Posts Tagged ‘ed lee’

NEVIUS TRILOGY: Big Central Subway Booster CW Nevius USED TO HATE the Central Subway – Why the Change?

Friday, January 10th, 2014

Let’s check in with San Francisco Chronicle writer CW Nevius on the topic of the Central Subway:

S.F.: City of whine aficionados” - January 9, 2014

“A subway will take traffic off some of the busiest streets in the city – try riding Muni on Stockton Street in the morning – and provide quick north-south access across the city, and it’s mostly paid for with federal funds. Who wouldn’t like something like that?”

So that was Nevius 2014. Now let’s check in with Nevius 2008 on the same exact topic:

Nevius: Chinatown subway plan makes me wince” - February 21, 2008

“There’s really only one question to ask about the proposal to bore a light-rail subway deep under the heart of downtown San Francisco. You’re kidding, right?

“Just the initial math makes your head hurt. Basically it works out to somewhere between $1.22 billion and $1.4 billion for an underground railway that runs for less than two miles and has only three stops. That’s not a transit system, it’s a model railroad.

“Throw in a few of the inevitable cost overruns and this could work out to a billion dollars a mile.”

“No matter. This is the kind of big, splashy project that city officials love to put their name on.”

“Basically, the argument seems to boil down to this - we’ve got the money (as if federal tax dollars grow on trees), the Chinatown community is behind it, why not build it? Oh, let me count some of the reasons.”

“But, critics say, a stop on Market beneath which BART and other Muni lines already run might have made this whole thing an easier sell. That would have created an opportunity for a single station where riders could make connections between regional and local trains, almost like Grand Central Terminal in New York. Instead, riders will have to walk all the way up to Union Square.”

“Oh, and did I mention that in order to get under the BART tube, the subway station at Union Square will have to be at least 95 feet below the surface. That’s nine stories.”

“What is it about that image of deep, underground dirt-munching machines in earthquake country that makes me wince?”

Has CW Nevius offered any explanation for this 180 degree turnaround?

‘Cause I’ll tell you, this subway-to-nowhere project has gotten worse since 2008.

Let’s review:

CIVIL GRAND JURY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – “CENTRAL SUBWAY, TOO MUCH MONEY FOR TOO LITTLE BENEFIT

Wall Street Journal: Off the San Francisco Rails – $1.6 billion for 1.7 miles of subway.

San Francisco Bay Guardian: Central Subway gravy train shows how City Hall work

SF Weekly: Portmistress Pelosi

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera: It’s time to rethink the Central Subway 

San Francisco Examiner: Dennis Herrera comes out against San Francisco Central Subway project

CalWatchdog: S.F. Subway Derails Into Boondoggle

SAVEMUNI: Central Subway – Background – An Opportunity Gone Wrong

Former Richmond District Supervisor and San Francisco Transportation Agency Chair Jake* McGoldrick: S.F. must stop Central Subway from being built

Get the point? Good, let’s dance!

Nevius 1988, artist’s conception – perhaps this particular Nevius had yet another strongly held position on this corrupt SFGov boondoggle:

Post sponsored by Nevius Nation 1414 – “We are a part of the Nevius Nation

*Forget about it Jake, it’s Chinatown

The Cover Story of Tomorrow’s Bay Guardian is a (Very) Left-Handed Endorsement of Tom Ammiano for Mayor of SF

Tuesday, December 31st, 2013

[UPDATE: An easier linkhttp://www.sfbg.com/2014/01/01/rise-candidate-x ]

I’m just at a loss over the cover story of the January 1-7, 2014 San Francisco Bay Guardian - “The Rise of Candidate X”

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

Comments:

- Whoo-boy, where to start? Does anybody at the SFBG really believe in this Robert Frost-y, fork-in-the-road, the-Mayor-makes-all-the-difference-in-SF theory? I can’t tell. IRL, there are institutional factors that push the two roads close together, sorry. The biggest difference would be for the actual people involved, like Ed Lee, and some department heads, and some commission members, and the SFGov nomenklatura. I don’t think the City itself would be changed all that much, sorry.

- Now if there’s a fake article from a real reporter on page 10 and a reference to a real article from the same reporter on page 6 and the reporter works for the same company as everybody at the SFBG, would that be cool? Or perhaps confusing to readers?

-Which of the real-life reporters should be most offended by the fake stories on pages 9-13? You Make The Call:

Phil Matier

Andrew Ross

Joe Eskenazi*

Jessica Kwong*

John Wildermuth

Ellen Cushing

Andrew Dalton

Steven T. Jones* (Yes, even STJ)

-Which one of the bits was even remotely entertaining/funny? IDK

-Is there even a remote chance that Scott Wiener or Mark Farrell will both lose reelection? Like IRL and not in a some fever dream prog circle jerk?

-And Candidate X is described as being a man but then also a man or a woman, like it was still unknown by the fake reporters? (I guess I there could be some sort of point here, but somebody’d have to explain it to me.)

-And then it turns out that Candidate X is (sort of) Assemblymember Tom Ammiano after all? I still have a button from his 1999 campaign - and he’s the heretofore unknown candidate?

I’ll be curious to see how people take this.

Appears to be a misfire, JMO

*All employed by “San Francisco Newspaper Company LLC”

 

An SFGov Cracker Mystery: Is This Appointed Mayor Ed Lee, Rose Pak, and the Willie Brown Span of the Bay Bridge?

Monday, December 30th, 2013

[UPDATE: Oh man, I was way off. That's not Rose Pak, not at all. (And it's not even Fake Rose Pak.) Well, that's one mystery solved. Now, who took this shot* back in the day. It was done with a Canon Digital Rebel made in the mid-2000's, that's all I know. Anyway, somebody pointed me towards it and then it found its way to SFist. Back in the day.]

You Make The Call:

Click to expand

Or it could be Ed Lee, Rose Pak, and the PG&E Tower of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Who baked these misfortune cookies?

* To wit:

Ouch: Membership Dues Have [Fallen] at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Thursday, December 5th, 2013

[UPDATE:  Per the SFBC, "...you should have read Part VIII, lines 1b and 2a, of the 990s for both the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Education Fund."

So, here's 2010:

1b makes sense but 2a is not membership dues so adding them together doesn't help.

And 2011:

Again, 1b makes sense but 2a is not membership dues so adding them together doesn't help.

And here's 2012:

(And the Bicycle Coalition Education Fund 990's don't really factor in all that much, like $10 or $20 grand each.)

So IDK, would you, Gentle Reader, suppose that different strategies were applied for 2010 and 2011 vs. 2012? I would. Because the "non-contribution portions of membership dues" went from $0 in 2010 and 2011 all the way up to $135,933 in 2012. Is there any explanation for this? Did the accountant(?) for 2011 and earlier fill out the 990 forms incorrectly? IDK. Is this kind of a thing a big deal, worth amending a bunch of other recent returns? IDK.

(Did IRS laws on this topic change the past several years? I don't think so, as this guide from 2008 remains unchanged.)

Now when I say "membership dues," what's actually written in there for 2012 is "memberships." Now memberships is a different thing, IMO. Memberships is what the SFBC spent a lot of time crowing about when memberships were actually increasing. But these days memberships are decreasing. Why is that? I ask.

So, what the SFBC is now calling it a 3% "membership income change" I'd call it a 3% membership dues decrease. And this comes at a time when the population of San Francisco is increasing and at a time when SFGov and the SFBC officially "expect" a sixfold increase in the number of trips made by bicycle in San Francisco by 2020, all the way up to 20%. ("20 by '20" or something.) I don't think anybody believes in this fantasy, you know, actually, but, well, there you go.

So, membership dues at the SFBC have decreased more like 3% year over year, rather than 40-something percent.

But if I were running the SFBC and I were as sensitive about giving out my 990's as this...

"The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's annual reports discuss our biggest successes and challenges, and present a broad picture of our income and expenses. If you have specific questions about our finances, please contact Leah Shahum, Executive Director, 415/431-BIKE x306."

...I'd amend my returns so that they would be self consistent, at the very least. END UPDATE]

And by the past year, I mean let’s use the most recent Form 990, the one* that was filed about four months ago, and compare it with the one what was filed for the year before.

Check it. Here’s the 990 for 2011 - $344,663 in reported membership dues:

Click to expand

And here’s the 990 for 2012 – just $185,921:

Now, what could explain this sudden and dramatic drop in “support?”

Well, we had the Chris Bucchere accident in the first quarter of 2012 and some members didn’t exactly approve of the way that SFBC officers dealt with the issue. Perhaps revenue went down in the following quarters?

And we had the shocking SFBC endorsement of Republican-backed Mayor Ed Lee near the end of 2011 – I doubt that paying members would have approved of that had they been given the opportunity.

You know, this guy, the one who always looks up to the formerly-despised Willie Brown:

Of course, people can always do a Barter Membership, but you’d think that dues-paying members would volunteer anyway, right?

Take a look at the numbers on the tax returns, it seems as if the SFBC is just another arm of the SFMTA or, indeed, of SFGov. (Except it’s an agency that can officially endorse Ed Lee for Mayor.)

Oh well.

Anyway, this is why the SFBC no longer boasts of increasing membership anymore.

[UPDATE: Did the 10% discount for SFBC members at Rainbow Grocery really make that much of a difference? IDK. See Comments.]

*There’s also something called the Education Fund, which also gets membership dues – $10k for 2011 and $20k for 2012. But if you throw those numbers in you’re still looking at a 40-something percent decline year over year.

Excuse Me, Officer? Our Mercedes Benz is Parked in Your Twitterloin Crime Scene – Could You Move Your Cruiser For Us?

Tuesday, November 26th, 2013

You know, just a skosh? ‘Cause the brunch line at farmerbrown is just too long for us today – we need to motor.

Gathering evidence at a crime scene in Mayor Ed Lee’s Twitterloin Open-Air Halfway House and Stolen IPhone Emporium:

Click to expand

There was yellow tape all over the place, two scenes on Market and two on Turk. At first I thought it could have been a MDK, but I never heard anything about it…

New Warriors Arena to be Slightly Lower, Assuming It Gets Built in the First Place – Artist’s Conception

Tuesday, November 12th, 2013

So, unlike the disastrous America’s Cup and 8 Washington campaigns, the Golden State Warriors project is based around stuff that San Franciscans can actually benefit from.

So that’s a good sign.

Remember, the more you complain now, the better this deal gets for San Francisco. You the public are the bad cop and genial SFGov figurehead Ed Lee is the good cop. And of course the good cop won’t be able to get the best deal possible for San Francisco without the bad cop.

If Ed Lee doesn’t like this game, then he can just retire, right? Or go back to his old job the way he promised to in the first place, right?

It’s too bad that Oakland will lose its team.

Oh well.

The Problem with Ed Lee Releasing Money to Fight Illegal Ellis Act Evictions is That They Never Happen – Suffer the Lee Family

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

Here are the first words of a recent press release:

Mayor Edwin M. Lee announced San Francisco will triple the amount of funding to prevent illegal Ellis Act evictions…”

Also:

“San Francisco must remain a viable place to live and work for people at all levels of the economic spectrum,” said Mayor Lee. “That’s why I am providing additional resources to stop unlawful evictions and provide tenant counseling for our residents, so that San Francisco remains a City for the 100 percent.”

The problem is that there’s no such thing as an illegal Ellis Act eviction in San Francisco.

Can Ed Lee cite a case? No he cannot.

(Go ahead, take a look.)

Ergo, the appointed Mayor of San Francisco “releasing” a small amount of money to fight something that never happens will have no effect on illegal Ellis Act evictions, except to, presumably, help Ed Lee.

So the question fro Question Time is this:

Is Ed Lee, the former housing rights attorney, in favor of legal Ellis Act evictions?

Apparently he is.

So that’s it for the ironically-named Lee family.

So we have one Lee family in town what calls horrible Chinatown power broker Rose Pak “Auntie Rose.”

And we have another what’s getting evicted right now, wondering who decided that Rose Pak was the most deserving person to get Rose Pak’s government-subsidized condo.

Mayor Lee Announces Additional Resources For Eviction Prevention In San Francisco
Posted Date: 9/30/2013

Mayor Edwin M. Lee announced San Francisco will triple the amount of funding to prevent illegal Ellis Act evictions and that the City will release $700,000 in funding for other eviction prevention services from the Housing Trust Fund.

“San Francisco must remain a viable place to live and work for people at all levels of the economic spectrum,” said Mayor Lee. “That’s why I am providing additional resources to stop unlawful evictions and provide tenant counseling for our residents, so that San Francisco remains a City for the 100 percent.”

The Human Services Agency (HSA) currently provides nearly $8 million in homeless prevention and eviction defense services, an increase of $1.3 million from last year’s budget. In this year’s budget, the City was providing nearly $125,000 to fund free legal advice and represent 55 San Francisco families who have been affected by illegal Ellis Act eviction threats. Today, Mayor Lee tripled the amount of funding with an additional $250,000, which will immediately be available to eligible organizations that provide Ellis Act prevention legal work and will help more families and people at all levels of the economic spectrum remain in San Francisco.

“Providing resources to stop unlawful evictions has proven to be one of the most effective strategies to prevent displacement and homelessness in our City,” said Trent Rhorer, Director of the San Francisco Human Services Agency. “This additional $250,000 will help keep San Francisco families in their homes.”

The Mayor’s Office of Housing will also provide $700,000, from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, to fund tenant counseling services. This is a 63 percent increase in funding and brings the total amount to more than $2.3 million in eviction prevention services from the Mayor’s Office of Housing. These additional resources will be distributed to community based organizations specifically expanding legal representation for individuals facing eviction; rental assistance to individuals and families who are currently homeless or are struggling to keep their current rental housing; and to provide outreach to San Franciscans to better inform them about their legal rights.

The Mayor’s Office of Housing has prioritized eviction prevention services and funds activities including legal services, tenant counseling, rental assistance, move-in assistance, know your rights trainings, and other types of tenant support. Services are offered through a diverse group of community based organizations that reach San Francisco’s many communities including seniors, people with disabilities, immigrants, the homeless and families.

The HSA will issue an ‘Invitation to Bid’ this week so eligible organizations can apply and use the HSA funding to expand their legal services in order for them to be available to vulnerable tenants within 30 days. It is anticipated that the additional HSA funds will help at least 150 households receive legal advice and representation.

Flags of Single-Party States Over San Francisco City Hall: Germany 1935, People’s Republic of China 2012

Monday, October 21st, 2013

1935: Germany strong:

2012: People’s Republic* of China strong:

And you can’t see, but there are five stars on the PRC flag:

“The five stars and their relationship represents the unity of Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The orientation of the stars shows that the unity should go around a center.[6] The larger star symbolizes the Communist Party of China, and the four smaller stars that surround the big star symbolize the four social classes (the working class, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie) of Chinese people mentioned in Mao’s “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship

In the center of the photo, you’ll find “heiress and socialite” Charlotte Smith Mailliard Swig Shultz, wife of Famous Republican George P. Shultz – check out her bio.** Now, which star is for her? I’m thinking it’s the star representing the national bourgeoisie, but IDK for sure.

*The current communist or socialist states that include the words People’s Republic in their full names:

Historical examples include:

** CSMSS (born ca. 1934) is an American heiress and socialite. She is the Chief of Protocol for the state of California, and the Chief of Protocol for the City and County of San Francisco.[1] She is the wife of former United States Secretary of State George P. Shultz.[2] In 2007, she was named Honorary Commander of The Royal Victorian Order by Queen Elizabeth II.

San Bruno vs. San Carlos: Incompetent “PG&E Welcomes Opportunity To Demonstrate Safety Of Line 147″

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013

So let’s see here. According to PG&E, it doesn’t have to listen to any judges telling it to shut down any pipelines, no matter how dangerous the pipeline is and no matter how reckless PG&E employees and contractors behave.

In the words of John Malkovich, “WTF to that.”

You see, PG&E prefers to be regulated by the lapdog CPUC.

All right, here’s the latest, from PG&E’s point of view, just released:

“PG&E Welcomes Opportunity To Demonstrate Safety Of Line 147

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 8, 2013 — Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) today said it welcomes the opportunity to continue its work with the California Public Utilities Commission and San Mateo County communities to validate that the company has completed, as represented, safety-related work on transmission Line 147.

“We want to be a good neighbor to San Mateo County communities. Customers in these communities can be assured that Line 147 is safe and we look forward to the opportunity to document all the work that has gone into maintaining and operating this line safely. It is important that this validation be completed on an expedited basis because Line 147 is even more critical to our system once colder weather comes our way. We don’t want to be in a position of being unable to serve our customers because the pipeline is out of service,” said Nick Stavropoulos, the executive vice president responsible for leading the PG&E gas organization since June 2011.

PG&E on Friday was ordered by a San Mateo Superior Court to cease service to Line 147 after the City of San Carlos questioned the pipe’s safety.  The company complied with the order and today said it does not intend to return the line to service pending a review by the CPUC. However, the company today asked the Court to vacate the temporary injunction because it lacked the jurisdiction to make such a ruling.  In California, exclusive jurisdiction is given to the California Public Utilities Commission in order to avoid a patchwork of conflicting local standards and regulations.

Background

What is Line 147 and where is it located?

Line 147 consists of a 20-inch and 24-inch gas pipeline that runs for 3.8 miles between Highways 101 and 280 along Brittan Avenue in San Carlos (PG&E Gas Transmission Pipelines). Line 147 plays an important role in PG&E’s ability to safely and reliably serve more than 650,000 customers on the Peninsula. Line 147 is a cross-tie, connecting Line 101 on the eastern side of the Peninsula to Lines 109 and 132 that are centrally located on the Peninsula. Lines 101, 109 and 132 run south to north from Milpitas Terminal in Santa Clara County to PG&E’s San Francisco Gas Load Center.

What measures has PG&E taken to ensure the safe operation of Line 147?
Our work on Line 147 has included verifying records and pressurizing the line with high-pressure water to confirm its integrity. PG&E employees – on foot and in the air – have regularly checked this line, and all of PG&E’s lines, for leaks.

Following the San Bruno accident in September 2010, PG&E lowered the operating pressure on many pipelines – including Line 147 – as an interim safety measure. In addition, after the San Bruno accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended hydrostatic testing for pipelines that were previously not subject to a pressure test – a process whereby water is put into the line at nearly double, if not more, the pressure that the gas typically reaches – be performed across all gas utilities in the nation.

In October of 2011, Line 147 was hydrostatically tested, and passed. Because of this successful pressure test, PG&E asked the CPUC to allow it to restore the line’s operating pressure. This request included a large volume of documentation and evidence supporting this restoration of pressure.

After receiving approval from the CPUC, PG&E increased the operating pressure on Line 147 as necessary to meet winter load, but kept the operating pressure below the approved Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). On May 24, 2012, after the winter months, PG&E again reduced the operating pressure on Line 147.

Additional measures taken to ensure safe operation of Line 147
In addition to the pressure test, PG&E has taken extensive actions since 2010 to ensure the continued safe operation of Line 147. These have included:

–  MAOP Validation: Using its Pipeline Features List, PG&E conducted a
systematic evaluation of the characteristics of Line 147 to validate the
MAOP of each pipeline component.

    —  Integrity Assessment: PG&E has completed baseline assessments for the
portions of Line 147 that are in densely populated areas, by performing
External Corrosion Direct Assessments in 2004 and/or 2009.
    —  Valve Replacement: A new 20-inch valve was installed on Line 147 near
Brittan Avenue in 2011 to allow PG&E to quickly stop the flow of gas and
isolate the line if necessary.
    —  Regular Maintenance:
–  Leak Surveys: All of Line147 was surveyed in April 2013. PG&E
continues to survey Line 147 for leaks on a regular basis.
—  Ground and Aerial Patrols: PG&E has conducted ground patrols of Line
147 in each of the first eight months of 2013 as well as in November
and December of 2012. During these patrols, PG&E gas employees walk
or drive the line to check for any leaks. PG&E also has conducted
aerial patrols on Line 147 every month from December 2012 to date,
except for February 2013. PG&E continues to patrol and monitor these
lines and records observations of any potential threats to the
integrity of the lines.
—  Anti-Corrosion Measures: Line 147 is equipped with cathodic
protection (CP), a system to safeguard against pipeline corrosion.
PG&E inspects its CP systems using pipe-to-soil reads, and annual
rectifier inspections. This electrical device impresses current on
the pipeline, which is a critical part of the corrosion control
system. PG&E continues to perform CP pipe-to-soil inspections on
Line 147 every other month.
A leak was discovered as part of routine work

In October 2012, as PG&E continued other work to improve the safety of its system, a leak was found on Line 147. At the same time, the company discovered discrepancies in the information that was originally submitted to support the pipeline’s MAOP.

As part of PG&E’s due diligence into the leak, a contractor raised questions about Line 147 in an email. That’s exactly what we encourage our people to do: raise any concerns about safety. All of the issues raised by the individual were seriously discussed.

PG&E also removed the section of pipe that leaked to confirm its mechanical and metallurgical properties via laboratory work, including a root cause analysis of the leak itself. That report concluded the leak was on base metal, not on a girth weld or the long seam weld and, importantly, that “no evidence of crack growth during service or hydro testing was detected.”

The results of this metallurgical test, the results of the 2011 hydrostatic pressure tests, and other steps PG&E has taken to ensure the integrity of its system, confirm that Line 147 is safe.

To learn more about PG&E’s commitment to pipeline safety, please visit www.pge.com/pipelinesafety.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG), is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, with 20,000 employees, the company delivers some of the nation’s cleanest energy to 15 million people in Northern and Central California. For more information, visit: http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom and www.pgecurrents.com.

SOURCE  Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

CONTACT: PG&E External Communications - (415) 973-5930

Web Site: http://www.pge-corp.com

Horrible PG&E Offers Up Excuses for Dragging Its Feet Shutting the Pipeline It Was Just Ordered to Shut Down

Saturday, October 5th, 2013

Sometimes it seems like PG&E is 100% run by MBAs. Anyway. here’s the latest in the ongoing San Carlos, CA fiasco:

“Pipeline Is Safe, PG&E Tells San Carlos Customers. Utility is taking steps to be able to safely and effectively shut off service to San Carlos pipeline in compliance with Superior Court order

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 5, 2013 — Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) today said customers in San Carlos, Calif., can be assured that a natural gas transmission pipeline in their community is being operated in a completely safe manner.”

Gee, PG&E, wasn’t that what you said before about the natural gas pipeline in the San Bruno community before your negligence killed eight people in 2010? Do you think it’s a common thing for utility to kill eight people at a time? Your assurances mean nothing, PG&E.

In addition, PG&E said that despite the line being operated safely, the company is taking steps to be able to safely and effectively shut off service to the pipeline in compliance with an October 4 temporary injunction order by the San Mateo Superior Court. PG&E expects to be in a position to shut off service as early as Monday or Tuesday. The plan must account for a number of important safety and customer impacts associated with shutting off service.

What’s all this “PGE said” crap? Aren’t you PG&E? So why don’t you just come out and make the claim to the world, instead of to the people of San Carlos? What’s the angle here? Anyway, this graf here sounds like you’re sassing the judge, doesn’t it? Like, despite some judge going stark raving bonkers, we’re going to do what the judge ordered us to do, eventually. And you’re not ready to shut the pipeline down now? You have to “take steps” first? OK  fine.

“We are working diligently to comply with the court order to safely and effectively shut off service to the pipeline. However, in the meantime, I want all customers to know that this pipeline has been demonstrated to be safe using the leading and most universally accepted standard for assessing the integrity of operating pipelines. Under no circumstances would we operate this pipeline in an unsafe condition and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong,” said Nick Stavropoulos, the executive vice president with responsibility for all PG&E gas operations since June 2011.

Yet a PG&E engineer asked, “Are We Sitting on a San Bruno Situation? Right? What about that, EVP Nick?

PG&E is responding to the court order by developing a plan to shut down the pipeline in a safe and effective fashion as quickly as possible.  The company noted that work is presently being conducted on Line 101 on the Peninsula – the pipeline stretches from South San Francisco to San Jose. This work must be completed before Line 147 can be taken out of service in order to avoid posing an unreasonable risk of loss of service to other customers.   In addition, the company is completing an assessment of gas service impact to customers in the San Carlos community, which will be taken into account as the company’s analysis concludes by Monday.

Uh, PG&E? “Safely” means to not kill any more people. “Effectively” means shutting down Line 147 100%. That’s it. Obviously this isn’t going to be convenient for you but aren’t you worried about being in contempt?

“To ensure safe operations on Line 147 in San Carlos, PG&E conducted hydrostatic pressure testing on the line in September 2011 to validate the safe operating pressure. Hydrostatic pressure testing, including a spike test, is widely considered among state and federal regulators the leading industry standard to ensure the safe operation of a gas transmission pipeline. In addition, a third party consulting firm conducted independent metallurgical testing after further questions were raised about the pipeline by a company employee. PG&E is requesting that San Carlos officials consult with state and federal pipeline safety officials to validate the actions taken by PG&E on Line 147. To learn more about PG&E’s commitment to pipeline safety, please visit www.pge.com/pipelinesafety.”

Blah blah blah. Hey PG&E! Why don’t you just shut down the fucking line now before you kill any more people?

All right, play us out of here, you incompetent boobs:

“Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG), is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, with 20,000 employees, the company delivers some of the nation’s cleanest energy to 15 million people in Northern and Central California. For more information, visit:  http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/ and www.pgecurrents.com.

SOURCE  PG&E

PG&E

CONTACT: PG&E External Communications - (415) 973-5930

Web Site: http://www.pge-corp.com