1 / 10

Scenic Highways

Scenic Highways. The CPUC’s Role in Granting Deviations to PU Code §320. March 18th, 2008 Jack Leutza California Public Utilities Commission. Pub. Util. Code §320. The CPUC enforces undergrounding of utility facilities along scenic highways

iago
Télécharger la présentation

Scenic Highways

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scenic Highways The CPUC’s Role in Granting Deviations to PU Code §320 March 18th, 2008 Jack Leutza California Public Utilities Commission

  2. Pub. Util. Code §320 • The CPUC enforces undergrounding of utility facilities along scenic highways • … it is the policy of this state to achieve, whenever feasible and not inconsistent with sound environmental planning, the undergrounding of all future electric and communication distribution facilities which are proposed to be erected in proximity to any…scenic highway…and which would be visible from such scenichighways if erected above ground. • The commission shall prepare and adopt by December 31, 1972, a statewide plan and schedule for the undergrounding of all such utility distribution facilities in accordance with the aforesaid policy and the rules of the commission relating to the undergrounding of facilities.

  3. Deviations for Utilities • Utilities need a deviation from the CPUC to construct aerial facilities along scenic highways • Deviation Process • Application • Notice/ Protests • Time Frame • 3-6 months • Decision

  4. Approvals: Common Factors • Cost discrepancies • Undergrounding vs. aerial • Visual impact • Existing facilities • New construction vs. relocation/ repairs • Public benefit • Technical Requirements • Environmental complications

  5. Examples • Next G Networks, Inc. (2006) • Fiber optic cable and related facilities on existing poles along Highway 50 • Approved based on: • Cost difference: • Undergrounding: $2.2 million • Aerial: $370 thousand • Public benefit • Access to wireless services • Technical Requirements • Line-of-sight requirements for Fiber

  6. Examples • AT&T (2003) • Apply aerial strand to existing poles along Highway 04-SON-116 • Approved based on: • Cost difference: • Undergrounding: $242.5 thousand • Aerial: $67 thousand • Visual impact • Little adverse impact • Undergrounding would require placement of unsightly aboveground pedestals

  7. Examples • Pacific Bell (2000) • Relocation of poles along Highway 50 to accommodate Caltrans request • Approved based on: • Visual impact • Replacement of existing overhead facilities in the same location does not significantly alter visual impact

  8. Examples • Caltrans (2003) • Relocation of electric, telephone, and cable television facilities • Approved based on: • Cost difference: • Undergrounding: $1.7 million • Aerial: $287 thousand • Visual Impact • Relocation will not adversely affect visibility or aesthetics • Environmental complications • Bed rock, terrain, etc.

  9. Different Process for Cable • §320 does not apply to cable operators or video service providers • “Cable television companies are not regulated by the CPUC.” • CA Dept. of Trans. Encroachments Manual Utilities Permits Chapter (600) • Caltrans Committee decides whether to allow aerial installation of cable/ video service facilities along scenic highways

  10. For More Information www.cpuc.ca.gov

More Related