Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
From Malena CaroloCalmness
This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.
Next week, state -owned utility regulators are planned to complete three years of efforts to preserve the only remaining nuclear plant in California, Diablo Canyon.
The final step: to say how the Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Pacific must spend and announce how it uses a controversial fee for the whole country to keep the facility open.
A member of the California Committee on Utilities, critical of the level of control given to the funds in the case, has twice retained the voting issue. Consumer advocates and nuclear safety claim that the commissioners will land an annual KISHA Fund of hundreds of millions of dollars for the utility company, which can be enriched with shareholders if approved, as suggested.
“The committee is ready to throw a towel and say that they are not interested in spending time and resources to combat this,” said Matthew Friedman, a lawyer for the Network to reform utilities. “They will leave PG & e to do whatever he wants.”
“They will leave PG & e to do whatever he wants.”
Matthew Friedman, a lawyer for the Network for Communal Services Reform, a consumer advocacy group.
PG & E claims that state regulators do not have the power to conduct the level of supervision overlapping by critics such as the usefulness reform network, and should not be subjected to how it can use the fee that the legislative has activated. He made the case that spending the fee for other approved areas besides Diablo Canyon could also help control customer costs.
Initially, it was expected to end this year for economic reasons, Diablo Canyon saw that his operations were extended to 2030 to provide California with more energy security while moving to renewable sources. a contradictory bilateral legislation This allowed the plant to continue to work, was approved after interruption related to heat in 2021, as well as a subsequent state report determining renewable energy, still did not meet California’s needs. Gavard Gavin Newo signed the bill in 2022.
Today, Diablo Canyon provides about 8% of the total energy of the country and about 17% of its energy without carbon.
The legislation was unusual as it allows PG & e to charge both its customers and those of other utility services a fee for the energy that the plant produces. The logic behind this move was that Diablo Canyon is a resource that benefits the whole country. But instead of handing over the specifics of the California Commission fee, which usually controls the complex and discussing process of raathi, it determines the sum of the fee directly in the statute – $ 13 per megawatt hour.
Called a “volume efficiency fee”, the fee aims to replace the return on the investment, which PG & E will usually receive for the plant and will provide compensation for any potential responsibility from the increased risk of starting a more remedy plant. It is predicted by the utility program to cost, in 2026, $ 190.8 million for PG & E customers, $ 59.7 million for South California customers Edison, $ 12.9 million for San Diego Gas & Electric customers.
PG & E shareholders are explicitly forbidden to benefit from the fees under the law.
But so far, the regulators of state utilities have refused to require PG & E to provide sufficient details on how they spend fees to confirm that the shareholders are not really benefiting.
“The California Law requires PG & E to spend voluminous performance fees to develop critical priorities in the public, including accelerating customer connections to the network and reducing operating and systemic risk. “Our proposal outlines detailed accounting mechanisms and controls that PG & is used to demonstrate compliance with state legislation every year.”
According to the law, PG & e is expected to use approved expenses at Diablo Canyon. If the fees are not needed there, it can spend on six other categories intended to take advantage of the public. These include:
- Add power to new customers online.
- Safety for customers and employees.
- Bring more renewable or zero carbon energy to the network.
- Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings.
- Network resistance.
- Education and communication.
The proposed solution adds some more restrictions. PG & E will be needed to write down how many customers take advantage of any project for which the fees are spent. You will also need to say how these projects help reduce customer accounts, although the audit published on Tuesday reduce this requirement, which allows PG & E not to comply with this aspect as long as it explains why.
PG & e is also expected to take into account how fees are spent in “basic categories of jobs”, pre -determined buckets that utilities already use to categorize their expenses for the Commission. These buckets have a cost limit – if the PG & is switched above the specified amount, the shareholders pay for the excess and pass, the shareholders retain the difference.
However, PG & E is only required to account for such categories in which the fee is used, preventing regulators from seeing the net effect on shareholders. The net effect is important, said utility reform network, as PG & E can strategically use it to give shareholders more money in general. And while PG & E will report all these categories during its general case, this case only happens every four years, unlike the annual submission of the Diablo Canyon Fell.
The utility reform group has suggested a broader reporting to see the flow of money better, which would allow the Commission to see better whether the shareholders of the costs usually cover funding with Diablo Canyon fees. The Commission agreed to its decision that the cost plans, as stated, did not have sufficient details to determine this at the moment, but such a requirement would be “too complicated if it is not impossible or speculative analysis”.
State analysis noted that the legislation has no security, it prevents PG & E from using the costs that would be paid by shareholders.
Concerns about the fees used for the benefit of shareholders has been brought up since the establishment of the law of 2022. Analysis of the State Assembly Noted that the legislation has no security, it prevents PG & e from using the costs that would have previously been paid by shareholders, “thus releasing dollars to pay rates at other capital costs (PG & E) can win a return.”
Defenders also requested the Commission to require PG & E to use fees to cover an estimated annual budget hole. Currently, PG & E predicted an operating loss at the plant with about $ 583 million on average each year.
The utilities reform network, the nuclear liability alliance and the Green Energy Institute asked the Commission to require PG & E to use fees to first reduce this hole before distributing money for other public projects allowed. Reducing this deficit, they claim, would reduce the bills not only for PG & E customers, but also to those of the other two major utilities that charge the fee. The money spent on the authorized public benefit projects, on the other hand, benefits only from the territory of PG & E.
The committee declined, instead, said that “strongly encourages PG & E to take into account its basic reasoning as a leading principle.”
PG & E withdrew strongly against restrictions on how it spends fees and reports that costs, as well as prior approval of its plans for fees. He also challenged the limitations of his fees or mandate costs to prove that his costs are reasonable. In a comment in March submitted to the Commission, the PG & E claimed that the fees were to be spent in the main categories of work exceeds the scope of the law in 2022. He also asked the question before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, stating that by requiring the issue in certain ways, the committee submits the law in the 20222. Diablo Canyon. “
Both courts refused to hold the PG & E case and the committee refused to request the usefulness to review its proposed decision.
This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.