.
Feedback

CPUC: PG&E, Not Customers, to Pay Majority of Costs to Upgrade Pipelines

In issuing the preliminary decision about PG&E's proposed gas pipeline safety plan, the CPUC said this is only the beginning of a permanent change that has to take place with PG&E and other pipeline operators throughout the state.

The CPUC issued a preliminary decision today to approve PG&E's new safety plan that would modernize its pipeline system, but PG&E will have to absorb two-thirds of the costs.

PG&E initially proposed that the upgrades to its natural gas transmission operations, which came in the wake of the 2010 San Bruno fire, would cost about $2.2 billion over several years. The utility wanted ratepayers to pick up 85 percent of the tab because the billions PG&E would be spending represents costs to meet new, industrywide standards set by the California Public Utilities Commission.

According to the plan, PG&E requested $768.7 million in rate increases through 2014 to cover initial costs. However, the CPUC only authroized $277.8 million, or 36 percent, of the amount PG&E requested because of the utility's previous mismanagement of pipeline safety.

The decision, authored by Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey and which still has to be approved by the five-member commission, also stated:

  • PG&E shareholders will bear the costs of pressure testing pipeline for which pressure test records are missing.
  • PG&E must continue its gas pipeline record management improvement project; however, due to past deficiencies in document management, the costs of this project and the proposed new computer database may not be recovered from ratepayers.
  • PG&E’s shareholders must bear the risk of cost overruns because PG&E’s past management decisions led to the need to undertake the massive project on an expedited schedule.
  • Shareholder return on equity for all safety enhancement capital expenditures is reduced from 11.35 percent to 6.05 percent for five years.

PG&E called the decision "wholly inadequate" and said it hoped the commission would reconsider its proposal when making a final decision.

“The proposed decision by the (administrative law judge) is wholly inadequate and fails to recognize the magnitude of the work that’s required to create a modern gas transmission system that reaches new safety standards and serves the people of California,” Tom Bottorff, PG&E’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs said in a statement.

“When this comes before the entire commission, we’re hopeful that they will consider the ramifications of this work and its critical importance to California,” he added.

The commenting period is now open for members of the public to respond to the CPUC's proposal. Comments by parties involved in the proceeding are due by Nov. 13, and comments from the public are due by Nov. 26.

A copy of the preliminary decision can be found on the CPUC's website.

Get daily local breaking news with our daily newsletter | Like San Bruno Patch on Facebook | Blog for San Bruno Patch | Follow San Bruno Patch on Twitter

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Bruno Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Claudia Quinn April 9, 2013 at 03:42 pm
Still vote for fuel pump cafe. It used to be called carrot. Her food is fresh and delicious. AndRead More she's in San Bruno.
Steve B April 9, 2013 at 04:11 am
By all means go to big joes! The place is small but thats what keeps it Great! good old San BrunoRead More Style not many left,I have lived in san Bruno most my life and remember a lot of the places in the pictures that hang on the walls. Great place
Mike April 9, 2013 at 02:53 am
Honestly, best breakfast is 'Millbrae Lyons Pancake Breakfast' but again, thats Millbrae.
watchfultaxpayer May 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Mr, Kiely, When they cut school days, isn't the savings in that the employees who directly work withRead More and for the children are deprived of that many days of pay??? Do the principals also lose 5 days pay? Does Hutt lose 5 days pay? Do the board members lose 5 days worth of their stipend. In other words, is the bad tasting medicine swallowed by everyone in the school district in a sincere effort to cure the ills of this school district Or is it just the teachers and the classified workers who are called upon to attempt a restoral of good health, the direct result of poor management and less than admirable leadership that has brought about ths crisis??
watchfultaxpayer May 15, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Mr, Kiely, Somewhere I heard that they were considering stopping contracting out PE at a largeRead More savings. Was that discussed last week? I was not abe to stay the entire evening. I question why they would have contracted for PE at the elementary level. Isn't that what recess and the balance of lunch time was for? Physical activity??? Thank you in advance for your always knowledgeable answer to my questions.
Chris Kiely April 30, 2013 at 09:54 pm
District cutting school days? The District is showing an agreement with the union which will saveRead More $200K. It doesn't show where the money is coming from, but the amount makes it look like they are cutting 5 days from the calendar. Dr. Hutt said at the last meeting that the length of the school year was still under negotiation.
Maria Pia May 16, 2013 at 07:56 pm
Have ya seen the spiffed up American Legion building!? Thank you to the volunteers ~Read More http://www.pgecurrents.com/2013/05/02/pge-volunteers-repaint-american-legion-building-in-san-bruno/