Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Debate sharpens over who pays as PG&E’s Rule 30 and SB 57 bring cost allocation into focus
Summary
PG&E’s proposed Rule 30 interconnection tariff and CPUC’s SB 57 study were central to a hearing debate on how to allocate interconnection and generation costs, with PG&E arguing for customer‑funded interconnection and the Public Advocates office warning assumptions risk shifting costs to ratepayers.
The California State Assembly hearing moved from technical forecasting to a policy debate over who will pay to serve large AI data center loads.
PG&E representatives described their Rule 30 proposal as a means to accelerate connections while protecting existing customers. "Large load customers are required to fund the cost of their interconnection facilities upfront based on actual, not estimated cost," said Mike Maderos, PG&E’s vice president for strategic commercial solutions. PG&E said its Rule 30 package includes minimum demand charges, minimum contract terms (PG&E told the committee it proposed a 15‑year contract term), early termination fees and refund mechanisms so…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
