Like the Cities of Worcester and Cambridge, including additional utilities in regular meetings to discuss and compare infrastructure plans can generate additional opportunities for synchronization. Both Cities have been able to find these shared opportunities through regular in-person meetings where utilities and municipalities bring plans and discuss opportunities to adjust schedules.

For synchronized gas main replacement projects that generate cost savings due to coordination with municipal paving projects, agree that the gas company will share half of the savings with the municipality. Doing so will be cost-saving from the standpoint of the DTE 98-22 regulations because the gas company will avoid some or all of the cost of final paving. If half of those savings are provided to the municipality, the gas company will still spend less than budgeted that season on the gas main replacement project. Also, sharing the savings provides a strong incentive to municipalities to pursue and maintain coordination efforts.

If cost savings are applied towards replacement of additional leak-prone pipe, it can help the gas company stay on pace or potentially accelerate its timeline for leak-prone pipe replacement, while remaining on-budget.

The goal of this best practice is to ensure that money saved through coordination returns to the departments responsible for the coordination, such as Public Works, Water and/or Sewer. Those departments can use the savings potentially to help fund its coordination efforts, such as paying for staff time to update infrastructure plans and input into GIS or to pave additional roads. By default, payments to the municipality will go into the general fund, eligible for allocation anywhere in the municipal budget. It is possible to create a special revenue fund so that payments are allocated to a specific department. A special revenue fund requires approval from the legislature. MAPC can help explore this if desired. In the interim, municipalities may want to seek informal agreement within the municipal government that the payments will be prioritized to be added to the appropriate department’s budget.

In the City of Worcester’s Cooperative Patching Program example, the Public Works department identifies areas where more than one utility needs to perform infrastructure upgrades, and the roadway is in need of repaving. However, repaving may not necessarily have been funded or planned. If the utilities coordinate their work in the same construction season, then the City allows them both to avoid final paving. In return, both utilities provide shared savings to the City. The City uses the savings to cover a portion of the curb-to-curb replacement cost. Without the shared savings, the City might not have been able to afford repaving the road. And if the City did not repave, the utilities would have had to incur all of the final patching costs. The result is a win-win that leverages the shared savings to get more infrastructure replaced and streets paved at a lower cost for both parties than would otherwise occur.

Allow the gas company to start work on the first day of the construction season, so that they can take full advantage of the short construction season to replace leak-prone pipe.

Processing paper checks is time- and resource-intensive for municipalities, as well as the gas company. A few municipalities have chosen to invoice the gas company once or twice a year for all permit applications. This has reduced administrative time dramatically without the need for any new payment or technology systems. Longer term, implementing electronic payments would also streamline the payment process. It may require funding to acquire and support the software to manage the payments.

The majority of permit applications are currently done on paper and must be hand-delivered or mailed in. Simply turning the application into a PDF document that can be filled in electronically then emailed to the municipality can substantially reduce the administrative burden for the gas company. If using a PDF, create a fillable form so that a user can type in responses. Otherwise, the user must print it out, handwrite answers in, then scan and email it back, which is not nearly as convenient. A few municipalities are currently using online permitting. This can generate efficiencies for the municipality too. Submission rules can ensure all necessary data is entered, drop-down lists can allow only valid road names and addresses, and the data will all be stored in a centralized location which facilitates searching and reporting. Additionally, the review and approval process can happen within the system, rather than requiring tracking separate files or pieces of paper. Some municipalities have online permitting in other departments, such as building permits, but not in Public Works. Those municipalities should look to expand their permits to street opening.

Municipalities frequently reported issues with abandoned gas mains during excavations. These are generally not marked out during Dig Safe, posing a challenge and a safety risk. Municipalities will likely hand-excavate around the first main they find, and use the backhoe for the rest of the excavation. Not infrequently, that first main is actually an abandoned main. As a result, the municipality is then much more likely to hit and puncture the live active main later on. Where gas company records show an abandoned main, it should be included in the Dig Safe mark-out. Moving forward, gas companies should track the location of an abandoned main so that they can mark it out in the future.

The municipality should seek to have the gas company mark out abandoned mains when its records indicate their presence. Through discussion with the gas company, confirm whether this is possible and be clear how the presence of an abandoned main will be communicated.

Gas company records are not always accurate. Some of the pipe is over 60 years old, and records may have been lost, abandoned pipe not tracked, or soil conditions have changed the depth and location of the main. If and when municipalities discover errors with mark-outs, they should use the Dig Safe report form so that the gas company can be notified of issues with its data or identify the source of mark-out errors.

Gas companies reported that some municipalities rarely call Dig Safe before they perform their own excavations. This can result in hits to infrastructure and dangerous punctures. Municipalities should make a committment to call Dig Safe before any excavation.

Ideally, with improved notice by paving contractors of schedule changes, there will be fewer instances where union labor is unavailable. In the interim or when notification is short, consider options to improve response rate. This could include having the option to let qualified outside contractors move the gates or hiring additional union contractors. In either event, the goal is to avoid the cost and disruption of having to excavate and raise them after paving.

Eversource has piloted a soil compaction meter on some trenches with the Cities of Marlborough and Cambridge. The use of the tool could be expanded if it demonstrates improved compaction and less settling over time.

Municipalities felt that gas companies were not adequately inspecting their paving patches for settlement and pavement quality. Meanwhile, gas companies reported actively tracking their inspections and results. This disconnect indicates information is not being shared. Simply sharing the inspection data with municipalities would increase transparency and help prove that the gas company is in fact performing inspections and repairs. Alternatively, it may highlight that not enough inspections are happening, in which case actions need to be taken to remedy the situation.

For both leak repairs and gas main replacements, put plastic ownership tags in the patch. This will avoid future confusion about the responsibility for inspection and repair of failed patches.

Gas companies reported actively tracking their inspections and results, despite most municipalities reporting the perception that inspections hardly happen at all. Municipalities should request the records of paving inspections on some regular basis during the construction season. If patches are not being inspected, or inspections are passing patches that really should fail, the municipality can have a more informed discussion with the gas company about how to improve.

For both leak repairs and gas main replacements, request that the gas company put plastic ownership tags in the patch. This will avoid future confusion about the responsibility for inspection and repair of failed patches.

Gas companies report that their primary opposition to “flowable fill” is that it can change the way that leaked gas migrates out of a leak. This can make it more difficult for them to locate leaks in the future. To achieve better compaction and less settling, talk with the gas company about using a soil compaction meter during the restoration process. Eversource has piloted these in the Cities of Marlborough and Cambridge.

Natural gas in soil forces out oxygen, which is vital for the roots. When planting new street trees or replacing dead trees, it is important to check for the presence of gas in the air below ground. If gas exists, it may damage or kill the new tree. Municipalities could purchase a Combustible Gas Indicator used to check for gas when planning street tree plantings. Municipalities could also look at the annual gas leak data and the map of pipe material - hopefully shared by the gas company - to identify if the area near the tree is likely to have gas leaks.

If gas is found, make sure to report the gas leak to the gas company immediately. Do not plant a tree until the leak is fixed or cleared by the gas company. If greenery is needed, consider placing a planter on the site for flowers and shrubs in the interim.