.
Feedback

Hill: CPUC Should Reject PG&E Pipeline Modernization Program

Assemblyman Jerry Hill says PG&E's $2.2 billion plan, proposed in the wake of the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, would saddle ratepayers with the majority of the costs while the utility would unfairly make a profit.

Assemblyman Jerry Hill and The Utility Reform Network today are once again calling on the California Public Utilities Commission to reject PG&E's proposed plan to modernize its pipeline system.

The CPUC is expected to make a ruling soon on the plan, which was and will cost about $2.2 billion—of which PG&E says ratepayers should pick up 90 percent of the tab.

Hill, D-San Mateo, and Mark Toney, the executive director of TURN, are using a press conference in front of the CPUC's San Francisco headquarters to blast PG&E and accuse the utility of unfairly trying to profit off of customers for its mistakes leading up to the San Bruno fire.

Before the news conference, Hill said the CPUC should require PG&E to take the majority of the financial responsibility for modernizing its pipelines.

“Ratepayers shouldn’t have to pay PG&E higher utility bills for a level of service they should have been receiving all along,” Hill said in a statement.

In previous interviews, PG&E said it is only seeking to recover costs for projects carried out between 2012 and 2014.

"We're not seeking any costs from prior projects," PG&E spokeswoman Brittany Chord said. "We're taking a massive effort on taking a closer look at our system."

 

Sign up for the Pacifica Patch daily newsletter |  Like Pacifica Patch on Facebook | Follow Pacifica Patch on Twitter |  Blog for Pacfica Patch

Sign up for the Half Moon Bay Patch daily newsletter |  Like Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook | Follow Half Moon Bay Patch on Twitter Blog for Half Moon Bay Patch

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.