A California Public Utilities Commission report that Pacific Gas & Electric failed to fulfill its responsibilities to properly maintain

On Dec. 21, the CPUC released a dramatic statement saying it would consider drastic steps to address the “serious safety problems” it says the utility has long condoned. The commission said a break-up of the agency into smaller regional utilities or a state takeover would be among the possible changes it examined.

“This process will be like repairing a jetliner while it’s in flight. Crashing a plane to make it safer isn’t good for the passengers,” said CPUC President Michael Picker. “This is not a punitive exercise. The keystone question is would, compared to PG&E and PG&E Corp. as presently constituted, any of the proposals provide Northern Californians with safer natural gas and electric service at just and reasonable rates.”

CPUC looking at seven possible major changes

The CPUC statement said seven possible changes would be considered.

– Having “some or all of PG&E be reconstituted as a publicly owned utility or utilities.”

– Replacing some members of PG&E’s Board of Directors with members “with a stronger background and focus on safety.” 

– The replacement of existing corporate management.

– Adoption of a new corporate management structure with regional leaders overseeing regional subsidiaries.

– Linking PG&E’s “return on equity” – the profits it shares with its investor-owners – to its safety performance.

– Breaking the utility’s natural gas operations and its electric transmission operations into separate companies.

– Ending the arrangement in which PG&E is controlled by a holding company so it becomes “exclusively a regulated utility.”

Picker’s statement was a remarkable turnaround from his comments on Nov. 15, when his upbeat remarks about the ability of PG&E to survive its fourth consecutive year of devastating wildfires in Northern California led the utility’s stock price to spike.

It reflected the anger among CPUC officials over a staff report released Dec. 14 that found the utility had systematically neglected natural gas infrastructure despite being fined $1.6 billion and convicted of six felonies in federal court over the 2010 disaster in San Bruno, a suburb of San Francisco.

Utility facing 500 lawsuits relating to fires it may have caused

Even if PG&E survives in something like its present form after the CPUC’s review, its future is still very cloudy.

Because of claims that PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire that killed 85 people in Butte County in November, U.S. District Judge William Alsup announced he was reviewing whether PG&E had violated terms of its federal probation in the San Bruno case.

PG&E also disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing roughly 500 lawsuits with more than 3,100 plaintiffs over claims the utility was responsible for many of the dozens of wildfires in Northern California since 2016.

It is also facing wildfire-related lawsuits from the state Office of Emergency Services, Cal Fire, Calaveras County and other government agencies.

But while the CPUC is apparently ready for major changes at the utility, it’s not clear yet how state lawmakers feel.

On Nov. 19 – even as criticism of PG&E swelled as confirmed deaths grew in the Camp Fire – Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, was reported to be considering introducing legislation to help the utility deal with wildfire costs.

Holden helped pass a law earlier this year that allowed PG&E to spread out the costs from the liabilities it faced from 17 wildfires in 2017.

Pacific Gas & Electric and its shareholders could face a huge financial blow from this month’s massive wildfires in the wine country of Northern California – unless they can get the state Public Utilities Commission to overturn a recent precedent-setting ruling made by its staff involving disastrous wildfires in 2007 in San Diego County. The PUC apparently is taking the request seriously, putting off a decision on whether to uphold the ruling.

The Bay Area News Group reported on Oct. 10 that Sonoma County fire dispatchers received many calls about downed PG&E power lines and exploding electrical transformers the night of Oct. 8, when fast-spreading fires began that eventually killed 42 people, incinerated nearly 9,000 structures and burned more than 245,000 acres. Cal Fire and the PUC are investigating whether PG&E is partly or entirely responsible for the inferno because it failed to trim trees near power lines, as is required by state law.

Now the Bay Area News Group is reporting that PG&E officials are pleading with the PUC to be able to shift the cost of such disasters to ratepayers even if a utility is to blame. PG&E faces billions of dollars in claims from this month’s fires but says it only has $800 million in insurance.

A PG&E official told PUC staffers that the state’s three giant investor-owned utilities – PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – have been put in an “untenable situation” because of growing wildfire risks and a tough insurance market.

PUC judges said SDG&E couldn’t escape $379 million in wildfire costs

But two months ago, two PUC administrative law judges – S. Pat Tsen and Sasha Goldberg – rejected a request for $379 million in relief from SDG&E in a case with parallels to PG&E’s situation. The ruling dealt with three 2007 fires in San Diego County that killed two people, destroyed 1,300-plus homes and charred more than 206,000 acres.

Based on evidence gathered by Cal Fire and PUC investigators, the judges concluded that SDG&E was responsible for the fires because of failure to do adequate tree trimming near a power line and because of slow responses to equipment malfunctions. The judges also rejected claims that excessive winds that couldn’t have been expected were responsible – a claim PG&E is making about this month’s fires despite evidence to the contrary.

Because of these circumstances, the judges said it would be improper to ask SDG&E ratepayers to cover the $379 million in costs that the utility had to pay after settling billions of dollars in claims and getting reimbursed by its insurers.

Suggesting it might have some sympathy for both PG&E and SDG&E, the PUC on Thursday again put off a vote on whether to ratify the administrative law judges’ decision.

PG&E’s call to let it shift disaster costs to ratepayers was immediately slammed by consumer groups – and not just because they saw this as the utility trying to duck responsibility for this month’s massive fire. They warned it would lead the state’s three large utilities to cut back on wildfire safety efforts, knowing they wouldn’t be held responsible for their lax efforts.

Fears that PG&E already does an inadequate job were bolstered Tuesday by the San Francisco Chronicle’s report that over a recent five-year span, PG&E missed the deadlines to complete more than 3,500 work orders in Sonoma County, many of which were safety-related.

With roots dating back to 1852, PG&E is an iconic California company that has endured its share of hard times, including going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 2001-2004 because of huge losses during the 2000-2001 state energy crisis.

But 2017 is shaping up as the 112-year-old utility’s most fraught year ever. On Jan. 26, a federal judge found PG&E guilty of five felonies for its failings in preventing a 2010 explosion of its gas line in San Bruno, a suburb of San Francisco, and a sixth felony for obstructing the National Transportation Safety Board’s official inquiry into the disaster. Judge Thelton Henderson leveled the maximum fine possible of $3 million.

Eight people were killed and 38 homes were destroyed in the San Bruno explosion and fire, which led to a record $1.6 billion PUC fine in 2015.