.
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, 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.

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos 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
Holly Bell May 12, 2013 at 02:59 pm
If the city council likes fake plastic nature, then let them saran-wrap their own yards! LEAVE OURRead More PARKS ALONE!! This is soccer special interest pressure on city government at its worst, and the city council appears unwilling or unable to withstand it. Crestview Park is a particularly quiet, serene, simple park with lovely views which the council now wants to turn into a sports arena. Any day you can go there and see families playing on the grass, toddlers and moms enjoying picnics and play time, kids learning to ride their bikes on the nice flat paved area, athletes and older folks enjoying the flat natural track (the only one in San Carlos) to get in shape, teens throwing frisbees on the lawn. It is a perfect place for ALL residents to enjoy according to their needs, not a sports arena dedicated to one activity at the expense of all. Belmont faced a similar lack of sports venues, but they did not choose to pave paradise. They wisely raised money and built a sports complex and spared their beautiful parks for use by ALL residents. I would like to see our city council do the right thing also. And by the way, the opposition to this short-sighted plan is far more than "some residents"! Please visit our booth at Hometown Days.
Brenda May 9, 2013 at 04:10 am
One summer my kid had soccer camp on at an artificial turf field. It was terrible. It madeRead More everything hotter and very uncomfortable. I had to pull my kid out of camp early because of it. I do not think it is better for the environment OR for kids. Just go to any turf field and try to walk across it on a hot day. Try to go barefoot on it (good luck!) We have been told not to microwave plastic containers because of BPA and bad chemicals that can cause cancer. What about heating up plastic grass and running around on it, breathing the fumes that come off it?? How is that any different?
R. W. Dehner May 9, 2013 at 02:20 am
Artificial turf is appropriate for dedicated use sports venues, not for multi-use city parks.
Gordon cook April 15, 2013 at 11:30 am
Thanks for doing this. The one blatant thing I observe on a daily basis is the number and frequencyRead More of deputy's at Starbucks on 800 laurel street and the sky kitchen. I never see them in the neighborhoods. The police department was much better