service quality performance to provide consumers and the Commission a published metric, capturing PG&E’s progress toward ensuring all its ratepayers are receiving CFC submitted the detailed formula to comparable service quality. PG&E, as part of the Settlement communications. The formula was Had there been an oral phase, adopted as part of the Settlement, CFC would have argued for exactly as defined in CFC’s institutionalizing the formula submission. adopted as a permanent dimension of reliability reporting for PG&E aimed at ensuring consistent service for all PG&E ratepayers. 3. Liability Insurance (INSL) Verified. The Settlement CFC opposed Excess PG&E’s Agreement & Other Liability insurance CFC- Excess and Other Liability adopts half of budget proposal of $55.4M. Insurance Testimony, pp2, 3. proposed CFC’s Liability Insurance PG&E’s reduction. See expenses have grown at an D.17-05-013 at annualized rate exceeding 105. 20%. Insurance expense is a CFC- Excess and Other Liability function of both consequence Insurance Testimony, p.5 and frequency, and PG&E’s loss experience has contributed to the premiums the company pays. CFC provided testimony showing that while Northern California property value increases have contributed to CFC- Excess and Other Liability the company’s liability Insurance Testimony, p.5 exposure, relatively PG&E’s poor loss experience (claims frequency and severity) has primarily caused the steep premium increases the budget proposes covering. CFC testimony also showed how PG&E had offered
service quality performance to provide consumers and the Commission a published metric, capturing PG&E’s progress toward ensuring all its ratepayers are receiving comparable service quality. Had there been an oral phase, CFC would have argued for institutionalizing the formula adopted as a permanent dimension of reliability reporting for PG&E aimed at ensuring consistent service for all PG&E ratepayers. CFC submitted the detailed formula to PG&E, as part of the Settlement communications. The formula was adopted as part of the Settlement, exactly as defined in CFC’s submission. 3. Liability Insurance (INSL) CFC opposed PG&E’s Excess & Other Liability insurance budget proposal of $55.4M. PG&E’s Liability Insurance expenses have grown at an annualized rate exceeding 20%. Insurance expense is a function of both consequence and frequency, and PG&E’s loss experience has contributed to the premiums the company pays. CFC provided testimony showing that while Northern California property value increases have contributed to the company’s liability exposure, PG&E’s relatively poor loss experience (claims frequency and severity) has primarily caused the steep premium increases the budget proposes covering. CFC testimony also showed how PG&E had offered CFC- Excess and Other Liability Insurance Testimony, pp2, 3. CFC- Excess and Other Liability Insurance Testimony, p.5 CFC- Excess and Other Liability Insurance Testimony, p.5 Verified. The Settlement Agreement adopts half of CFC’s proposed reduction. See D.17-05-013 at 105.
219121220.docx