Legislation introduced to use PG&E fines to reduce utility bill for ratepayers

Seeks to keep fines from going into general fund so that they are only used to reduce upgrading costs

In an attempt to save PG&E ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 50 years, state Assemblyman Jerry Hill introduced legislation Tuesday that aims to use fines levied against the utility to reduce costs associated with upgrading its pipeline system.

Hill, serving his last term in the Assembly, is a candidate for the newly created 13th State Senate District on the Peninsula.

PG&E executives said earlier this year that the company expects to pay at least $200 million in fines associated with three separate investigations by the California Public utilities Commission into the deadly September 2010 San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.

In January, the CPUC also slapped PG&E with a $16.8 million citation for the utility's failure to conduct gas safety tests on more than 13 miles of gas distribution pipelines in several Contra Costa County cities.

Because of a CPUC order issued last year, all state gas corporations were responsible for developing a plan to implement National Transportation Safety Board recommendations for all transmission pipelines that were issued in response to the San Bruno explosion.

Current law stipulates that the money paid by PG&E for its fines will be deposited into the state's general fund, money that can be used

throughout the state.

According to Hill, Northern California ratepayers would be paying for 95 percent of PG&E's plan for the first phase of work to comply with the NTSB recommendations -- work that would address pipelines in San Bruno and other high-consequence areas.

Without the legislation, Hill's office estimates that PG&E ratepayers would be paying off more than $5 billion over 50 years for the $2.27 billion borrowed when the financing costs, PG&E profits and taxes associated with the improvements are included.

The cost of the second phase is estimated to be as much as $9 billion.

Hill's legislation would ensure the fine money is directly applied to the pipeline improvements, applying the fine money toward paying down interest on the loans associated with paying for the Phase 1 work.

"Given the unprecedented amount of pipeline investment that PG&E is proposing to make, any fines assessed to the utility as a result of the

explosion should go toward offsetting the costs that ratepayers would otherwise bear for safety upgrades," Hill said in a statement he issued on

the legislation.

"The fine money that would be generated should benefit the people who have been the victims and those that have really suffered over the years

because of the improper maintenance and operation of the PG&E gas and transmission system" Hill said by phone this afternoon.

PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer said today that PG&E has not taken a position on Hill's legislation.

Eisenhauer said the company supports the concept and registered support for a similar bill introduced by Sen. Mark Leno in February, SB 1350, which, because of concerns on its impact on the general fund, stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Hill said that his bill, which was co-authored by Leno, differs in that it is specifically tied to the San Bruno disaster.

Because the fines have yet to be levied, Hill does not expect strong opposition within the Legislature over the loss of the General Fund

revenue source.

"These funds are not going to be budgeted this year, regardless, and it could be years down the road before those fines are imposed," Hill said. "This gets more to the issue of equity and fairness."

— Bay City News Service


Like this comment
Posted by Better use the $ to provide supervision
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 31, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Public Utilities are supposed to be regulated by the PUC, who are not noted for doing a good job of that. Rather than take the money from the fines to do what PG&E was supposed to be doing all along, let's see if it can be used to pay for INDEPENDENT safety and fire protection SUPERVISION and INSPECTION of PG&E.
I suggest it be under the State Fire Marshal's Office.
Longshot: Maybe that will prevent such from happening again, and change their attitude.
PG&E has also taken specific additional funds that they collected (permitted by the PUC) to do tree trimming for fire protection for electric wiring for other purposes, including to reward their executives.
So far, the California PUC has never had the political desire to regulate.
They do as little as possible, as secretly as they can, and the power companies and utilities know it.
For example, the PUC also let BART build underground stations in Oakland without fire protection; and the Bay and Orinda tunnels without adequate smoke ventilation. When BART was asked to use fire retardant interiors on the trains BARD told the Fire services that they were not subject to city, or local jurisdiction, and would do as they pleased. Then the Bay Tunnel train fire killed an Oakland firefighter and injured many people. The plastic and aluminum train cars burned completely away, to the bottom of the window openings.
After the fire, Oakland Fire Chief Wm. Moore declared the Bay Tunnel a fire hazard, and ordered it shut down. It remained closed for over three months, until BART promised to fix some of the problems. It took them years to replace all the highly flammable interiors of the cars.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 618 views

Time for new collaboration between city and school district
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 412 views

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 15 comments | 311 views