July 12, 2025 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Time Of Major Tests For Utility Regulators:

No state agency over the years has so disregarded the interests of both ordinary citizens and business owners as the state Public Utilities Commission.

Not only has it failed to adequately supervise safety of things like natural gas pipelines, but its decisions have consistently taken the side of large utilities over their customers.

From secrecy about the costs of the huge new Mojave Desert solar power installations due to come online in the next two years to its dividing of more than $10 billion in restitution money paid by out-of-state electric generating companies that created the energy crunch of the early 2000s, the PUC has always favored the utilities it was created to regulate.

But with four of its five current commissioners appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, the commission now has several opportunities to change its ways.

One key decision will come when it decides how to distribute $750 million in cash and credits about to be repaid by Powerex Corp., a subsidiary of British Columbia’s government-owned BC Hydro, which gouged Californians during the crunch. If all or almost all that money doesn’t end up as credits on the bills of customers of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., you’ll know it’s the same old PUC, even if most of the members have changed.

Then will come a key decision on how to penalize PG&E for its negligence leading to the 2010 gas pipeline explosion that killed eight persons and destroyed 38 homes in the San Francisco suburb of San Bruno.

The PUC’s own staff has recommended fining PG&E at least $4 billion, partly because the company had collected money for pipeline maintenance from its customers for decades, but didn’t do an adequate job on it.

But there may be complications if the PUC, as it should, goes through with the big fine. PG&E, pleading poverty, has told the regulators that if it has to pay the big fine – exponentially more than any penalty ever imposed on a California utility — it will likely have trouble borrowing money for capital expenses.

The company wants to pass any increases in the interest rates it pays through to consumers on their monthly bills for both gas and electricity. PG&E claims the fine would make its bonds less attractive to investors.

That sets up yet another big test for the PUC: It can go along with PG&E according to the commission’s age-old pattern of always giving utilities at least the majority of any rate increase they ask for – and PG&E indicates it might seek as much as a 4 percent rate increase for added interest expense – or it can refuse and force the company and its shareholders to absorb that cost.

The company says it will not pass along any direct costs of its fine to customers. But it says added interest costs would be an indirect cost and it feels entitled to pass that on.

But why should consumers, who paid billions in maintenance money over several decades, pay anything for PG&E’s problems?

As long as the company can aborb those costs and still remain solvent, there’s no way consumers should be charged even 1 cent for PG&E’s mistakes.

It’s much the same question the commission also faces with Edison’s errors in replacing key parts of its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, now shuttered and about to be completely decommissioned and torn down as a result of faulty parts the company ordered and installed.

No one has adequately explained why Edison and SDG&E customers, who paid the costs of building and maintaining San Onofre for decades – including hundreds of millions earmarked for the plant’s eventual decommissioning – should pay anything more for the teardown.

Put these cases all together and this fall is plainly a time of serious tests for the PUC. Only if it decides all of them in favor of consumers can the new commissioners establish that they actually care about the interests of the people who pay all the rates and expenses of the state’s three big privately-owned utilities.

in Opinion
<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t.Column: Happy Fourth of July 

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) hopes you are enjoying a great 3-day weekend as part of your...

SM.a.r.t Column: Cities That Never Shut Up – The Roaring Cost of Urban Noise

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

In today’s cities, silence isn’t golden—it’s extinct. From sunrise to insomnia, we’re trapped in a nonstop symphony of shrieking car...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Needs to See the Light

June 19, 2025

June 19, 2025

How Santa Monica’s Growing Light Pollution Is Eroding Human Health, Safety, and Sanity There was a time when our coastal...

SM.a.r.t Column: California’s Transit Death Spiral: How Housing Mandates Are Backfiring

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

California’s ambitious housing mandates were supposed to solve the affordability crisis. Instead, they’re creating a vicious cycle that’s killing public...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A City Dying by a Thousand Cuts

June 5, 2025

June 5, 2025

Santa Monica, once celebrated for its blend of coastal charm and progressive ideals, is slowly bleeding out — not from...

SM.a.r.t Column: Oops!! What Happened? And What Are You Going to Do About It?

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

Our Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t) articles have, over the past 12 years, collectively presented a critical...

SM.a.r.t Column: Why Santa Monica Might Need a Desalination Plant, and Maybe Even Nuclear Power

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Santa Monica is known for its ocean views, sunny skies, and strong environmental values. But there’s a challenge on the...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMO (So Many Options) Part 3: “Pie in the Sky”

May 17, 2025

May 17, 2025

SMO: Fantasy, Fact, and the Fog of Wishful ThinkingBy someone who read the fine print Every few months, a headline...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Owner Occupancy Protects Against Corporate Over-Development

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

This week SMa.r.t. will have as guest columnist Mark Borenstein. Mark is a long-time Santa Monica resident, a retired attorney,...

Opinion: Declaration of Economic State of Emergency in Malibu & Pacific Palisades: A Direct Result of the Devastating Impact of the Palisades Fire

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Malibu and Pacific Palisades Request Emergency Financial Measures By Ramis Sadrieh, Chairperson, Malibu Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce    On behalf...

SM.a.r.t Column: The World’s Happiest Cities

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Almost every year, we see new cities, regions, and countries that make the list(s) of our planet’s happiest and healthiest...

SM.a.r.t Column: A City for Everyone

April 20, 2025

April 20, 2025

Santa Monica dazzles with its ocean views, sunshine, and laid-back charm. But beyond the postcard image lies a more complicated...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: Rebuilding Resilient Communities: Policy and Planning After the Fires

April 13, 2025

April 13, 2025

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades and Altadena left an indelible mark on Los Angeles County. Beyond the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Innovative Materials for Fire-Resistant Rebuilding After the LA Fires

April 6, 2025

April 6, 2025

In the aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homeowners face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and...

Opinion: Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath Community Column Regarding a More Accountable Homeless Services System

April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

By Lindsay Horvath, Los Angeles Board of Supervisors This week marks a significant milestone in our fight to end homelessness...