PCG: ALJ PD on Diablo Canyon seems a bit capricious, so room for upside

The PD has adjustments to employee, community, and energy replacement programs that PG&E believes are inappropriate and advocates for the settlement agreement to go forward as is. The significant differences between the settlement agreement and the PD are as follows:

The PD proposes that replacement power for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) should be handled through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) instead of separately through an independent track:
Our Analysis:
Instead of $350MM for the employee retention program, the PD proposes only $175MM, cutting the total provisions for employee assistance to $345MM from $520MM:
Our Analysis:
Complete denial of the $85MM in community assistance program (CAP):
Our Analysis:

Our Conclusion: Hearings are scheduled for November 28 with rebuttals due by December 4. We continue to expect a final decision (FD) by yearend. We’d expect the FD to … .

Continue Reading →

PCG 3Q2017: After great quarter is PCG bad luck or have bad karma or bad mgmt.?

Given 9-months’ of strong results, PCG should’ve bumped-up guidance and celebrated. Then BAMO! Wildfires! We wonder why PCG goes through these periodic tragedies. So, is it bad luck or bad karma? We don’t know, but certainly the market has spoken.
Now it seems PCG’s going to be mired in wildfire controversy for months, if not years, which likely means PCG is going nowhere despite strong results, good strategy and good execution, in our opinion
Other than wildfires, PCG marked another uneventful quarter. And, PCG continues to talk-up MT-LT AEPS CAGR, which we agree with
Given wildfires, we’re no longer certain that it has no need for new equity starting 2018
We continue to be intrigued with PCG’s pursuit of independent transmission projects with TransCanyon but there’s no project to be had

Continue Reading →

PCG 2015 GT&S Preliminary Decision

PCG: 2015 GT&S Rate Case: Ouch! ||

On May 5, 2016, the proposed decision and the alternate proposed decision, which is substantively similar to the proposed decision, were issued in the 2015 Gas Transmission and Storage rate case by the California PUC.

Table 1. 2015 GT&S rate case proposed decision (PD) ($MM)

2015

% Ute Ask

2016

% Ute Ask

Increase

2017

% Ute Ask

Increase

Utility Ask

$1,263

$1,346

+6.57%

$1,488

+10.5%

PD

$1,109

87.8%

$1,183

87.9%

+6.67%

$1,309

88.0%

+10.7%

Ex Parte Penalty

($164)

$0

NA

PD B4 SB

$945

74.8%

$1,183

87.9%

25.2%

$1,309

88.0%

10.7%

SB Related Disallowed Expenses

($158)

$0

$0

SB Related Disallowed Revenue associated w/Capex

$10

($51)

($107)

SB Related Penalty Adj. related to Ex Parte Penalty

$62

$0

$0

NET PD

$859

68.0%

$1,132

84.1%

31.8%

$1,202

80.8%

+6.18%

Source: Company data and Auvila Research Consulting

Continue Reading →