Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tensions high in PG&E pipeline meeting

Original post made on Oct 3, 2012

Residents had heated exchanges with PG&E officials at a meeting Tuesday evening at San Lucas Way over plans to strip their backyards over a major gas line. Residents said they fear for their safety in case of an explosion like the one in San Bruno in 2010 that killed eight people.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 6:07 PM

Comments (11)

Posted by Mike H., a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm

While tree roots can damage pipeline coatings, I would be interested in what the results of coating checks on this pipeline are like. Residents have fought other pipelines about tree removal along right of ways, but, often the Courts have sided with pipelines. It is troubling that PG&E waited so long to do tree clearings, since other pipelines have done tree clearings for years before now.

I would also like to know how much of Line 132 has been field checked to see if it was of poor quality welding & steel, like in San Bruno.


Posted by David, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm

How can PG&E expect to be taken seriously? One one hand they're saying it's an impending threat, on the other they've ignored it for 50 years, and on yet a third they say that it's safe. Which is it, and why the need to produce so many conflicting tales?


Posted by eileen, a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm

To be clear, it was discussed that with the trees gone and everything the way PGE wants it, the pipe is old and damaged and the same material that at some point failed 2 years ago, but clearly had passed the tests for safety prior to the explosion, is laying 6-8 feet from children's bedrooms and grandparents bedroom and parents bedrooms. This pipe can spontaneously explode like it did 2 years ago. The difference is PGE has an opportunity to do something better and they are deciding not to. The company is willing to take a chance on our lives and are satisfied that the tests they did for San Bruno before it blew up is good enough for this pipe in Mountain View that can easily kill us.Mike from PGE kept saying the test showed the pipe was good NOW...(not tomorrow.)always... now.PGE agreed their idea is better, not best. They have a chance to do best...they have decided there is no value to them to do best...I would think the pain and agony of our San Bruno family would be enough reason to now do best.Very sad.


Posted by Eileen, a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 3, 2012 at 8:46 pm

One more thought and then I will be silent. We were challenged by PGE to read the fineprint of the original easement and chasdised that we were not educated in it. So I did. and it became clear to me why this seemed so surprising. No one had the pipe mentioned in the easement on their title. From the county the original easement does mention the pipe does mention that PGE can have access to maintain does mention they are not allowed to disturb our property without putting back the way it was and mentions "no structures." The easement discussion for the poles clearly stated that trees had to be trimmed. Regarding the Pipe easement there can be "no structure" period. Trees are fine. and if they destroy anything they have to pay. So we were all living according to the PGE easement. PGE now is asking us to change it. Please no we are not being selfish. We are aware at some point wisdom has to take over not just the money and power.


Posted by Beto, a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 4, 2012 at 1:14 am

If PGE understood that the Good is the enemy of the Best, they would move gas lines from every homeowners yard in the Bay Area and dedicate this to those who have
suffered from loss, grief, and injury secondary to the San Bruno Explosion.

The result? Some measure of the Sting of this Suffering may be ameliorated. And, as for C.E.O. Anthony Early's objective of establishing a new PGE that truly does put safety first? Done. Finished. Fait accompli.

Everyone would then respect PGE and hold it high. Early could be proud.


Posted by kman, a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm

I say we stop all gas flow within the bay area.

There is really no reason I can see that we need gas for. Gas stoves, are a thing of the past, they are electric now. Water heater, well why not make them electric. Gas heaters should go too.

Just like the old days with the gas street lights, all gas appliances should go.

Can anyone tell me why we should keep such an explosive gas under our homes and roads?


Posted by Guest, a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Why bother moving the pipelines to middlefield? How about these houses on middlefield? Don't be so selfish. If you don't like it and are willing to live without GAS, draft a petition and collect the signatures.

Regarding property value, you bought the problem. I feel your pain but you should have done the research before the purchase. If it's not disclosed properly, then sue the previous owner or the government.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Mob mentality has overtaken property rights in Mountain View; i.e., what the majority wants, the majoriy gets, regardless of property rights, contractual rights, etc.


Posted by the_punnisher, a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm

I've got an idea:

If Perennial Gouger & Extortion would only BUY all the affected properties AT MARKET VALUE, and start having their management people REQUIRED TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTIES THEY BOUGHT, would that start solving the " claimed " problems with the pipeline? ( every utility I've had to deal with HAS LIED TO ME, PERSONALLY. I won't bore you with the details, unless people want it )

In Sweden, the government forces every industry to build their water intakes DOWNSTREAM from the waste water they put out. Having PG&E executives forced to live on top of their pipelines is a similar idea.

Criminal charges should have been levied in the San Bruno disaster. Ignorance of the ( natural ) law is no excuse. Moreover the lack of ( or destroyed ) records means that culpable negligence is involve, or in a MURDER trial, it's called PREMEDITATED.

From an engineering standpoint, relocation of the pipeline to major thoroughfares is what has been done before; examples of this are all over the Denver Metro Area.

The other party that might have been a factor is the developer that tore down ( if the underground pipeline were properly marked ) all the gas line placement sign's into the areas BEFORE the realtor/developer was involved in the creation of new housing.

The developers are probably gone and their companies liquidated..

They could be considered the " accomplices who got away". However PG&E created the hazard, now they don't want to spend the $millions THAT RATEPAYERS HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM TO MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE!

It's time to pay the piper ( I know, that is a sick pun ) for the MURDERS that PG&E has perpetrated on California citizens.

I was there when radicals bombed the local PG&E substations; I didn't think that they had a clear motivation to do so. Now they do. Think about it.


Posted by Yolanda, a resident of another community
on Oct 4, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Opportunity to make your voice heard. Help to link profits to accountability by signing the petition to decrease the profits PG&E will be granted by the CPUC. Our utility bills will be increased based on the amount of profits they are granted. For the first time ever, the CPUC is allowing public input. We only have a week to get this message across and we need at least 100 signatures. Web Link#


Posted by Eileen, a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 5, 2012 at 8:12 pm

For those who wonder, we ARE the houses on Middlefield. None of us would consider having this affect another group of families. Middlefield is in front of us.A park would be between us. The idea is have it be in a place that allows easier access and all of us a bit more of a chance to escape if something were to happen. And yes all of us did buy this. We were happy trusting PGE would not create such an unsafe situation in a tiny backyard. I believe they thought they had, until San Bruno. And coming upon a home that has not changed in 50 years there is an expectation that this is allowable and the way it should be. reading further into our easement, it confirmed we are right and the way are homes and yards are is just as the easement allows. PGE needs to change our easement to fit their needs.Again, it is safety, safety, safety, for PGE also...can you imagine how these people would feel if San Bruno happened again on their watch? Just a thought.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,864 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,238 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,231 views

College Freshmen: Avoiding the Pitfalls
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,075 views

Camp Glamp
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,029 views