Sign in Subscribe
Public utilities

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Wildfire Mitigation Costs at Issue in California Public Utilities Commission Filing

Strategic Insights

— 1 min read

The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for recovery of wildfire mitigation costs, which has sparked a heated debate over the legitimacy of certain expenses. Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) has submitted a reply brief to PG&E's opening brief, contesting the company's claims and arguing that it has not provided sufficient documentation to justify the costs. The controversy centers around the utility company's vegetation management practices, which SBUA alleges have led to excessive costs.

Key Takeaways:

  • PG&E has not provided the required comparison information to justify the costs incurred under the Vegetation Management Balancing Account (VMBA).
  • PG&E has not quantified the extent to which customer requests for vegetation work contributed to the costs requested in the application.
  • PG&E has not justified its extreme increase in EVM tree removal rates, which was a predominant factor in the EVM costs sought in the application.
  • SBUA is requesting the Commission to deny recovery of unsupported VMBA costs and direct PG&E to transparently present incremental costs on a unit or programmatic basis in any future vegetation management cost recovery applications.
  • Arial Strauss, Regulatory Counsel at SBUA, has submitted the reply brief, which is a significant departure from PG&E's opening brief.
  • PG&E's vegetation management practices have been a subject of controversy, with SBUA alleging that they have led to excessive costs.
  • The Commission is reviewing the application to ensure that PG&E's costs are justified and reasonable.

Statistics:

  • 1 in 9 trees were removed from the GRC-approved level to an actual ratio of 7 removals for every trim.
  • The per-unit removal costs were lower in 2022 than forecasted, but the increased rate of removal was a predominant factor in the EVM costs sought in the application.
  • SBUA filed the reply brief on June 23, 2025.
  • The California Public Utilities Commission has extended the briefing schedule to May 15, 2025.

Sources:

  • Reply Brief || Small Business Utility Advocates
  • PG&E's Opening Brief
  • D.24-03-008
  • SBUA's Opening Brief
  • TURN's Opening Brief
  • Email Ruling Extending Briefing Schedule of May 15, 2025

Read more