BILL ANALYSIS � 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
SB 1064 - Hill Hearing Date:
April 1, 2014 S
As Amended: March 24, 2014 FISCAL B
1
0
6
4
DESCRIPTION
Current federal law requires the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to regulate railroads (e.g., interstate BNSF lines), and
prohibits states from adopting laws, regulations, rules, or
orders containing the same subject matter as a regulation or
order prescribed by the FRA. In practice, this preempts state
jurisdiction over many railroad issues including train routing,
equipment, and tank car design standards. (49 USC 20103, 20105,
and 20106)
Current federal law requires the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) to regulate railroad facilities, including rail fixed
guideways operated by transit agencies (e.g., BART and
Metrolink).
Current law and general orders of the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulate the design, construction,
and operation of rail fixed guideways and oversee safety and
worker protection on them. (Public Utilities Code � 99152;
General Order 164-D and 175)
Current federal law requires the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) to investigate significant pipeline, railroad, and
other accidents and issue safety recommendations aimed at
preventing future accidents.
Current law requires the CPUC to respond within 90 days to gas
pipeline safety recommendations addressed to it by the NTSB, and
to indicate the CPUC's intended actions, if any. (Public
Utilities Code � 960)
Current law requires the CPUC to detail in writing whether it is
appropriate to implement NTSB safety recommendations concerning
CPUC-regulated gas pipeline facilities. Such determination must
be approved by a majority vote of the CPUC. If a recommendation
is deemed appropriate and/or action is deemed necessary, then
the CPUC is required to issue orders or adopt rules relating to
implementation as soon as practicable. (Public Utilities Code �
960)
This bill would require the CPUC to respond within 90 days to
railroad safety recommendations addressed to it by the NTSB, and
to indicate the CPUC's intended actions, if any.
This bill would require the CPUC to detail in writing whether it
is appropriate to implement NTSB safety recommendations and FTA
safety advisories concerning CPUC-regulated railroad facilities.
The determination would be approved by a majority vote of the
CPUC. If a recommendation is deemed appropriate and/or action is
deemed necessary, then the CPUC would issue orders or adopt
rules relating to implementation as soon as practicable.
Current law requires that any action on a gas pipeline safety
recommendation be reported to the Legislature in the CPUC's
annual workplan report (Public Utilities Code � 960 and 321.6).
This bill directs the CPUC to report in its annual workplan any
action on a safety recommendation or safety advisory as well as
any correspondence from the NTSB indicating that a
recommendation has been classified as Closed-Unacceptable.
BACKGROUND
NTSB Safety Recommendations - The NTSB has primary jurisdiction
for investigating rail and pipeline accidents, among others,
where there is a fatality, substantial property damage, or
significant environmental impact. In the course of an
investigation, the NTSB will often make recommendations to the
parties involved, such as the gas utility or rail operator,
local first responders, and/or regulatory agencies including
state entities responsible for enforcement, e.g., the CPUC.
Safety recommendations usually identify specific problems
uncovered during an investigation and specify how to correct
them. Letters containing the recommendations are directed to the
public or private organization best able to rectify the problem.
Overall, the NTSB has issued more than 13,000 safety
recommendations since 1967. In response to San Bruno, the NTSB
issued 39 safety recommendations in 11 letters directed to the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Pipeline Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), PG&E, CPUC, Governor
Brown, and the American Gas Association. The NTSB has
specifically issued to the CPUC 12 safety recommendations since
1982<1>: 6 relating to pipelines and 6 relating to rail,
including 4 on rail fixed guideways (e.g. Metrolink), 1 on a
freight line, and 1 on AMTRAK.
CPUC Response to Angels Flight Accidents - Whereas the NTSB
classifies all gas pipeline safety recommendations to the CPUC
as Acceptable, two safety recommendations (R-03-015 and
R-90-052) to the CPUC regarding one particular rail fixed
guideway - Angels Flight - have been classified as Unacceptable.
Angels Flight is a short rail fixed guideway that sends one
ascending car and one descending car along a hill in Los
Angeles. On February 1, 2001 the two cars collided, resulting in
a fatality and several injuries. In response, the NTSB issued
two safety recommendations (R-03-014 and R-03-015<2>) on August
8, 2003 recommending that the CPUC verify that Angels Flight
equipment met industry standards, including having an emergency
evacuation guideway, before reauthorizing service. The CPUC
conducted an independent investigation. When Angels Flight
reopened on March 15, 2010, it did so without an emergency
evacuation guideway<3>. The NTSB reclassified Safety
Recommendation R-03-015 as Closed-Unacceptable and urged the
CPUC to add an emergency evacuation guideway. Although the five
commissioners had not voted on the matter, the CPUC responded
that the existing equipment was consistent with industry
standards and therefore sufficient. The CPUC lobbied to have the
---------------------------
<1> Select "State of California, Public Utilities Commission"
from the Addressee menu at
http://www.ntsb.gov/safetyrecs/private/QueryPage.aspx .
<2> http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2003/R03_14_15.pdf
<3> Ibid
NTSB Safety recommendation status changed to Closed-Acceptable,
but the NTSB would not comply.<4>
September 5, 2013 saw another accident on Angels Flight: the
descending car containing one passenger derailed, thereby
stranding five passengers in the ascending car and prompting a
dangerous rescue. A year later, the NTSB issued a safety
recommendation (R-13-0037) outlining five urgent
recommendations<5>. The CPUC president sent a letter to NTSB
within 30 days detailing what actions the CPUC would take to
address each of the recommendations. The NTSB website currently
classifies this item as Open-Initial Response Received.
CPUC Response to BART Accident - On September 19, 2013 a BART
train struck and killed two employees in the right-of-way near
Walnut Creek. On December 19, 2013 NTSB made two safety
recommendations (R-13-039 and R-13-040<6>) to the FTA regarding
roadway worker protection. According to the CPUC, the NTSB never
made safety recommendations directly to the CPUC because the
CPUC quickly revised General Order 175,<7> which satisfied what
the NTSB otherwise would have recommended.
Following NTSB's two safety recommendations, the FTA issued
Safety Advisory 14-1 to all state public utilities commissions.
The CPUC responded last month, and the FTA acknowledged this.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Purpose . The author writes, "In 2012 the
Legislature passed AB 578 (Hill, 2012) requiring that the
CPUC reply to NTSB recommendations for natural gas safety
within 90 days, and that the CPUC vote on whether (and how)
act on those recommendations. A September 2013 accident on
the Angels Flight rail line in Los Angeles demonstrates
--------------------------
<4> Scroll to very bottom:
http://www.ntsb.gov/safetyrecs/private/history.aspx?rec=R-03-015
&addressee=State%20of%20California,%20Public%20Utilities%20Commi
ssion
<5> http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2013/R-13-037.pdf
<6> http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2013/R-13-039-040.pdf
<7>
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M081/K501/81
501283.PDF
that the Legislature should place the same requirements on
the CPUC for NTSB rail safety recommendations."
2. Recommendations Not Always Heard . NTSB issues safety
recommendations to the PHMSA, which sets minimum safety
standards for gas pipelines. States are permitted to adopt
regulations that exceed those standards for distribution
pipeline and intrastate transmission pipeline. Even when a
recommendation may be applicable to states, NTSB does not
often communicate directly to them. Therefore, there may be
a safety gap if the state regulator - here, the CPUC - is
not vigilant in monitoring and responding when appropriate
to recommendations that NTSB issues in response to
accidents that happen elsewhere. AB 578 addressed that
potential safety gap concerning gas pipelines. This bill
aims to close the same potential gap concerning railroads
(e.g., interstate BNSF lines) and railroad facilities
(e.g., BART, Metrolink).
3. Recommendations Not Always Followed . The CPUC and
utilities do not always follow NTSB safety recommendations
that affect them - perhaps especially in the case where
they are addressed to some other entity, e.g., PHMSA. A
recent example of this is NTSB's repeated recommendation to
use remote-controlled and automatic shutoff valves in
natural gas pipelines and PG&E's decision not to follow
this recommendation.
4. Increasing Federal Railroad Safety Recommendations, But
Limited State Jurisdiction . A recent spate of accidents
involving the transport of crude oil by rail has prompted
state legislators to focus attention on CPUC oversight of
railroad safety. The Senate Energy Committee held an
informational hearing on the topic on February 24, 2013<8>.
The DOT and the American Association of Railroads jointly
made recommendations highlighting the need to communicate
and coordinate federal and state efforts.
Federal law prohibits state entities such as the CPUC from
adopting laws, rules, regulations, or orders relating to
FRA-regulated railroads. The state has much broader
jurisdiction over FTA-regulated railroad facilities. Given
-------------------------
<8> http://seuc.senate.ca.gov/20132014informationalhearings
that the author intends this bill to address all
commission-regulated entities - regardless of whether their
federal regulator is FRA or FTA - the author and committee
may wish to consider replacing "railroad" and "railroad
facility" with the more general term "rail." The
applicability of "rail" to other relevant code sections
(e.g., Public Utilities Code � 309.7 and 99152) should be
considered.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
None on file
Oppose:
None on file
Alexis Erwin
SB 1064 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 1, 2014