perspective on essential infrastructure replacement. During discovery, CFC established that PG&E had not The Settlement determined a long-term Agreement funding rate that would suffice adopted in perpetuity. CFC anticipated PG&E’s that covering this matter position. See during an oral presentation D.17-05-013 at may have persuaded the 120. Commission to formally require PG&E to include an approach, for “in perpetuity” the following GRC application. CFC anticipated furthering our argument during oral hearing. CFC recommended reducing the budget from MWC ‘FI’ CFC- Leak Management Corrective $90.3M to $71.5M, based on Maintenance Expenses, pp. 2,12. the proportion of repairs reported to PHMSA in categories related to company conduct. The proceeding went to a settlement phase rather than oral hearing. Due to the settlement administration, CFC was not able to fully advance our arguments. Also, PG&E may have been able to produce arguments for why our proposed 50/50 resolution should have been a different apportionment. Instead, CFC participated in negotiating the settlement on Gas Distribution expenditures through TURN. The eventual settlement for D.17-05-013, p.54. Gas Distribution leak management expenses featured a $2.5M reduction. CFC accepted that solution, as it represented the only
perspective on essential infrastructure replacement. During discovery, CFC established that PG&E had not determined a long-term funding rate that would suffice in perpetuity. CFC anticipated that covering this matter during an oral presentation may have persuaded the Commission to formally require PG&E to include an “in perpetuity” approach, for the following GRC application. CFC anticipated furthering our argument during oral hearing. CFC recommended reducing the MWC ‘FI’ budget from $90.3M to $71.5M, based on the proportion of repairs reported to PHMSA in categories related to company conduct. The proceeding went to a settlement phase rather than oral hearing. Due to the settlement administration, CFC was not able to fully advance our arguments. Also, PG&E may have been able to produce arguments for why our proposed 50/50 resolution should have been a different apportionment. Instead, CFC participated in negotiating the settlement on Gas Distribution expenditures through TURN. The eventual settlement for Gas Distribution leak management expenses featured a $2.5M reduction. CFC accepted that solution, as it represented the only CFC- Leak Management Corrective Maintenance Expenses, pp. 2,12. D.17-05-013, p.54. The Settlement Agreement adopted PG&E’s position. See D.17-05-013 at 120.
219649185.docx