.
Feedback

Hill, TURN Expose 'True Costs' of PG&E Plan

PG&E's pipeline safety upgrades would cost more than $5 billion, not the $2.2 billion the company has proposed, they said—and customers would be picking up most of the tab.

Updated 6:05 p.m.

Assemblyman Jerry Hill and Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, called on the California Public Utilities Commission today to take a look at what they called the "true costs" of PG&E's proposed plan to modernize its pipeline system.

Through their own research, they said they found that the first phase of PG&E's upgrades would be more than $5 billion over 50 years and not the $2.2 billion that PG&E first proposed.

Under the utility's plan, they said, customers would pick up the tab not only for the upgrades but also for debt interest, shareholder profit and taxes on shareholder profit.

PG&E  to enhance electronic monitoring and install automatic shutoff valves, among other changes, on its pipelines shortly before the National Transportation Safety Board  on the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, which left eight people dead and 38 homes destroyed.

The company has proposed that ratepayers pick up 90 percent of the tab, and it has defended that proposal because the costs would be used toward new, industrywide standards set by the CPUC.

Later in the day, the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates, an independent consumer advocacy division within the commission, released a statement recommending that PG&E—not the ratepayers—should fund the majority of costs associated with upgrading its pipeline system.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates said PG&E should not be allowed to increase rates to recover the costs incurred during the three-year period its first phase of improvements are slated to take place and that PG&E should seek other funding sources, such as reducing management bonuses and reducing its shareholders’ earnings.

“PG&E’s own failure to maintain its gas pipeline and record-keeping systems over decades led to the extraordinary need for infrastructure upgrades the company is dealing with now,” said Joe Como, the advocacy division's acting director. “Asking customers to pay 90 percent of the bill for PG&E’s years of neglect is wrong.”

The advocacy unit made several other recommendations to the CPUC in its statement:

  • Through 2014, ratepayers should not be responsible for any additional costs—expenses or return on capital investment—associated with PG&E’s pipeline upgrades beyond what the CPUC has already approved for 2012-14.
  • PG&E shareholders should be entirely responsible for all expenses associated with all hydrostatic testing during 2012-14 and should foot the bill for the replacement of pipelines installed since 1955.
  • PG&E’s rate of return on equity on the replacement of pipelines installed between 1935 and 1955 should be set significantly lower than its currently authorized rate of return.  

For more news about San Bruno, follow San Bruno Patch on Twitter and "like" us on Facebook. Sign up for our newsletter by clicking on the "Patch Newsletter" link on the top right of our homepage.

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/