PG&E just implemented their "Wildfire Fund Charge" on all commercial accounts - $0.00051/kWh starting November 2023. Our Fresno clients are getting hit hard, especially the agricultural accounts with high usage. I understand the need for wildfire insurance, but this feels like ratepayers funding PG&E's legal settlements for their own negligence. The charge is supposed to fund AB 1054 compliance but there's no transparency on how the money's actually being used. Anyone else in California pushing back on this?
PG&E wildfire cost surcharge - anyone challenging this?
Dan, we're seeing the same thing in Sacramento. The wildfire fund was supposed to be temporary until PG&E's finances stabilized after bankruptcy, but now it looks permanent. The real issue is PG&E gets to socialize the costs of their poor vegetation management while keeping the profits from operations. CPUC approved it but that doesn't make it fair.
Jennifer's right about the socialization issue. Down here in Arizona, we successfully challenged similar charges from APS by arguing that shareholder negligence shouldn't be recoverable from ratepayers. The key is proving the utility's actions directly contributed to the losses. PG&E's track record with power line maintenance should make that case pretty easy.
Patricia, the challenge in California is AB 1054 specifically allows these charges regardless of fault. The legislature basically gave utilities a free pass to recover wildfire costs from ratepayers. Our only recourse is challenging the calculation methodology or proving the charges exceed actual fund contributions.
Sarah, that's the frustrating part. AB 1054 was supposed to protect ratepayers by capping utility contributions to the wildfire fund, but PG&E found ways around the caps. The "Wildfire Fund Charge" is separate from their required fund contributions - it's basically double-dipping. We're paying for both the fund contributions AND the surcharge to recover them.
Has anyone looked at the CPUC decision authorizing this charge? Decision 23-11-032 might have some procedural errors we can exploit. The Commission rushed through approval without adequate ratepayer input. There might be grounds for rehearing based on due process violations.
Duane, I've got a copy of D.23-11-032. The procedural issues are definitely there - only 30-day comment period and no evidentiary hearings. But CPUC rarely grants rehearing on procedural grounds alone. We need substantive arguments about cost allocation or rate design to have any chance.
The cost allocation argument might work. Why should commercial customers pay the same per-kWh rate as residential when most wildfire damages affect residential areas? Industrial facilities in urban areas face minimal wildfire risk but pay the same surcharge as rural residential customers. That's classic cost causation failure.
Patricia makes a good point. The charge should be risk-based, not usage-based. A downtown San Francisco office building shouldn't pay the same wildfire surcharge as a home in the WUI zone. But good luck getting CPUC to reopen cost allocation when they've already approved uniform rates.
The other angle is transparency. PG&E reports wildfire fund expenditures annually but there's no real-time tracking of how our surcharge payments are being used. For all we know, they're earning interest on our prepayments while delaying actual fund contributions. We should demand monthly reporting with fund balance details.
Dan's transparency point is crucial. If PG&E is collecting wildfire surcharges faster than they're making fund payments, that's an unauthorized loan from ratepayers. The carrying costs and investment earnings on those float balances should flow back to customers, not PG&E shareholders.
I'm working with a group of large customers to file a formal complaint with CPUC on the transparency and cost allocation issues. If anyone wants to join, email me offline. Strength in numbers when challenging these utility money grabs. Individual complaints rarely get traction but coordinated efforts sometimes do.
Count me in Jennifer. Arizona utilities tried similar games after our 2020 wildfires and we pushed back hard. The key is framing it as a rate design issue, not a policy challenge to AB 1054. CPUC might be willing to adjust the mechanism even if they won't eliminate the charge entirely.
This is exactly the type of coordinated effort that gets results. PG&E is counting on customer apathy and the complexity of wildfire cost recovery to slip these charges through unchallenged. The transparency angle is your strongest argument - utilities hate providing detailed accounting of surcharge revenues. Keep digging into the fund balance timing and investment earnings. That's where you'll find the smoking gun.