.
Feedback

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 state's public utility commission said this is only the beginning of a permanent change that has to take place with PG&E and other pipeline opera

The state issued a preliminary decision Friday 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, 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.

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.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Anselmo-Fairfax 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
Jessica Mullins (Editor) May 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for the feedback, John. To my knowledge, we don't have a comments stream anywhere. DefinitelyRead More submit your comments here (it's the most efficient way to get your thoughts heard at the higher level): http://ow.ly/l4cyg
Bren April 22, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Is anybody else here getting multiple e-mail notifications of new comments by Jo Tog, and thenRead More clicking the link, only to find that they are actually old comments from Jo Tog, but with today's date on them? What's the deal? Did all his comments get flagged and deleted, and now he's re-posting them? Most curious.
Sierra Salin April 22, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jo Trog, we live in a Corporatocracy, not a republic. We abdicated the Republic after 9/11, if notRead More before. Know the difference.
Hiba April 21, 2013 at 06:52 pm
Banning the sale in a free market economy is too strong. I believe people should be able to chooseRead More so long as the product is labeled correctly, and even placed in a section with a big sign that says "GM Food products". Would I buy it if I pass the section at the grocery store: NO.