June 7, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

PG&E Gas Rate Request: New Standard For Chutzpah:

At the very moment that California’s largest utility company was being assessed a $14 million fine for failing to report discovery of flawed records on its gas pipelines in the San Francisco Peninsula town of San Carlos, the same company was asking for well over $1 billion in rate increases to pay for repairs to that very same pipeline system.

That alone would demonstrate remarkable chutzpah, the Yiddish word for sheer audacity and gall in overstepping the bounds of accepted behavior. But at the same time late last year, the company, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., was also asking the state Public Utilities Commission for a 12 percent increase in its ordinary rates.

If PG&E gets away with much of what it now seeks, you can bet on similar breaks for the other big California gas utilities, Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric, both owned by Sempra Energy, which has annual revenues of more than $10 billion.

It’s certainly not the first time PG&E, the San Francisco-based outfit whose pipeline exploded in 2010, killing eight persons and destroying 38 homes in San Bruno, has shown chutzpah, sometimes interpreted as insolence. “Negligent” was the word employed by the National Transportation Safety Board to describe PG&E’s conduct (along with a finding of lax enforcement by the PUC).

This, after all, is the same company that got away with using obscure rules to declare bankruptcy while sitting on plenty of resources during the energy crunch of 2000-2001, a move that allowed it to restructure itself for greater future profit.

But bankruptcy did not have a direct adverse effect on the consumers – residential and commercial – who finance PG&E. The requested new rates would.

For much of the repair and maintenance work PG&E (like the other gas companies) wants customers to pay for now should have been done years ago with billions of dollars in maintenance money consumers have paid via their monthly bills since the 1950s. It’s still unclear just what PG&E and the others did with the cash earmarked for maintenance, but plainly, not all was spent on that.

All of which means PG&E has not deviated from its long-stated goal of having its customers put up new funds for it to bring its system up to the level of safety it should have had all along.

The $14 million fine utility commissioners assessed against PG&E for its San Carlos misbehavior may signal some change in the attitude of the PUC, which has long given its obligation to keep the utilities financially sound a higher priority than its other big mission, keeping prices in line for customers.

“This penalty is to serve as a deterrent against similar future behavior,” said Commissioner Mark Ferron.

But only time and the PUC’s final decisions on both PG&E rate increase requests will determine whether the commission’s kabuki dance of the last six decades will continue. This dance has long seen utility companies make large rate increase requests only to see the commission cut them down.

Of course, no one but company executives ever has known how much they really needed to remain solvent – all we know is that no California utility has ever gone under, despite PG&E’s highly questionable 2000s-era venture into bankruptcy, a trip to financial purgatory that somehow did not cause even one of the firm’s top executives to lose his job.

What we do know is that consumers who paid billions in maintenance money over many, many years would have every reason for righteous indignation if asked to pay for upgrading the pipeline systems of any of the utilities.

The same, of course, would be true if Southern California Edison and SDG&E customers who have paid for years into a fund for use in the eventual decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, were forced to pay extra because now it really is closed. In both cases, the blunders leading to the problems were done by the companies, not their customers. Which means they and their stockholders, not the customers, should be paying the price of failure, whatever it might be.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Landmarks Commission Back From the Dead

June 2, 2023

June 2, 2023

For over three years, SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) has consistently warned that recently increased intense development...

SMa.r.t. Column: Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan

May 28, 2023

May 28, 2023

Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan Santa Monica, like many cities, requires a well-defined master plan to guide...

Pretext Stops Are a Vital Crime Prevention Tool

May 22, 2023

May 22, 2023

By Cody Green, Santa Monica Police Officers Association (SMPOA) Chairman and Lieutenant, SMPD  Recently the Santa Monica Public Safety Oversight...

Is City Government Listening to You?

May 21, 2023

May 21, 2023

Sometimes, it might feel like City Council members or local government staff aren’t paying attention to the concerns of residents....

New Program Can Help Protect Southern California Homes in the Event of an Earthquake

May 13, 2023

May 13, 2023

Residents Have Until May 31 To Apply For Seismic Retrofit Grants By Janiele Maffei, Chief Mitigation Officer for the California...

SMO (So Many Options) Part 1

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow)  The volume of discussion around the options for Santa Monica Airport (SMO)...

SMa.r.t. Column: Reusing Buildings for the Benefit of All

April 2, 2023

April 2, 2023

[Almost two years ago our colleague Michael Jolly prepared this analysis of the benefits and risks of repurposing existing buildings,...

SMa.r.t. Column: I Told You So

March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

On January17, 2015  SMa.r.t. posted a prophetic article in the Daily Press written by Ron Goldman FAIA advocating maintaining a...

Column: SB 9 Ended R-1 Zoning, but It’s Not Meeting Goals

March 11, 2023

March 11, 2023

By Tom Elias More than a year after it took effect, the landmark housing density law known as SB 9...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Urgency to Retrofit Earthquake-Deficient Buildings

March 6, 2023

March 6, 2023

Recent early-morning tremors off the Malibu coast, and the huge and terrible earthquake in Turkey and Syria have made us...

SMa.r.t. Column: ​​Reinforcing the Future – A Revisit

February 27, 2023

February 27, 2023

Six years go we discussed, in these pages, the city’s then-renewed earthquake-retrofit rules. At the time we argued that the...

Column: The Inevitable Conversions Begin Multiplying

February 25, 2023

February 25, 2023

By Tom Elias It’s a phenomenon from New York to Dallas to Fresno and Los Angeles, one that seemed inevitable...

Column: The Fantasy World of California Housing Policy

February 20, 2023

February 20, 2023

By Tom Elias If you’re looking for sure things among bills under consideration in the state Legislature, think of one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica City Council – Planners, Politicians, or Developers?

February 19, 2023

February 19, 2023

Santa Monica – a progressive city 20 years ago, a chaotic city today! A city that is struggling for its...

SMa.r.t. Column: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

February 16, 2023

February 16, 2023

The picture shown above is the future of Santa Monica. Large tall buildings along the Boulevards and Avenues plus Downtown...