4 ms·
Why do you think they can't raise their rates? They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identif
by thaumaturgy 8y ago
Why do you think they can't raise their rates?
They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identified a massive maintenance backlog and we need to raise our residential rates __% to clear it."
You can see this in action now, at https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu..., where PG&E has filed a new publicly-available 2020-2022 rate increase request:
> This GRC proposal will help bolster wildfire prevention, risk monitoring and emergency response. It will also add new and enhanced safety measures, increase vegetation management, and harden our electric system to increase resilience and help further reduce wildfire risk.
> Every three years, PG&E submits the GRC, a proposal for funding its core gas and electric operations. The CPUC conducts an open and transparent review of PG&E's proposal.
The CPUC, in turn, has to deal with angry residents and lobbyists from multiple industries.
You can find reporting from a rate substantial rate increase four years ago, at https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1
I think the quote from PG&E spokesman Keith Stephens in the SF Chronicle article I linked two comments up pretty well sums up where fault lies here:
"As we moved from more of a 'monitor only and fix when we can' process, we were much more focused on getting work done,"
PG&E's maintenance strategy for years -- set by management, not by a lack of funds or prohibition against rate increases -- was, "wait until it becomes a problem." CPUC regulators started investigating it around 2008, found a huuuuuuuge maintenance backlog, and then PG&E said, "oh, yeah, our new strategy now is to try to catch up on some of this stuff."
- edmundsauto 8y agoIt seems like an obviously poor decision to just be lazy, when they could theoretically raise rates to cover these maintenance costs. What information are we missing that could make sense of the decision? I know that rate hikes are heavily protested by citizens, so maybe there's some sort of political infeasibility? That would certainly be a mark against a gov't run critical service -- maybe it's really hard (near impossible) to raise rates to cover required maintenance.