICK R. DUDA
G. MFTCHEL.L WIiK
JOHN B. OHANIAN
Cam miss ioners
—10—
CR D.E -EPA RAT 1('-,N
TITLE 21 Department of Transportation
(Register 82, No.34--8-21-82)
AP0ENDIX
Sheet 1 of 5
SUBCHAPTER 13, GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS --APPLICATIONS FOR
ALLOCATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATIONS
Article 1. Applications
1552. Last Date to File.
April 1 of each fiscal year is the last date on which
applications for allocation of grade separation funds in that
fiscal year can be filed; provided, however, if April 1 is a
Saturday, Sunday, or a State of California holiday, then the last
date of filing shall be the next business day following April 1.
Filing is accomplished by filing the applicatior with the
Department of Transportation in the manner hereafter state'.
1553. Place to File.
The complete application in triplicate must be received in
the Office of the restrict Director of Transportation, State of
California, in the transportation district in which the applicant
is located, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the last day for .filing.
1554. Contents of Application.
Tr complete application must include a written request for
an allocation in a specified monetary amount along with copies of
each of the following attached to it:
(a) All necessary orders of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California. Necessary orders
of the Public. Utilities Commission include:
(1) An order authorizing construction of the project;
(2) A statement of the applicant's position on the
annual priority list established by the Public
Utilities Commission pursuant to Streets and Highways
Code Section 2452;
(3) In case the applicant and affected railroad or
railroads cannot agree as to the apportionment of the
cost of the project between them, an order
apportioning such cost pt, quant to Public Utilities
Commission Code Section 202.5, but in no case shall
an allocation be made unless the railroad or railroads
contribute no less than the amount required 'ljy Section
2454 of the Streets and Highways Code, except as may
be otherwise provided by law.
xI� 2 of 7
(b) All necessary agreements with the affocted railroad
or railroads fully executed by railroad or railroads and
applicant. The necessary agreements with the railroad
include:
(1) Permission to enter upon railroad right of way
for construction, or, in lieu thereof, an order of the
Public Utilities Commission or of a court of competent
jurisdiction authorizing such entry for construction
purposes;
(2) A description of the project on a plan setting
forth the area and items of the project and the
particular area and items of the project to which the
railroad or railroads agree to contribute;
(3) The percentage of railroad's or railroads'
contribution to the cost -of the area and items to
which railroad or railroads agree to contribute;
(4) Identification and estimated cost of the area and
items to which railroad or railroads do not
contribute;
\ J
Agreement that railroad or railroads shall
concribute a minimum of 10 percent of the cost of the
project without a maximum dollar limitation on the
railroad's contribution, except that the contribution
may be less than 10 percent of the cost of the project
where expressly so provided by law.
(6) When two or more railroads are affected by a
project, their combined contribution must be a minimum
of 10 percent of the cost of the project without a
maximum, dollar limitation on the combined contribution,
except that such combined contribution may be less
than 10 percent of the cost of the project when
expressly so provided by law.
(c) A certified resolution by the applicant's governing
body authorizing the filing of an application.
(d) Certified resolution by the applicant's governing
body stating that all matters prerequisite to the awarding
of the construction contract can be accomplished within
one year after allocation of the funds for the project by
the California Transportation Commission.
GRADE SEPARATION t Cont. , A PENIDIX ?
Sheet _ o
(e) A certified resolution by applicant's governing body
stating that sufficient local funds will be made available
as the work of the project progresses.
( f ) Copies of all necessary Environmental Impact Reports
or Negative Declarations, with a certified Notice of
Determination and approval or acceptance of these
documents by the Lead Agency. In cases where an
Environmental Impact Statement or Negative Declaration has
been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 and
implementing regulations thereto, such documents may be
submitted in lieu of an approved Environmental Impact
Peport or Negative Declaration and Notice of
Determination, provided the Environmental Impact Statement
or Negative Declaration fully develops the factors
required in Title 14, Section 15143, of the State
Administrative Code including Title 20, Section 17.1 (d) (") ,
of the State Administrative Code and such Environmental
Impact Statement or Negative Declaration has received
Federal approval.
(g) General plan of the project, including profiles and
typical sections.
(h) Project cost estimate, which is to be broken down to
construction, preliminary and construction, engineering,
work by railroad forces, right of way costs, and utility
relocation.
1555. Project Limitation.
Participation of the grade separation fund is limited to
only that portion of the project which, in the determination of the
California Transportation Commission, is necessary to make the
grade separation operable and to effect the separation of grades
between the highway and the railroad track or tracks, or necessary
to effect the relocation of track or highway. Off-track
maintenance roads shall be nonparticipating unless the existing
access for maintenance purposes is severely impaired by the
project. Participating items incluaa, but are not limited to,
approaches, ramps, connections, drainage, erosion control of
slopes, such as ivy, ice plant, and rye grass, and preconstruction
costs, such as right of way acquisition, preparation of
environmental impact reports and utility relocation, necessary to
make the grade separation operable. In any dispute as to scope of
project or qualification of an item, the decision of the California
Transportation Commission shall be conclusive.
GRADE SE -PARA -TON 'Con -t.) APPENDIX _
S h e e r 0 f 4 3_ l
l gib. 'i110C moi!: 1 iplitat_ 117,Ci.
Initial allocation of grade separation funds by the
California Transportation Commission shall be limited to that 'Cased
upon applicant's estimate of cost of project specified by applicant
and utilized by the Public utilities Commission of the State of
California' in estabiish,..ent of applicant's priority pursuant to
Streets and Highways Code Section 2452 of the State of California,
and in no case shall an original and supplemental allocation for a
single project exceed a total of five million dollars ($5,000,000)
without specific legislative authorization in effect for the
project at the final date and time for filing an application. A
planned project must be a complete and operable project, and effect
the separation of grades, relocation of the highway or railroad, in
order to qualify for an allocation. -
Article 2. Supplemental Allocations
1557. Last Date to File.
The last date on which an application for a supplemental
allocation can be filed for the subsequent fiscal year is May 1 of
the current calendar year. If May 1 is a Saturday, Sunday, or a
State of California holiday, then the last date of filing shall be
the next buEiness day following May 1. A formal application must
be filed by the applicant, accompanied with the project final
report.
1558. Place to File.
The complete application in triplicate must be received in
the Office of the District Director of Transportation, State.of
California, in the transportation district in which the applicant
is located, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
1559. Contents of Application.
The applic:atio:, must include a written request for a
supplemental ali,?.;atior., in a .specified amount along with copies of
each of the following attached thereto.
(a) A certified resolution by the applicant's governing body
certifying t'aat:
(i) Applicant has authority to make request for
supplemental a?location-
(21` The project has been completed and has been
accepted by the governing body;
(3) The actual and final cost of the project has
been determined and is set forth in the supplemental
application;
GRADE SEP ,RATION (Cont.)APPENDIX 1
Sheet 5 of
(4) All costs set forth in the request for a
supplemental allocation were necessary to make the grade
separation operable. and effect the separation of grades
or the relocation of track or highway.
(5) That railroad or railroads have contributed 10
percent of the cost of the project unless a lesser
contribution is expressly provided by law.
(b) Evidence that funds would hove been allocated for the
protect had the actual cost been used by the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California in determining the
project's rank*.ng on the priority list.
(C) A final accounting of the cost of the project with a
a statement explaining in detail why the original
allocation was not sufficient.
ADDRESS LT 5T
GRyi 5 Pt1t En .v ; �1 10NS
RA T L ROADS
R. E. Welk, President
Alameda Beit Line, The Oaklanc
Terminal Railway
P.O. Box 24352
Oakland, CA 94623
Alan C. Goudy, President
Alma -nor Railroad Company
909 Terminal Sales Bldp.
Portland, OR 97205
Ph. 503-227-1219
Dan Barringer, General iianager
Amador Central Railroad Company
Bartell, CA 95650 -
Ph. 209-223-1660
D.A. Bell, Chief Engr. Region
Burlington Northern Railroad Co.
2000 First Interstate Center
Seattle, Fu's 98104
Ph. 206-625-6111
G.J. Allen, General Manager
California Western Railroad
(DBP:: E•tendocino Coast Rai lwav )
P.O. Box 907
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Ph. 707-964-6371
V. S. Lindgren., President
Camino, Placerville and Lake Tahoe
Railroad Company
P.O. Box L
Camino, CA 95709
Ph. 916-644-2311
M. A. Melish, Train Piaster
Central California Traction Company
1645 N. Cherokee Road
Stockton,, CA 95205
Ph. 209-466-6927
Jerry Gregg, President
Eureka Southern Railroad Co.
P. 0. Box "N"
Eureka, CA 95502
Ph. 707-444-8055
PP :: D X 2
R.P. !go, General Manager
Harbor Belt Line Railroad
P. O. Bax A
Wilmiton, CA 90748
Ph. 2N,,-834-4594
G.L. Murdock, Engineer
Maintenance of Way and Engineering
Attn: R.H. Knorr
Holton Inter -urban Railway Company
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ph. 415-541-1000
Ernest E. Bridgewater
Levirr-Richmond Terninal Corp.
(Parr Terminal Railroad)
402 Wright Avenue
Richmond, CA 94804
Ph. 415-232-4422
Edward McSpedon, Project Director
Long Beach -Los Angeles Rail Project
Los "eles County Transportation
Commission
403 W. Eighth Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Ph. 213-626-0370
W. C. Parks, Vice Pres. & Gen. Mgr.
Los Angeles Junction Railway Company
5200 E. Sheila Street
Los Anqeles, CA 90040
Ph. 213-267-5489
G. Cottini, Vice-Pres.-Opers.
McCloud River Railroad Ccmpany
P. O. Box Drawer A
McCloud, CA 96057
Ph. 916-964-2141
K. Beard, Jr., Vice-Pres.-Opers.
Modesto & pm ire Traction Company
P. O. Box 31b6
Modesto, CA 95353
Ph. 209-524-4631
ADDRESS LIST
G ti.EI, Pr., IO:.S
RAILFOADS
G. L. Murdock, Engineer
Maintenance of Way and Engineering
Attn: R.H. Knorr
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ph. 415-541-1000
AP PE�,DIX 2
Sheet 2 of 4
Jeffrey L. Gualco, Deputy Proj.
Director
Sacramento Regional Transit Dist.
Light Rail Project
P.' 0. Box 2110
Sacramento, CA 95810-2110
Ph. 916-321-2995
G.L. Murdock, Engineer Richard Engle, General Manager
maintenance of Way and Engineering San Diego and Imperial 'Dalley
Attn: R.H. Knorr Railroad Company
Petaluma & Santa Rosa Railroad Company 743 Imperial Avenue
One [Market Plaza San Diego, CA 92101
San Francisco, CA 94105 Ph. 619-239-7348
Ph. 415-541-1000
John T. Christian, Chief Engineer
Port of Sacramento
Sacramento-Yolo Port
District Belt Railroad
P.O. Box 815
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Ph. 916-371-8000
A. G. Beckman, Director of Operations
Port of Stockton
Stockton Public Belt Railroad
P. 0. Box 2089
Stockton, GA 95201
Ph. 209-946-0246
Carl Wilson, Gen. Superintendent
Quincy Railroad Company
P. 0. Box 420
Quincy, CA 95971
Ph. 916-283-2820
G.L. Murdock, Engineer
Maintenance of Way and Engineering
Attn: R.H. Knorr
Richmond Belt Railway
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ph. 415-541-1000
J. L. Verhaal, Division Superintendent
Sacramento Northern Railway
P. 0. Box 511
Stockton, CA 95201
Ph. 209-462-8443
Thomas F. Larwin, General Manager
San Diego Metropolitan Transit
Development Board
620 C Street,, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
Ph. 619-231-1466
James Reading, Director
Santa Clara County Transportation
Agency
1555 Berger Drive
San Jose, CA 95112
Ph. 408-299-2362
Mrs. Sue Jr. Sword, V.P. & Manager
Santa Maria Valley Railroad Company
P. 0. Box 340
Santa Maria, CA 93456
Ph. 805-922-7941
P. B. R�.ndle, General Manager
Sierra Railroad Company
13645 Tuolumne Road
Sonora, CA 95370
Ph. 209-532-3685
G. L. Murdock, Engineer
Maintenance of Way and Engineering
Attn: R.H. Knorr
Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ph. 415-541-1000
'ApPi.7D i.1 2 t
SI :ems t
:��?L)P.ESS
i iCT
_TTii yr i::N
RAILROADS
B.D. Schneider, President
:;. T. Smith, Divi -,ion Engineer
Stockton Terminal & Eastern Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2/
1330 North Broadway kienue
��stern Division
Stockton, CA 95205
P. 0. Box 511
Ph. 209-466-7001
Stockton, CA 95201
Q. W. Torpin, Vice President
Carmen Chappell, General tlanager
Sunset Railway Company
Ventura County Railway Co.
,One Santa Fe Plaza
P. 0. Box 432
5200 East Sheila Street
Oxnard, CA 93032
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Pt.. 805-486-4428
Ph. 213-267-53.31
G. L. murdcck, Engineer
P.H. -Penne, Asst. Gen. Mgr.-Engr.
maintenance of Way and Engineering
The Atcnison, Topeka and
Attn: R.H. Knorr
- Santa Fe Railway Co.
Visalia Electric Railroad Co.
One Santa Fe Plaza
One Market Plaza
5200 East Sheila Street
Sar Francisco, CA 94105
Los Angeles, CA y0040
Ph. 415-541-1000
Ph. 213-267-5111
L. T. Cecil V. -Pres.
J. L. Verhaal, Divi> >r. Superintendent
Yr::ka western Railroad Co.
Tidewater Southern Railway Canpany
P. 0. Box 660
P. 0. Box 511
Yreka, CA 96097
Stuckton, CA 95102
Ph. 916-842-4146
Ph. 209-462-8443
W. S. Clark, Pres. & Gen. Pianager
Trona Railway Company
P. O. Box 427
Trona, CA 93562
Ph. 619-372-4031
Frank Wengert, Div. Engr. 1/
Union Pacific Railroad Company,
California Division
5480 Ferguson Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Ph. 213-725-2222
1/ Use this address for all projects involving California Division (Southern
California) crossings. This includes all crossings with the assigned
railroad designation number "3".
2/ Use this address for all projects involving Western Division (former
Western Pacific Railroad Company) crossings. This includes all crossings
with the assigned railroad designation number "4".
»rte Clcopy to eac,, ad' -- -
j. E. Roberts, Chief
Divis.�.on of Structures
Department of Transportation
State cf California
Attn: K. Frank Hiye,.:ia
P.O. Box 1499
Sacrarientc, CA 958-37
APPENDIX 2
Sheet 4 of 4
E. C. Honnstetter, Attorney
Department of Transgortac.ion
State of California
P.O. Fox 1433
Sacramento, CA 95807
ADDIT10taL PAfcMS
(Sand one copy to each addressee)
Harold S. Lentz, Asst. Gen. Attorney John H. Ernster
Southern Pacific Trarsiportatior S,o. General Attorney -California
Southern Pacific Build).ng, tocm 339 Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation
One Market Plaza One Santa Fe Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105 5200 East Sheila Street
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Joe S. Gray
General Solicitor
Union Pacific Railroad Cc any
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 490
Sacramento, CP_ 95814
A.PPE..DLX 3
Sheet 1 of 2
N0,-11 NA 10 r'G'1:
T.T. OR lir C t Sit_;G iyVM _01
Jar �11V�v ,./i r-LT:'Ii�:nTTV"'
(See Appendix 3 for instnictions.)-
1. Nominating Agency:
Name
Address
-1. Contact Person:
74arie Title
Telephone 1+'umber ( )
3. Crossing Number and Location:
Public Utilities Cor=ission Crossing Number
Street Name City
Rai "road Company Name
4. Ype and Number of Railroad Tracks:
Main Branch Passing
Total
5. Approach Roadway:
County
Siding/Spur
Width (feet) Number of Lanes
6. Crossing:
Width (feet) Number of Lanes
7. Average Daily Vehicle Volume:
Vehicle Count (AUT) Vehicle Count Date(s)
Estimated Vesicle Volupe as of the, Nomination filing
Date (AUT)
8. Average Daily Train Volume:
Passenger Through Freight Switching Total
9. Speed:
Vehicular (Miles per hour) Train (Miles per hour)
10. Crossing Blocking Delay (Minutes per day)
11. Nearest Alternate Route (feet)
12. Secondary Accidents:
Vehicle -Vehicle
Vehicle-ooject
13. Type of Project Proposed: (Check one)
Underpass / / overpass Z~% other /--7 Describe
14. If Proposed Crossing: (Check one)
A Grade Crossing is Practicable--- --- ----- ��7
A Grade Crossing is not Practicable------ ---------- /
Form GSN-1 (Revised 8-87)
APPE:TCTX 3
Sheet G Of 21
,. ContriDution by City or County equ.a-i to or reater than
ofthe Cost of the protect .................................... Yes
NO
16. ESTIMATED PRCa3ECT COST ( as of April 1, 1989 )
Right -of -Way Allowance .......................................
$
Preliminary Engineering .............................
$
Constrwtion Engineering ............................
$
Total Engineering Oast .......................................
$
Bridae ODnstrer.tion.................................
$
Railroad Work .......................................
S
Highway Approaches and Oonnections ..................
S
UtilityRelocation ..................................
$
Contingencies .......................................
$
Cost of Removing Existing Crossing (Where Applicable)
$
Total OanstrLr tion Ebst......................................
$
Tbtai Project Cbst...........................................
$
Form -GSN-1 ( Revi sed 8-87)
1. Ncminating Agency:
Name
Address
2. Contact Person:
;Varve
Telephone Number
Fop .^ti.1`P-'--.
(See Aopenaix 5 for instructions.)
Title
3. Crossing Number and Location:
Public Utilities Comission Crossing Number
Street Name City
Railroad Ccmpany t4a-ne
4. Horizontal Stricture Clearance:
Width (Feet) tJu.Mber of Lanes
5. Vertical Structure Clearance:
Overpass (Top of Rail to Structure, Feet)
Underpass (Pavement to Structure, Feet)
6. Center Divider:
Yes No
aPPP"i )T'; :3
Sheet i of 2
County
7. Speed Reduction (Quantitative):
Vehicle Railroad Slag Order
8. Load Limit:
Vehicle Railroad
9. Average Daily Vehicle Volume:
Vehicular Count (ADT) Vehicle Count Date(s)
Estimated Vehicle Volume as of Nomination Filing
Date (ADT)
10. Average Daily Train Volume:
Passenger Through Freight Switching Total
11. Secondary Accidents:
Vehicle -Vehicle Vehicle -object
Form GSN-2 (Revised 8-87)
APPENDIX 4
S :ee t L c
i1. Cortr�.bution uy, City or Count; equal to or greater than 50
of the cost of the project ................................... Yes
No
13. ESTIMATED PROTECT COST (as of April 1, 1989)
Right -of -Way Allowance ....................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ............................. $
Construction Engineering ............... $
Total Engineering Cost ....................................... $
Bridge Constriction ................................. $
Railroad 'v rk....................................... $
Highway Approaches and Connections .................. $
UtilityRelocation .................................. $
Contingencies....................................... $
Cost of Removing Existing Structure(Where Applicable) $
Total Construction Cost $
Total Project Cost ........................................... $
Form GSN-2 ,(Revised 8-87)
APPENDIX
S`:eet I of
GRADE SEPr-t RA .LVI.
EXISTING Gil PROPOSED CROSSING NOMINATED FOR SEPARATION OR
ELIMINATION FORM GSN-1
Items 1 and 2 -- Self-explanatory.
Item 3 -- For identification of railroad -highway crossings,
Public Utilities Commission crossing nu:rLbers are
assigned to all crossings. The crossing numbers are
generally painted on the crossing warning devices;
however, if necessary, the crossing numbers may be
obtained from the Commission staff.
Item 4 -- (If unknown) 'T_'he type of track may be obtained from
the railroad company.
Item S -- Show width and number of lanes of roadway pavement
within 200 feet on either side of the crossing.
Item 6 -- Show width and number of lanes of roadway pavement at
the crossing.
Item 7 -- Show the latest vehicle traffic count (ADT) and
the estimated ADT as of the nomination filing date.
For proposed crossing projects, show the estimated ADT
upon opening.
Item 8 -- It is preferred that the average daily train volume be
obtained by a written request from the railroad,
otherwise, the source of the information should be
provided in the narrative. It is further advised that
the daily train volume should be confirmed by direct
observation.
Item 9 -- The vehicular speed should be the posted speed limit.
The train speed should be the maximum speed attained at
the crossing. The train speed data may be obtained
from the railroad company or by properly operated radar
equipment. The source of the information should be
provided in the narrative.
Sheet L 0 f 31
Item 10 -- Show the total time in minutes per day the warning
devices are activated at the crossing. The data may be
obtained by installation of a signal activation
monitoring device or by estimation of an average delay
per train based on direct observation of a reasonable
number of each type of train (passenger, through
freight, and switching) operating over the tracks at
the crossing. In the narrative, specify the method
used to cillect the data.
Item 11 -- The nearest alternate route as measured along the
centerline of the railroad tracks.
Item 12 -- A 10 -year accident history of the total number of
vehicle -object and vehicle -vehicle accidents that may
be attributed to the presence of the grade crossing.
Item 13 -- Self-explanatory.
Item 14 In the narrative sectio,_ of the nomination, show
sufficient evidence that ^-nstruction of an at -grade
crossing is physically practical and feasible.
Item 15 -- Self-explanatory
Item 16 -- The estimated project cost shall be as of April 1,
1989. The cost shall be itemized as shown and any item
left blank shall be explained. The estimated cost
shall be limited to that portion of the project which
is necessary to make the grade separation operable and
to effect the separation of grades between the highway
and the railroad tracks. The project cost shall be
rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
NO -6 For projects involving more than one crossing, complete the
appropriate form for each individual crossing and also show
a summary for the complete project.
APPENDIt 5
Sleet 3 C417s
GRADE SEPARATION NOMINATED FOR ALTERATION
OR RECONSTRUCTION FORM GSN-2
Items 1 and 2 -- Self-explanatory.
Item 3 -- Same as in Form GSN-1 except that the crossing number
is generally painted on the grade separation
structure.
Item 4 -- Show the width between fixed objects and the number of
traffic lanes.
Items 5 and 6 -- Self-explanatory.
Item 7 -- Quantitatively identify any vehicular speed reduction
that may be due to the presence of the structure.
Information regarding a railroad slow order may be
obtained from the railroad company.
Item 8 -- Show any vehicular or railroad load limit restriction
at the structure.. If a restrictive limit has been
established, include a descriptive statement in the
narrative.
Item 9 -- Same as Item 7, Form GSN-i.
Item 10 -- Same as Item 8, Form GSN-1.
Item 11 -- A 10 -year accident history of the number of vehicle -
object and vehicle -vehicle accidents that may be
attributable to the presence of the grade separation
structure.
Item 12 -- Self-explanatory
Item 13 -- Same as Item 15, Form GSN-1.
NOTE: For projects involving more than one crossing, complete the
appropriate form for each individual crossing and also show
a summary for the complete project.