I may not have  been clear ion the manner in which I made that statement- my
point was PG&E, as an entity, is not making any investment of their OWN in
improving records systems.

What I was pointing to was they were seeking funding from their RATEPAYERS
through increases in rates to accomplish these 'improvements' and the degree
to which they will make these changes to how they gather and manage
information will be directly dependent upon how much of this increase is
granted by the PUC.

I doubt they will move forward with this effort if it isn't funded. Given
they were unwilling to maintain and manage the physical record system (which
included all pipeline history up to 1986 and was well designed and operated
efficiently and effectively up until 1994) it is unlikely they will spend
"new money" to create a system unless they are able to recover it through
increased rates.

If you have read the findings of the NTSB and CPUC thus far, and if you want
to sign on and watch the testimony being given right now
http://wms.0172.edgecastcdn.net/200172/capcongold1NTSB
I think you will find that assumption to be accurate.  The NTSB's final
report will be issued later today.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Todd Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *Larry said:*
> **
> *"Didn't do a detailed reading of Sempra or Southwest Gas, but the PG&E one
> gives no indication of them making ANY investments to improve records
> systems."*
> --------------------
>
> Larry,
>
> You mention that PG&E *"gives no indication of making ANY investments to
> improve records systems". *I realize there are many peripheral operational
> costs detailed in their proposed "Pipeline Records Integration Program",
> but
> to be fair they do propose to "*substantially upgrade gas transmission
> processes and record management infrastructure, allowing PG&E to transition
> from reliance on traditional paper records and consolidate pipeline
> information into two electronic information systems (SAP and GIS) (“Gas
> Transmission Asset Management,” or “GTAM” Project).*
>
> I would agree that there is potential danger, if improperly planned, to
> jump
> into the "digitize everything boat". But I guess you could say the same
> thing about a poorly planned physical records management program. I'm sure
> the debate over what costs can be passed on to the ratepayers is only
> beginning...
>
> Todd Johnson, CRM, ERMm
> Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline
> [log in to unmask]
> **
>


-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]