Is there one private contractor, subcontractor, that does this meter reading? I'm just not clear, because this is the first time I have heard of a private contractor working for the electric company. Is it one? Is it a specific one, or are there a series of contractors?
We have two meter 53 BILL NO. 000318 reading contractors working for us. One of those will be involved in the installation of the meters, one of those two.
What happens to the employees of the other, are they different in size or --
Yes. They currently handle a piece of Philadelphia. Over a time, as AMR gets implemented, that contract will decrease.
And these contractors are really handling what you indicated, the change of the meters?
In which you say nothing is touched with respect to the electrical part of the socket?
Right. Correct. It is taking out, removing a meter, putting in a new meter, writing down what the readings are, making sure that gets into our systems.
As far as I know, the Gas Works has always maintained its own 54 BILL NO. 000318 employees as readers; is that right? Do you know that?
Actually, back in '94, I believe, there was an announcement by the senior management of our company that we were going to be pursuing an automated meter reading solution approach in the coming years. And I think essentially at that point in time there was a strategic decision made that the company was going to commit to automated meter reading and that the future of manual meter reading would probably be in question. That's my recollection, having lived through those years with the company.
We're very sensitive to the question of employees loosing jobs. In the merger discussions that took place, we were told about some positions that would be lost, say, at a headquarters in time as a result of the merger. I don't recollect any discussion of 55 BILL NO. 000318 these meter readers. They are not PECO employees, you said?
But does the contractor spend full time on PECO? Does he have other clients, or is PECO the client?
No; both of the vendors, both of the subcontractors, have other contracts with other utilities.
How about the two contractors that change these meters?
Yes, sir, they do also have other contracts within the State of Pennsylvania and outside of Pennsylvania.
All right. Do you know, is there going to be other testimony? These meters readers, are they represented by any labor organization, do you know?
Any other questions? 56 BILL NO. 000318 Councilman Mariano, do you have questions?
No. Any other questions for these witnesses? MR. McBRIDE: Mr. Chairman, we just want to clarify that the cell master is different than the microcontroller. The microcontroller is what is going to be mounted on streetlights and utility poles. The cell master, the thousand pound piece of equipment that the Councilman referenced, that is going to be in the substations, for the most mark. And, obviously, we will follow whatever regulations apply outside of the substations. I just wanted to clarify that.
Will that function be done by the subcontractor also, or the PECO employees? MR. McBRIDE: No; that will be done by Exelon. 57 BILL NO. 000318
I think over the holiday I heard a report of a TV employee who was setting up to take some pictures somewhere. And his antenna touched something electrical, and he was badly burned over the body. The report came in just within the last few days. It was an accidental contact. He just stopped somewhere, he saw activity going on, he wanted to record it just to show what some people were doing over the three-day Memorial Day holiday. And if there were accidental contact with any of this equipment that you are planning to put on, would there be any danger to anyone? In other words, suppose an antenna, a TV guy, or somebody else just comes up and wants to take a picture, puts up his antenna and happens to hit this box.
Councilman, the microcell controllers, the devices which would be essentially mounted on the streetlights or the utility poles, they are in a steel enclosure. They are powered, essentially, from 58 BILL NO. 000318 120 volt, similar to any other appliance in your home. So I guess to answer your question, if something were to compromise that structure, that metal structure, there could be some result from that. But it's nothing to the extent of touching a high tension wire. And I'm not sure of the accident that you referred to. It may indeed have been contact with a high tension wire. But the device --
But the device, essentially, is powered similar to any other appliance, your toaster, you know, your clock, VCR, any electronics.
Touching the outside would not compromise that at all. It is a relatively -- it is a very rigid steel enclosure. And it is protected with fuses; such that, if there is a short, the circuit 59 BILL NO. 000318 should essentially be opened. So I think the risks -- or measures have been taken to mitigate risks around any accident that could occur like that.
Thank you. MR. McBRIDE: Councilman, there has been a lot of discussion this morning about safety. And because you raised this, I wanted to just point out that we have a group called Contractor and Builder Services that has gone out with training modules for all of the TV stations in the area and given them explanations on how to work safely around overhead wires. And, as a result of that, we have been applauded for that effort. So I just wanted to mention, we do -- we are very sensitive for that.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? There's been some discussion or questions raised about the location of the various devices. Have you identified those yet? Are 60 BILL NO. 000318 you still working on those sites where those devices will be located? And if you have them now, fine. If not, would you submit it to the Chair, those substations where some of the devices will be and where the smaller boxes that will be mounted on the poles? I would appreciate that, if you could get that to the Chair. Thank you.
With respect to what the Chair just mentioned, is the location of each of these items to be installed, is that cleared with the Streets Department? Do they -- MR. McBRIDE: Yes.
Is there a representative of the Streets Department? MR. McBRIDE: This was through Public Property, Councilman.
Public Property. All right. 61 BILL NO. 000318 MR. McBRIDE: And a specific location, like whether it is the first pole from the corner of 16th and Ranstead, or the second pole, no, we have not narrowed it down to that specificity.
But you need to do that ultimately? MR. McBRIDE: We do that because it has to be determined according to what the buildings are around the area. You know, whatever the topography is, that will drive it a little bit. But we do have agreement generally on the area that we're going to be focusing on.
Mr. McBride, Mr. Doyle from our Streetlighting Department is here. You mentioned that the pole attachments to streetlights has been cleared by the Public Property Department. The Streetlight Department is within the Streets Department. So has Mr. Doyle had the review on what the configuration -- you are making an attachment to a streetlight that the Streets Department is responsible for, not the Public 62 BILL NO. 000318 Property Department. MR. McBRIDE: That's accurate. And I had the same question, actually, Councilman. The original discussions were between Public Property and the Streets Department. But the department that we worked with to craft the legislation was with Public Property, at the city's request. Streets Commissioner Moy was involved in the early discussions, and as was Joe Doyle and Mr. Siernick. But then the crafting of the ordinance came through Public Property and the Law Department.
So when we talk to the streetlighting people, they will be okay with the number of locations -- how many locations, again, are you going to attach to streetlights? MR. McBRIDE: 200.
Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I understand there are two other individuals who wish to testify, Mr. Dougherty, Mr. Dollard. Good morning, and please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
John J. Dougherty, Business Manager, IBW Local 98, electricians and technicians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Dollard and myself, Jim is one of our teachers over at Local 98's apprentice program on Spring Garden Street. I just stopped in today. And it seems to be a recurring problem for not only myself, but the city, in that there is a lot of work that is being reclassified today. As we move into the 21st Century, as the telecommunication process takes its course, with the changing environment in the electrical field, there seems to be a whole lot of players now. And 64 BILL NO. 000318 they hide under veils of privatization, minority participation. And at Local 98, we have been changing with the times. We have a skill set at Local 98 that gives us the opportunity to go from the electrical field, up into the most automated of installations in the world today. And we have also been very inclusive in our process. " Well, Local 98 has been very active in its last two to three years in trying to become the most inclusive union in town. And we try, because of that process, we try to use the word "neighborhood participation" because we feel that it is better for Philadelphia to use specific kids from specific neighborhoods, when applicable. The bottom line is, is that we have a tremendous education facility. We in the last three years have taken over the telecommunication market at the IBW, and most recently as May took over the 65 1 BILL NO. 000318 broadcast. So now you get one-stop shopping at 17th and Spring Garden. There is nothing in that field that you cannot get in Philadelphia and have local Philadelphia kids involved in. The bottom line is still dollars and cents. You know, I always have a problem when anyone that carries the title of business manager, Vice-President, corporate head, cannot come in and give you specifics. Okay? I can answer any question. I don't usually take the time to come down, because we have a lot of qualified people around. I was in the building, and just found that very offensive. My guys get paid $30 an hour. It is a tiered process, through an apprenticeship program. It starts out at $10 an hour, with benefits. And the membership is probably, the new membership is probably, 80 percent Philadelphia. And I am also very proud of that. And outside of Philadelphia, it is held against them. So I don't want it to be held against them to be in Philadelphia. We hire from the neighborhoods. We 66 BILL NO. 000318 educate in the neighborhood. We want to do the work in the neighborhood. We don't mind that other people compete with us. We don't have a monopoly on it. We just want to make sure that the wage and standard that we have negotiated over 100 years is also put in place. Paying someone $7 an hour and asking them to pull a meter, and running them through a quick program, when they have no history, or no 12 understanding of safety, or maybe nine out of ten times no prior work history at all can be dangerous. I represent people for a living. My number one priority when I send a kid out on the job is that he understands the job, and he has taken all the safety courses that are applicable to that job. I'm not comfortable with what I heard today. I'm not a professional in the education or safety field, but my protege at my right is. He is nationally recognized. We are lucky to have him. He spent a lot of time and effort making sure that this city is safe. I also just will give you a short 67 BILL NO. 000318 history. In situations it was asked, how would you do these jobs. Local 98 had the history of something that might have, and we have been here before, a very skilled portion to it, and then a very remedial portion to it. What we try to do is, we put the very qualified person alongside a neighborhood resident that would be selected for that specific job. So that not only does he get life rules and work rules -- it might be his first job -- but he also learns the trade and he is not put in a safety position.
We have done that with some of the cable companies. And, most of the time, primarily with the installation for Comcast and CCG, I put a skilled technician alongside a neighborhood individual, and I went to City Council for that individual. And it has worked out very well. And that kid no longer -- as one of the previous speakers said, is facing unemployment. He is facing a future now in a local union. We are in the business of giving guys 68 BILL NO. 000318 careers, not jobs. We are in the business of giving people a job that they are able to keep a family in this city for a long period of time. So I appreciate taking this time. And I know that I wasn't scheduled to the end.
Thank you for your testimony. And I am sure most of us have said at one time or another we do appreciate all the work that your local does, in particular in hiring people from the Philadelphia community. Because we know that we get that money back ten times over when we employ people who continue to live here and spend their money in our communities. You mentioned something about your program, and I think you cited something at the lower level of the jobs are about $10 an hour, plus benefits. Someone in that particular category, would they be qualified to work at this work that is being proposed by PECO here today, through the outside contractor? Is that something that one of your apprentices would be qualified to do? Because I don't see that much of a 69 BILL NO. 000318 difference in the spread from hearing PECO's subcontractor maybe paying or 7.50 an hour, and if 4 your guys can do it at around 10, 10.50 an hour. It 5 isn't really that much of a spread. 6 And I was just wondering if there is 7 a way in which we can craft this -- we can't do it legislatively, obviously. But maybe through negotiations we can figure out a way where we all can get what we want out of this. PECO can get to do what it needs to do to better serve the city's customers, and Philadelphia folks could be employed to do that work. You know, again, we can't do that legislatively. But I am just kind of thinking out loud here.
I am just going to answer you out loud here. Well, let me say, PECO, very good company. Very high-quality personnel. Some of the people that presented are friends of mine, that presented their case today are friends of mine. Okay? We are not dealing with PECO here; we 70 BILL NO. 000318 are dealing with a subcontractor that is not in the electrical business. I have 350 contractors sitting on a sheet of paper up on Spring Garden Street that are certified electrical contractors. We have specific job arrangements in which we make the lesser of the job more financially reachable. We work -- we call them competitive adjustments. We have market recovery programs. We have all this type of assets. That's not even been explored here. Okay? We would be more than willing to sit down and make them work. From a safety standpoint, we would have to have a journeyman in the process, because our education process is every year you move up into a greater grasp of the field. Jimmy would have a better knowledge of the actual statistics of safety. But, yes, we would have a series of apprentices involved in this process. And I would also like to let you know that most of our apprentices have already been part of these neighborhood programs, they also have two 71 BILL NO. 000318 years under their belt, and they have also had a legitimate two to three years' worth of education under their belt.
And you referred to Jimmy. You don't mean Jimmy Kenney. Jimmy --
Is Jimmy going to testify? Because after he does, I would like to --
Jim Dollard, IBEW 98, I am presently the Chairman of National Electrical Code. Now, the electrical code takes jurisdiction in the City of Philadelphia from the service point on. And I would just like to explain it. For example, if you've got utility poles outside your house, PECO will deliver a service drop, an overhead drop. From that point on, if you want to take your service and upgrade your service, that's your responsibility. You are required to hire a contractor, take it from the service point to the 72 BILL NO. 000318 meter, from the meter into your service equipment. PECO didn't install that throughout the city. PECO has an exemplary safety record, and it is just that. It is one of the best in the country, I believe. These are subcontractors. There are so many items that come into play here, I could literally talk to you for two hours, but I won't do that. The National Electrical Code recognizes those conductors as having no overcurrent protection at all. That represents a serious, serious safety hazard, and it represents a serious safety hazard to the trained person. We're all aware of shock hazards. Everybody in the room has been shocked at one time or another. But when you are dealing with conductors that have no overcurrent protection at all, there's two other very serious safety risks involved, and they are arc flash and arc blasts. Now, both of the them are caused when you have a low impetus ground fault, which is a short circuit, for all practical purposes, or a 73 BILL NO. 000318 short circuit. Now, I am kind of disturbed at what I have heard here, that subcontractors who are responsible for training their employees, the fact that they are subcontractors, PECO isn't responsible to train them. While PECO may give criteria to the subcontractors, per the OSHA standards -- which are law, they are regulatory standards -- National Electrical Code is a consensus document which is adopted by the city, which makes it a regulatory standard. It is the employer that is responsible for this type of training. I'm very concerned that short-time employees aren't going to receive the type of training that's required. And each employer is going to have a different dedication to safety. Many are more dedicated to numbers today, unfortunately, than they are safety. But Councilman Mariano can explain to you himself the dangers of arc flash. He was involved in an incident several years ago. But an arc flash can take, for 74 BILL NO. 000318 example, in front of a meter, can take the ambient temperature from, in this room, maybe 68 degrees, to well over 15,000 degrees Fahrenheit for some distance in front of the meter. That will cause incurable third-degree burns to the hands and, if the face is exposed, the face. There's so many variables here. Have these employees been taught in electrical-safety-related work practices, per the OSHA standards, per NFPA 70E? Are they issued the proper personal protective equipment? The fact that PECO didn't install that wiring from the service point on, are they trained to recognize a problem that may exist in a homeowner's meter, and the removal of that meter will now not allow you to install another one, you can try to install another one, but it looks a little shaky? The problem is, you could have a young installer, somebody that's not trained very well, they could literally install thousands of meters, and then when they run into that one problem, they may not be able to recognize it. And 75 BILL NO. 000318 it would be a very, very serious problem. And I'm not so sure -- I think that this is going to involve a little bit more than just residential occupancies. It is probably going to involve small commercial type occupancies, also, which are going to represent hazards of their own.
I would like to follow up on something you just said. That's why these hearings are so good. I didn't even think of this point until you just said something that's very important. Let me just, this scenario. One of these contractors -- and PECO themselves said that these meters last for 30 years, maybe longer. Now, many of the boxes, many of the meter boxes, that house this may be in a state of they are starting to rust, and they would last 19 more years if they are not disturbed. 20 Now, this person comes out to change the meter out. They remove the old meter, and in the process of removing the band and the meter seal, they do damage to that meter box. Now, they are not able to reinstall the new meter, they have to red tag the meter, and 76 BILL NO. 000318 it immediately then becomes the responsibility of my constituent to go and hire an electrician to change out that box that now will not accommodate the new meter, because in the process of removing and attempting to reinstall the new device, they damage that housing. Not that they intentionally damaged it, but because it was disturbed. And, as you know, around the house you are fixing things, and all the sudden you wind up breaking it. So my concern is, if in the process of changing out a meter they cannot reinstall the remote device, then the burden is on the resident to hire someone. And many of our con constituents can't afford to go out and have a service entrance cable and all of the components associated with with the electric service replaced. So am I correct and is my picture pretty --
Yes. There are a number of things that could happen. And one of the things that comes to my mind is, the majority of services, if we are 77 BILL NO. 000318 going to talk residential, are hundred amp services, many of them very old, using aluminum. Aluminum conductors tend to cause problems over the years. As a matter of fact, the City of Philadelphia's Electrical Code specifically prohibits aluminum conductors No. 10 or smaller. Because there are some homes in the city that are wired in aluminum, my sister lives in one, and they cause quite a few problems. So, you know, to identify all of the problems that can occur pulling a meter out would be everything from pulling the meter housing right off the wall, to a conductor coming loose on the line side or the load side, or, you know, the meter itself, the meter enclosure that's been exposed to weather for quite some time, maybe it was broken when the installer put it in. Now it is going to represent new hazards. My main concern would be for a young man or young woman that's going to be putting these meters in. Because I don't want to get technical. But as transformers, as PECO replaces newer transformers, they tend to have lower 78 BILL NO. 000318 impedance ratios. That's what we call impedance ratios. That means you have a higher value of short circuit current available at that meter. Now, what is it? Is it 10,000 amps? That's rule of thumb, it is going to be around 10,000 amps. Maybe it is 8,000 amps. You know, depending on how close you are to the transformer, if there were five row homes in the pot, the transformer is right outside your home, the available short circuit current at your meter is going to be incredibly higher than at the end. So there's quite a number of possibility that can occur, as you pointed out. And then the owner of the home is going to be responsible, because that's not PECO's responsibility.
Well, again, that other information is very important to me. And thank you for that. But I'm, I guess, a little more basic in the process. I'm concerned that when one of these contractors goes and does what you describe, in the process of pulling the meter, pulls the whole panel off the wall, do they walk away and, you know, 79 BILL NO. 000318 wave to Mrs. Murphy and say, "Well, Mrs. Murphy, in the process of changing this meter, we pulled the box off the wall," now let's have it hanging by the service entrance cable, or the box now, because of the movement of changing and replacing the meter, has now -- the rust has now broken away and they have a defective box. I mean, this is a question. Should the subcontractor be responsible for making that constituent whole, even though in some prorative way. But I just wouldn't want to see them walking away from something that they have loosened or damaged.
Yes, Councilman. Because, as you pointed out, if it hadn't been pulled out, it may have lasted another years, who 18 knows. 19 I would just like to address one 20 other item before you ask me a question, Councilman, which I will gladly answer it. And that is in training. The Councilman had asked earlier about our apprentices being trained. Upon entering our program, our apprentices receive an intensive safety program 80 BILL NO. 000318 which includes OSHA 10-hour training. I myself am one of OSHA 500 authorized trainers in Local Union 98, which means OSHA had recognized us to teach the and 30-hour courses, which are fairly generic in 6 nature, but do include electrical safety. 7 We also give our apprentices 8 electrical-safety-related work practices, which 9 introduces them to all of the hazards, shock, arc 10 flash, arc blast, and they are also taught how to do risk hazard analysis. They can take a look at an individual installation, determine the risk involved, and the proper personal protective equipment needed to safely perform the task.
What you just said is somewhat related to the question I wanted to ask you. From the witnesses that appeared before, it seemed to me we were being presented with a very simple problem, that something was going to be put into a socket and taken out of a socket. And like, you know, when I move the toaster from one area of the kitchen to another, I may have a different electric socket. 81 BILL NO. 000318 I have not generally regarded that as needing any special training, though once in a while I have noticed maybe a flame somewhere. It comes up and disappears, and I don't know what it is, and I move away happily that nothing happened. But we were being told it was so simple, it is being done every day. What you're saying is that it appears to be simple on the surface, and maybe in most cases it is, but that there are safety problems involved when it is not what it looks like. Say, if there's some defect somewhere along the line, that it may be more than a problem of just putting it in a socket or taking out a socket. Is that what you are basically saying?
We need somebody who has had that kind of education to recognize this may be not putting in a plug in the socket; it may be something else?
Your analogy is a good one. 82 BILL NO. 000318 But keep in mind, those receptacle outlets that you are plugging, for example, the toaster, as you said, you have got overcurrent protection, you have got more than likely in your basement amp circuit breaker, an inverse time 7 circuit breaker, protecting that outlet. 8 Now, if there was a short circuit or 9 a ground fault, boom, you are going to get a boom. 10 But what happens is, the amount of 11 fault current is limited there by a device in your 12 basement that's going to clear it. 13 The problem with services and on the 14 load side of a PECO -- PECO doesn't provide 15 secondary overcurrent protection. It is not 16 practical for utilities to provide secondary 17 overcurrent protection. 18 And utilities don't size their 19 primary devices as low as the National Electrical 20 Code, for example, would want them to, nor would the utility want to. Because if they did, every time a squirrel came in contact with the top of a pot and a high-voltage line, they are going to need a line truck out there, people lose their service. It is 83 BILL NO. 000318 not good for PECO and it is really not good for the customer. Now, that type of installation is longstanding and it is a safe installation. They use a different code in most cases; it is the National Electrical Safety Code. That's a safe installation. But when you are working on those secondary conductors, there is a great potential for arc blasts and arc fault. And you have to be trained to recognize those hazards. And I'm not so sure that a training module, what's in the training module, who is presenting the training module. And the training is left to the individual contractor. OSHA requires that the employer provide that training, how those employers submit it, their written safety programs. Do they have written safety-related work hazard programs? Do they audit their safety program? Do they audit their employees with personal protective equipment? The scary part is, you don't have to go much further than St. Agnes Burn Center to see somebody with electrical burns. And I have seen 84 BILL NO. 000318 it. And, to be honest with you, I don't want to visit anybody that's been burned again, because it is just not a pretty site.
I just have one question. Sorry, Mr. Dollard. Real quick. Mr. Dollard, you are getting into a real technical aspect. What I asked them, and I am sure you know this answer, if they have everything turned off in the house, it is very nontechnical. If that person comes out and pulls that meter out of the socket, even if everything is turned off, can we have an arc? Can electricity -- an arc is when electricity jumps from one spot to another. Can that happen? There is always something going in the house, even if we think we have everything off.
Yes, it would be very difficult. If you enter the main in the basement and turned it off. But then, you know, the homeowner, everything is off. 85 BILL NO. 000318 To be honest with you, I just don't see homeowners doing that. For example, I have got a security system in my home, you know. I am not going to want to shut it off. I have got 110 volt smoke detectors in my home. If I have to shut it off, I get a constant beeping.
The assistant was just telling me she still has fuses in her house, which I like. But for her to do that, she would have to take that main fuse out. And that's something she is not going to do 7 o'clock in the morning, before she comes to work here. So the whole idea of that, everything being out, is really --
I have one question of Mr. Dougherty. Suppose there were some mechanism by which we could sit you at this table and bring, say, PECO there at the table. How would that work out?
My understanding is, prior to me, Councilman, that there was the same 86 BILL NO. 000318 type of job years ago, which had a relationship with a subcontractor that was affiliated with Local 98. And when you get a contractor that's affiliated with Local 98, we have the 17-man staff that makes sure that he abides by all our wage standards, our safeties and our apprenticeship and training regulations. So PECO does work with Local 98 every single day of the week. In this specific case, like I said, it is prior to me, but my understanding is there was a relationship between a Local 98 contractor, Henkles and McCoy, and PECO to do the same type job a few years back. Now, here is my concern. There might not have been -- even though there is a large difference in the wage package, there might not be that big a difference in the price of the job.
Because there is a larger profit margin for the individual subcontractor, who might of, as was stated earlier, might have been a former PECO employee. I think they said that some of these subcontractors were former PECO employees. 87 BILL NO. 000318
And they would use a contractor who has the contract with Local 98, so the services that your union organization would have available could be made available to that contractor?
All right. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what your intention was, but I would like to see the PECO, at least some of them, come back to the table.
Yes. I just had a conversation with Mr. McBride, and they are going to come back up. There were some interesting questions that were raised. You guys can stay.
You can stay there, if you want to. It might be easier for them to come up, then you will come back. 88 BILL NO. 000318 MR. McBRIDE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before you amend. Suppose the City of Philadelphia, for whatever reason, were not to pass this ordinance. What happens to the automatic reading program? How vital is this ordinance? MR. McBRIDE: Councilman, I am glad you asked that. As Mr. Dudkin testified to, because of the high number of indoor meters in Philadelphia County, and because of my working relationship with so many of the offices here that call about estimated readings and about people trying to get into their property posing as meter readers, I asked that Philadelphia County, especially South Philadelphia, that they start there, because that's where the higher concentration of indoor meters are. So we have agreed to do that. We would not be in front of you, we would not have this ordinance here, if it weren't for the 200 locations that we need on the City of 89 BILL NO. 000318 Philadelphia property streetlights. We would be changing these meters, and it would be invisible to this Council, because we do it every day anyway. As Mrs. Goodwin testified, we did 600,000 a year, and that would just continue. We would just have done this, and the meters --
Could I just interrupt for a minute? MR. McBRIDE: Go ahead.
You don't actually remove 600,000 meters a year, do you? MR. McBRIDE: We change out 600,000 meters a year.
Wouldn't that be kind of the total customer base? MR. McBRIDE: No. The total customer base, total meters, are about 2 million.
In Philadelphia? MR. McBRIDE: Right. And it would just --
No, I'm sorry. Not 90 BILL NO. 000318 in Philadelphia, sir. That would be in our service territory.
Well, yes. I am puzzled by the figures that they are supposed to last about 30 years. So I can't understand why there would be that large number in Philadelphia.
The 600,000 are the times that we pull the meter and put it back into the socket. And it could be that it is the same meter that's going into a socket because the customer has moved and we are shutting the meter off.
Because we have to put plastic boots to cut the current between the meter and the service. So we pull the meter, shut it off, put it back in the socket. 91 BILL NO. 000318
And the question that you asked, what happens to the automatic meter reading program for Philadelphia County? We would not be able to provide these services to your constituents in the areas where we need access to your facilities. We certainly do not want to be there. We want to give the Philadelphia constituents and our customers this service first.
Just so that I understand what you're saying, the latter part particularly, you are saying that if this bill 19 doesn't get passed, Philadelphia would not be able to have automatic reading? MR. McBRIDE: That's accurate.
Yes, sir. We have no 23 way to construct it without your support.
Say the South Philadelphia example you gave, would that be able to 92 BILL NO. 000318 continue on? MR. McBRIDE: They would have indoor -- we would continue to read the meters the way we do now, with meter readers going to the door, asking for access.
You wouldn't be able to have the automatic system? MR. McBRIDE: We cannot do the system without the 200 locations that we have petitioned the Public Property division for. Also, while I was away from this table, I did verify that the rate is between 10 and 12 dollars an hour that the energy technicians will be getting paid. The structure is there is ten employees to one supervisor, or foreman I guess is a better way to say it. There are also eight safety professionals that will be doing safety audits as following the workers' path, just to make sure that everything was installed properly and that they are comfortable with what they are doing. In all of the meter changeouts that we have done -- and, you know, I have been around, 93 BILL NO. 000318 unfortunately, maybe too long, but 31 years -- I don't know -- I know there are flash --
To me that's a brief period. MR. McBRIDE: I know. It is extremely rare when there is a flash. And it was commented about protective clothing. The employees that are going to be doing this work are going through our training module; not the contractor's, ours. And it is written into the contract that they must adhere to our safety standards, not the contractor's. They must adhere to ours. They will be offered the same protective clothing and they will be required to wear it by the safety professionals and the supervisors. So it will be no different than we currently do with our own employees.
How does your training standards compare, if you know the answer to this question -- MR. McBRIDE: I do.
-- to those that 94 BILL NO. 000318 were described by Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Dollard? MR. McBRIDE: You could have asked them this question. We have one of the highest training programs, the highest caliber training programs in the industry, bar none. We are right at the top, in the top of all training. Additionally, Councilman, and for the committee, I might add that these meters, through this contractor that's operating our system, the meters that were testified earlier to, I think it was 7 million, there is no problem with them. They don't know of a flash accident where someone was hurt. So I just checked on that. They don't know of an injury. Now, we are not making light of this. And because we are not making light of it, we are putting them through the same training that our employees go through and in making them adhere to it in the contract.
But, Mr. McBride, I have to tell you, the more you explain the safety measures that you take -- and they are impressive -- the more I begin to feel that, you know, maybe there 95 BILL NO. 000318 is really a need for the safety. And I know the record of Local 98 over many, many years, you know, decades, in electrical safety. And I get a little bit concerned as to why we can't achieve the best of all results, which would be to have an electrical contractor, you know, working with PECO, or PECO continuing to employ these people directly. MR. McBRIDE: Councilman, we have already signed a contract. We can do the build-outs in the four counties. And our goal was to do this with the employees that eventually would be laid off and to extend their employment; give them the training that we give our own employees, no different, and extend their employment. Now, I thought that was a great goal. We are only here, again, because of the 200 locations we need on city facilities. And, you know, we are not in the business of putting anyone at risk, customer, general public, or our employees.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for the lady at the table. I am sorry; I forgot your name.
Thank you. I think a lot of this could have all been avoided, because I think PECO has good intentions. But my problem with this is, we're trying to, Mr. McBride, as you say to help some people here who probably are going to be out of work. But my main problem is, if you do it the way you are looking to do it, once these people go with this contractor, and this contractor may be the son of a former employee, or whatever that's about -- and that's for PECO to worry about, not us -- when this is done, where does he go, where does he going to install meters at in two years? Nowhere around here; right? Are they going to install meters around here anywhere? If you did this with Mr. Dougherty and Local 98, when this job is done, those people go 97 BILL NO. 000318 back to that hiring hall and they go somewhere else. And they go somewhere else when that job is done, and for the rest of their lives they have money into a pension. And we are not here to debate union benefits against non-union benefits. If we are here to help people, that's how you do it. Safety is one thing. We can never have an arc, like Mr. McBride said. That one arc -- take it from someone who has been electrocuted and burned badly by an electrical arc -- that's not something you want to experience. That skin hanging off your arm or the side of your face, it is very painful. Like Mr. Dollard said, how many amps to kill somebody, a tenth of an amp? Safety is not the issue. Safety is not the issue. It is here the issues should have been taken care of before we got to this part. And if PECO wants to help people, they will talk to that guy standing in the back of the room there, and we will work this out, and then they will be able to work 10 more years or for their 98 BILL NO. 000318 life, and hopefully they will stay in the City of Philadelphia. If not, so be it. But if they do, they can pay taxes and help us what we need here, send some money into our schools, send their kids to our public schools, do things like that. PECO is a great company. I am sure they have above safety standards, because they have to, because they have been around for so long. It is no Mickey Mouse organization. PECO has been around. If we really want to help people, that's how we help people. If we are helping somebody's friend, okay, that's what you are doing. But don't come here and pretend it is about minorities or what it's about. That's not what it is about. MR. McBRIDE: I don't know what you are talking about. This is a contract that these people have been contracted, two companies in question have been under contract with us for years. And the employees in question would be out of work as each automatic meter reading area 99 BILL NO. 000318 was put into place. They would be out of work. So we were thinking this was a very good way to keep them working.
I agree. MR. McBRIDE: And we have a contract to do this. The problem is that there's 200 streetlights that we need to put the units on. Otherwise, we would never be in front of Council.
How long is this going to go on, Mr. McBride? How long are they going to work? MR. McBRIDE: Three years.
Then what happens after three years? MR. McBRIDE: They would be laid off.
If they do the latter that I suggested, they would be working for possibly the rest of their life; that's all. That's my question.
Just to follow up, 100 BILL NO. 000318 Mr. McBride. Wouldn't this, if there was Local 98 and PECO Energy could get together, wouldn't some of these people that are working for this subcontractor have an opportunity possibly to come aboard and work with these electrical contractors, and have a permanent job, not in three years just get laid off? Knowing the Local 98, I think this might be a good opportunity that you sit down and try to work this out. Because --
I understand, PECO, you already have a contract in place? MR. McBRIDE: We have a contract in place right now with the people that are doing the work. So there is no room there to change the contract. Additionally, as you probably know, and I hope that most of the Council know, PECO hires significantly high percentages of union contractors, very high percentage. And so this isn't an issue about union versus nonunion. This is an issue about 101 BILL NO. 000318 extending the employment of the people that are currently there, getting the job done efficiently. It has already been commented on by Councilman Mariano that he concedes that our safety is probably above the industry.
Well, you have a contract with these people to do this job throughout your system; correct? MR. McBRIDE: Yes.
So, in other words, the contract could still be honored outside, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, and exclude Philadelphia? It could do that.
No, that's not true. We have signed a contract with our prime, with Schlumberger. They are to perform, they are installing the automatic meter reading system using subcontractors. We have contracted with them to install our entire territory. Our intent was to come to the city first.
I would appreciate the questions that I asked about the liability during the course of installation, damage to the 102 BILL NO. 000318 meter boards or service entrance, that to be addressed here. I concern myself with the entire region, but obviously my responsibility is the ramification of the people that I represent. So if that information -- and I am sure you have taken careful notes -- could be forwarded to the Chair of this committee, I would appreciate it. And the sites, the locations where 12 they plan to be, I am not too much concerned that 13 the Streets Department doesn't have concern about 14 the 200 attachments to streetlights. But I am more 15 concerned with the other facilities, the roof mount, 16 and also the ones that plan to be located around the 17 City of Philadelphia, where they are going to be. 18 MR. McBRIDE: Okay. Well, we may not 19 have all the locations ironed out for the cell 20 masters, but we will tell you what we have. 21
Before they get 22 installed, we would like to know. 23 And, again, I recollect that there 24 were some permit zoning issues associated with those 25 installations when it came to the cell site 103 BILL NO. 000318 locations. So I would assume there might be some zoning issues and also some permit issues. MR. McBRIDE: We will follow whatever regulations are applicable. Also, Councilman, it may be an advantage for you to know that, as they go around, these employees go around to change out the meters, if they see a meter board that's coming off the wall or some other condition that should be pointed out to the customers, we will have an opportunity to do that. The customer may not know that.
What I would suggest, if that's the case, that no meter change be done until the problem is corrected. MR. McBRIDE: Well, they would do that according to the way we normally do business.
If the board is hanging off the wall, I mean -- MR. McBRIDE: They would get a notice.
But, again, let's 104 BILL NO. 000318 say it is a 30-year-old meter, you pull it out and half the meter board comes out with it, again, I am going to get a phone call from my constituents saying, "Now I have to spend $300 to get my meter board. It was okay until PECO came," and -- MR. McBRIDE: Well, I would submit to you that that would be handled no differently than any other claim. I mean, they do -- much like stepping on someone's roses as you cross the lawn.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rizzo said he never stepped on the roses. It is probably you, McBride, the tulips.
Let me ask you a question. I am a little confused here. Who has this contract, Schlumberger or Exelon?
Schlumberger has the contract to provide the technology. There are subcontracts for the installation. For the network 105 BILL NO. 000318 it is Exelon Infrastructure Services.
Well, then, you said you can't subcontract out. Why don't you just subcontract to one of Mr. Dougherty's contractors, and we can all go home, and your President won't be embarrassed sitting back there.
-- to a more qualified contractor, just because something makes their qualifications a little higher.
We do not, we cannot just back out on signed contracts, nor can we hold our prime contractor to go back to their subs. I mean, we have binding --
You just told me Schlumberger had the contract, and they subbed it out to Exelon to do the installation. 106 BILL NO. 000318
Now you did a contract to do certain installations all over except for these 200.
No. These 200 are included. Exelon Infrastructure Services would be doing the work.
And you are telling me you can't reassign them 200 to somebody else?
Your contractor is saying it is okay. Because if I am your contractor, I am saying, look, these 200 I would like to have, but obviously it is a problem for everybody, so we will assign it to XYZ, or whoever. It just seems like an awful big waste of time. Mr. McBride, I have to say this. This isn't about unions or nonunions. And I know you know that. This is about safety for the people that call us every day on the phone. You know, there might never be an arc. But that one arc might be the one to kill 107 BILL NO. 000318 Mr. Dollard's grandmother, and that's not a good thing. MR. McBRIDE: Well, okay, you can make that stretch, if you wish.
It is not a stretch. MR. McBRIDE: Well, it isn't an issue of union/non-union. It is an issue of, as you have raised and other people have raised, of safety. And you can see that we have a very good safety program.
Yes, you do. MR. McBRIDE: So absent that, what is it?
Two subcontractors we are not sure about. MR. McBRIDE: Well, and I think we testified that --
I am speaking for myself, I am not sure about. MR. McBRIDE: All right.
Thank you. It is hard for me to believe that you have a contract that is so ironclad, knowing PECO Energy, that your lawyers or your law firm doesn't have some clause in there. I can't believe you are so confident that you came in here today that you might not have a problem pulling this thing off, that you have already assumed -- you come here assuming that you are going to get the okay to make those 200 attachments, you are assuming that you are going to get those other site locations that you signed a contract that you have no way to back out. If we don't give you the okay today for those 200 locations, you don't have a way to back out of that contract?
No. Let me explain. We have signed a contract with Schlumberger to install, to the extent that we choose to install. 109 BILL NO. 000318 So if we pull out a part of our territory and do not automate, then that is an area that they do not automate. But any work that would be performed to automate our meter reading system has been contracted to Schlumberger. So we did not, in all due respect, come that confident. And we do have a contract with this company. We can pull pieces of our territory out.
I don't know whether that's to be -- I don't want to be snowed here that you have a deal that's so ironclad that you can't make some adjustments to it. What I'm concerned is that if we don't give you those 200 locations, your system doesn't work.
To provide the service 110 BILL NO. 000318 to the entire city. It is a distributed network, and we need to put those components throughout the city to reach the meters.
My point is, if you don't install all the devices here, the three different components, your system will work?
In other words, you are spending all this money on this, these gadgets here, the rooftop mounts, the pole mounts, the 200 locations on streetlights, and you don't need them? MR. McBRIDE: It won't work anywhere that the attachments in question aren't put on.
So if you don't get the okay to make these 200 attachments, you would go ahead and start installing all these meters that won't work?
No, sir. We would not install the meters this area. We would continue to read those meters manually.
So then, obviously, there is some room to here to make sure 111 BILL NO. 000318 we are getting the quality technicians, the contractors that we have heard all this discussion about today. So there is some room to sit down and talk about this? MR. McBRIDE: Councilman, the issues we heard today were safety. And I have heard it repeatedly stated --
Not from me. MR. McBRIDE: I have heard it repeatedly conceded to that we have a very good safety record, we are very safety conscious. The other issue was wages. And I found out that our wages are right around the apprentice rate. If the safety is met and the wages are as we testified to, I'm not sure what the issue is, other than putting another layer into the process.
Mr. McBride, I don't think the concern is about the safety record of PECO Energy. I think the concern is that you are proposing that a contractor that you are going to 112 BILL NO. 000318 hire is going to adopt those same high-quality safety standards that PECO Energy operates by. I think what you are hearing here today is that there is some concern about the organization that PECO is engaging with. And it is only suggested that you're going to be able to maintain that high level. And I know personally that subcontractors that work in all utility companies, in many cases, don't work the same way that the work forces that work for the utility company work. MR. McBRIDE: I may not be clear here. But no matter what we do, whether we continued on the path that we're going down now or we entered into an agreement with an electrical contractor, aren't they both subcontractors?
They are both subcontractors. MR. McBRIDE: So where is the difference?
But I think that there has been a very clear difference described from a person that is changing meters today, and 113 BILL NO. 000318 then being elevated to this new level of now, all of the sudden, that person is no longer a meter reader, this person is now a technician that has the ability to remove and replace an automated meter. So I think there is a difference. Because electrical contractors are licensed. In most cases, the principal of the company is a licensed electrician and the employees work under that license. MR. McBRIDE: It has also been testified to that we have been doing this for over 100 years, and the people doing it are not electrical contractors. They are people trained just like we are going to train these meter readers.
For 100 years, though, the people doing it were a department of PECO referred to as the Meter Department, all PECO employees that worked for PECO Energy, not a kid that was delivering papers a week before, and now he is a meter reader; and two weeks after he is no 22 longer a meter reader, he is now changing meters. So I think there is a difference. For 100 years the people that did that task were all highly trained personnel employed 114 BILL NO. 000318 by PECO Energy; correct?
May I offer something? No, that's not quite correct. These subcontractors are using the same hiring practices in hiring the same skill as PECO. And we ourselves, when we employ people as PECO, most, most often hire people to read meters, and then their career path was to move through into the meter department and become what we called energy technicians.
In my opinion, that is a big difference between growing an employee within an organization, a meter reader that becomes a driver, becomes back then we called them customer installation person, and then a meter installer. I think there is a big difference between growing an employee, training an employee, than having a subcontractor allegedly use the same hiring practices that PECO Energy. I respectfully don't agree with you. Thank you.
Councilman Ortiz. And after Councilman Ortiz's testimony, I am going to 115 BILL NO. 000318 hold on any further testimony on this bill. I have four highly paid city employees who have been sitting here since o'clock 5 on a bill, two bills, I think we could probably do 6 in five or ten minutes to get their testimony. 7 And I apologize. I normally do it 8 that way. We missed it this morning. So I 9 apologize. Councilman Ortiz.
We began the installation in Delaware County in May, just about a month ago. Our plan was to begin the installation end of June, first part of July in the city.
And the contractor that you hired, is he from Philadelphia or Pennsylvania? I know that this question might have been asked. The contractor, where is he from? MR. McBRIDE: It is the company that we currently contract meter reading services to. I don't know where their actual base is. They have been under contract with us 116 BILL NO. 000318 since 1994.
And they are installing these instruments that the Chairman showed me on the poles; is that it? MR. McBRIDE: No. No; that's the subsidiary of PECO Energy Company.
Not a separate company? MR. McBRIDE: No. It is a subsidiary of PECO that is putting the microcell controllers on. The discussion here is about the current company that we have under contract for meter reading services. To extend the employment of the current employee body there, we are going to send them to our module for safety on how to change a meter and then extend our employment, which was our goal.
We are going to hold off on any further testimony of this bill. 117 BILL NO. 000317 The clerk will read the title of the next two bills, so we can get the city folks out of here. I know they are anxious to get back to their office.
Bill No. 317, an Ordinance authorizing the McDonald's Corporation, 150 South Warner Road, King of Prussia, 19406, tenant of the property 942 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, to construct and maintain an electrified marquee and three-dimensional icon attached to the building and projecting over the south footway of Market Street and the east footway of 10th Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen. I am an Engineering Supervisor with the Streets Department. And I am here to testify on Bill No. 000317 on behalf of the Streets Department. Returned here is the bill authorizing McDonald's Corporation to construct and maintain the 118 BILL NO. 000317 following encroachments on and above the public footways at the southeast corner of 10th and Market Streets: An electrified marquee and the three-dimensional icon over the entrance to the building at the corner of 10th and Market Street; planters and fabric-covered awnings encroaching into the 10th Street footway at four window areas on the face of the building; architectural embellishments running along the 10th Street and Market Street faces of the building; and a permanent cloth banner projecting over the Market Street footway. All of these encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on both Market Street and 10th Street. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Anyone else wishes to testify for or against the bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill of the next bill.
Bill No. 320, an Ordinance amending Section 2 of an Ordinance, Bill 119 BILL NO. 000320 No. 990305, approved June 24, 1999, entitled, "An Ordinance Authorizing the Revision of Lines and Grades on a Portion of City Plan No. 120," by striking from the City Plan and vacating Carlisle Street from Oxford Street to Cecil B. Moore Avenue, and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, gas main purposes, and public utility purposes within the lines of Carlisle Street being stricken from the City Plan and vacated under authority of this Ordinance, under certain terms and conditions; by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Loney, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 20 000320. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an Ordinance requested by Mr. Rick Goldstein, Hangley, Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin, attorneys at law, One Logan Square, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. 120 BILL NO. 000320 The purpose of this Ordinance is to extend the time period to assemble the site for the Jump Street Project on North Broad Street. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable recommendation.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? Council Member Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Mr. Loney, I have a question with respect to notification. Although Carlisle Street is not a very widely used street, there are some people in the immediate community that use that. Is there any sort of notification process to the surrounding residents?
Yes. One of the processes of the Ordinance is the Board of Surveyors hold public hearings. Regrettably, City Council only advertises in the newspaper. But our charge is to go out there and actually post notices in the neighborhood, and, therefore, invite everybody to come in to that Public Hearing, which was held last 121 BILL NO. 000318 summer.