CPUC judge would let PG&E collect up to $456 million more from Jan. 1; vote could come Oct. 29

Thursday, Oct. 29, five commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) meet in San Francisco. Item 49 on their printed agenda, posted Oct. 19, would let Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) charge customers up to $456 million more in 2027 starting Jan. 1, before the commission has decided the rate case that is supposed to set those rates.

The figure is not PG&E's. It is the number in a proposed decision by Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Fox, mailed to the parties Sept. 22 in proceeding A.25-05-009. A proposed decision has no legal effect until the commissioners vote.

Which side of the line you live on

PG&E is regulated by the CPUC. SMUD is owned by its customers and answers to its own elected board, so a CPUC ruling on PG&E does not touch a SMUD electric bill. SMUD serves the city of Sacramento and much of the county around it. PG&E serves electricity in West Sacramento, Davis, Woodland and El Dorado Hills. The bills differ too: in its own rate comparison, effective June 1, 2026, SMUD lists $149 a month against PG&E's $290 at 750 kilowatt-hours.

This case covers gas as well as electricity. Anyone whose gas bill says PG&E is in it, whoever sends their electric bill. Look at the envelope before deciding this does not concern you. I did not find a record showing how many SMUD electric customers buy PG&E gas, and I am not claiming a number.

What the judge would allow

PG&E first asked the commission for $1.188 billion more in 2027 than it was authorized to collect in 2026. In its July brief it cut that to $885 million, after moving some costs out of the case, according to the proposed decision. On top of that, in May PG&E asked for "interim" recovery of 55, 75 or 85 percent of its request while the case runs.

Judge Fox's answer is $456 million, about 51 percent of the $885 million. It is built in two parts. Electric distribution and electric generation get 55 percent of their requested increases, $397 million and $146 million, or $543 million together. Gas distribution and gas transmission would go down; the judge allows 85 percent of those reductions, $54 million and $33 million, so they subtract $87 million. Her reasoning for holding below PG&E's ask: recent rate cases ended with the commission granting between 31.5 and 56.9 percent of what utilities requested. Her reasoning for granting anything: starting in winter avoids stacking this increase on top of other changes in summer, when bills run highest. All of it is subject to refund with interest.

What it does to a bill: the number does not exist yet

PG&E's own table for a typical residential customer, not on the low-income CARE discount and with gas and electric combined, shows a 3.6 percent increase on Jan. 1, 2027 if the full request is granted. The decision reproduces it, citing page 8 of PG&E's motion. With no interim recovery, the same table has the bill jumping 5.9 percent on Sept. 1, 2027, when final rates would arrive. PG&E's regulation page calls the case its smallest percentage increase in a decade and projects 2027 combined bills flat compared with 2025. Those two statements use different starting years, and I could not reconcile them from the record.

None of those figures is a bill for $456 million. PG&E built its table before cutting the request from $1.188 billion to $885 million, and the judge's mix of 55 and 85 percent matches no row in it. The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the consumer group that opposed the motion, told the commission on Oct. 13 that the table is "significantly exaggerated" for both reasons. The proposed decision has no dollar-a-month figure for any household. If you see one, ask where it came from.

Who is arguing, and over what

PG&E's reply comments on Oct. 19 urge the commission to adopt the decision unchanged to smooth rates. PG&E estimates interim recovery would save customers $14 million to $21 million in interest, a figure it gave in its motion. TURN says savings that small do not justify what it calls a departure from ordinary rate-case practice, and that summer layering can be avoided without interim rates. The Public Advocates Office, the consumer-advocacy arm of the CPUC, and a group of large energy customers also opposed the motion in June. The Public Advocates Office filed comments on the decision Oct. 13 as well.

The docket also records who is talking to the decision-makers. On Sept. 24 PG&E reported a Sept. 21 meeting with advisors to CPUC President John Reynolds and to Commissioner Matthew Baker, who is assigned to the case, and on Oct. 19 it filed a three-day advance notice of another. The Public Advocates Office filed one of its own Oct. 13. The rules require these meetings to be reported, and they were; the notices I read do not say what was discussed.

The vote moves the date, not the question

On Oct. 8 the commission adopted Decision 26-10-005, which nobody opposed. Whatever final rates the commission sets will count from Jan. 1, 2027, even if the ruling comes later, with the difference tracked in memorandum accounts that earn interest. So waiting does not avoid the increase. It changes how fast customers pay. The case's scheduling memo expects the final decision in May 2027; the Sept. 22 ruling set Oct. 28 for reply briefs in the case's update phase, the day before the vote.

What you can still do

The window for parties to comment on the proposed decision is closed; opening comments came in Oct. 13 and replies Oct. 19. Two doors remain for a ratepayer. Item 49 is open to public comment at the meeting; the agenda exempts only items 26 and 32. The agenda's cover lists an 11:00 a.m. start and its schedule table lists 10:00 a.m., so confirm the time and how to sign up on the CPUC's voting-meeting page. You can also add a comment to the docket itself through the Add Public Comment button on the proceeding's page; the CPUC says it does not post anonymous comments. If the item does not come up Oct. 29, the agenda lists the next meetings as Nov. 19 and Dec. 3, both in Sacramento.

How sure are we: the dollar figures, dates and agenda placement come straight from the filings and the agenda, read Oct. 20. What I cannot give you is the monthly effect on a household, because the record does not contain one.