homepage home
subscribe to California Construction magazine subscribe
newsletters free e-newsletter
advertise
industry jobs industry jobs
Dodge Data & Analytics
California Construction Logo
Order Your RISK FREE Subscription
comment

Final Cost to PG&E May Top $4 Billion for San Bruno Fire

Text size: A A

California utility regulators have proposed a $2.25-billion fine against PG&E for a 2010 natural-gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, but the San Francisco-based utility claims the true cost to its shareholders would approach $4 billion, including money already spent on safety upgrades.

Photo by AP/Wideworld
Regulators were sharply critical of the California utility PG&E after a 2010 gas-pipeline explosion
----- Advertising -----

The 30-in.-dia pipeline rupture killed eight people, injured 58 and decimated a residential neighborhood in the Bay Area suburb.

Earlier this year, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposed a total $2.25-billion penalty, which would all be spent on pipeline safety enhancements.

But in a brief last week, the commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division recommended that, of that total, a minimum of $300 million should be levied as a fine, paid into the state's general fund, "in light of PG&E's extensive violations of its safety obligations under California law and regulations."

The division's brief goes on to say the explosion was "directly caused by PG&E's unreasonable conduct and neglect for decades."

The explosion occurred when faulty seam welds in a section of pipe that was supposed to be seamless ruptured under the high-pressure gas. In a previous report, the National Transportation Safety Board faulted PG&E for lax oversight, inadequate pipe and inspection programs and poor record-keeping.

PG&E asserts the new penalty would impede pipeline improvements.

"We wouldn't be able to use that $300 million to pay for significant safety-enhancement upgrades such as hydrotesting, pipeline replacement or valve automation," says PG&E spokesman Daren Chan. "We feel that is a real disadvantage to our customers and to building a safer system. That's a real sticking point for us."

To date, PG&E has spent $800 million on its pipeline safety-enhancement plan, including strength-testing 485 miles of pipe, replacing 59 miles of pipe, automating 78 valves and, to allow for in-line inspection tools, retrofitting 78 miles of pipe. The work has been concentrated on immediate pipeline safety upgrades in heavily populated areas.

In addition, the utility says it has spent nearly $1 billion for additional gas safety work.

In its interpretation of the new division recommendations, PG&E contends that, so far, none of the nearly $1.8 billion spent would count toward the $2.25-billion penalty and that the burden to pay for the fine must rest on shareholders, rather than ratepayers.

This brings the true shareholder cost to $4 billion, Chan says.

Standard & Poor's Ratings Direct (which, like ENR, is owned by McGraw Hill Financial) notes that the penalty would force S&P to reevaluate the regulatory risk of doing business in California.

If the division's proposal is adopted, S&P would review its assessment of the California regulatory jurisdiction, says S&P analyst Gabe Grosberg, adding that "a downward revision to this assessment could affect ratings on all electric, gas and water companies that the CPUC regulates."

Keywords:

----- Advertising -----
New Blog: Vertically Speaking in Northern California
New Blog: Field Notes
Reader Photos
Photos from California Construction Photo Showcase
Dodge Lead Center
Search for local construction projects OR CALL 877-234-4246 and get a FREE Lead Now!
Search by Project Type & State





----- Advertising -----
 Reader Comments:

Sign in to Comment

To write a comment about this story, please sign in. If this is your first time commenting on this site, you will be required to fill out a brief registration form. Your public username will be the beginning of the email address that you enter into the form (everything before the @ symbol). Other than that, none of the information that you enter will be publically displayed.

We welcome comments from all points of view. Off-topic or abusive comments, however, will be removed at the editors’ discretion.