Another victory against PG&E as we start the new year
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) once again ruled against PG&E in San Francisco’s ongoing fight for public power.
This particular dispute centered around PG&E’s demand that San Francisco provide power to customers at unnecessarily high voltage levels – known as primary service – even though the customers are only using relatively small amounts of electricity. Forcing these small customers to receive primary service requires the installation of bulky, expensive equipment that is not needed for safety or any other purpose. For years, San Francisco has been safely and reliably providing electric service to these customers at the lower level known as secondary service.
San Francisco has argued that PG&E is making unreasonable demands to unfairly drive-up costs for public projects to pry customers away from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, a local public power provider.
In the decision in San Francisco’s favor, federal regulators noted that, “we determine that PG&E’s [wholesale distribution tariff] has not been shown to be just and reasonable, and may be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. Accordingly, we grant San Francisco’s complaint.”
The FERC decision also took issue with PG&E’s move to create an unofficial and unwritten voltage threshold that the utility arbitrarily set to determine when customers had to receive primary service rather than secondary:
“First, we find that PG&E’s application of an unofficial and unwritten 75 kW threshold for providing secondary service for San Francisco customers violates the filed rate doctrine, and that the criteria by which PG&E determines service level must be included in its (wholesale distribution tariff). Second, we conclude that there is insufficient support in the record for the Commission to find that a 75 kW threshold is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential … We therefore grant San Francisco’s complaint and set this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures.”
While this decision is favorable for San Francisco, PG&E has a long history of placing unjust and unreasonable demands, conditions, and limitations on the City’s public power services. In fact, over the past four years alone, PG&E’s obstruction has cost the City more than $28 million in additional equipment costs, delay costs, redesign costs, lost revenue when projects are forced to become PG&E customers, and higher energy costs due to PG&E’s higher rates. Recently, the San Francisco Standard reported that an SFMTA train system upgrade project was yet another victim of PG&E’s spiraling costs and years of delays.
And it’s not just in San Francisco. Fresno city leaders recently voiced their frustration with PG&E over delays in providing power to new developments. The Fresno City Council is scheduled to discuss hiring a consultant to study breaking from PG&E and providing its own power.
We have known for a long time that full public power is the best option for San Francisco, especially as PG&E’s unreasonable actions have grown. Today we have reached the point where pursuing public ownership of the grid is our only option to ensure that all San Franciscans receive safe, reliable, and affordable electric service today and for the decades to come.
As we start 2023, our fight for public power continues. We are advancing a valuation of PG&E’s San Francisco electricity assets at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) so the state power regulator can provide an independent appraisal of their worth. San Francisco is prepared to pay a fair price to buy PG&E’s grid in the City. We will continue to conduct environmental review of public power expansion to understand the environmental impacts of transferring PG&E’s assets to City ownership. And we will continue to build support for “Our City. Our Power.” through increased community outreach, education, and awareness.
Thank you for being a part of our movement for public power in San Francisco. We wish you a happy new year!
