subscribe to ENR magazine subscribe
contact us
careers industry jobs
events events
Dodge Data & Analytics
ENR Logo
Web access will be provided
as part of your subscription.

San Bruno Fire May Cost California Utility More Than $4 Billion

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

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.

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."


----- Advertising -----
  Blogs: ENR Staff   Blogs: Other Voices  
Critical Path: ENR's editors and bloggers deliver their insights, opinions, cool-headed analysis and hot-headed rantings
Project Leads/Pulse

Gives readers a glimpse of who is planning and constructing some of the largest projects throughout the U.S. Much information for pulse is derived from McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge.

For more information on a project in Pulse that has a DR#, or for general information on Dodge products and services, please visit our Website at

Information is provided on construction projects in following stages in each issue of ENR: Planning, Contracts/Bids/Proposals and Bid/Proposal Dates.

View all Project Leads/Pulse »

 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.