PG&E outlines meter‑set leak prioritization, reports backlog reductions and targets for 2026

California Public Utilities Commission (workshop) · February 4, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

PG&E presented its meter‑set leak prioritization: class B leaks (13% of leaking meter sets) cause a disproportionate share of emissions (quoted as 56%), prompting targeted repairs in 2025, backlog reductions, and a 2026 days‑to‑repair target of ~180 days and anticipated >40% emission reductions to be published in the 2026 filing.

Shrikant Shah of PG&E’s Gas Emissions Strategies group reviewed the company’s focus on meter‑set leaks and the prioritization approach used in 2025 to reduce emissions most efficiently. He said class B leaks account for about 13% of the leaking meter‑set population but produce roughly 56% of meter‑set emissions, making them a cost‑effective repair focus.

Shah said PG&E’s backlog of class B leaks fell substantially through 2025, that the company repaired more leaks than it found, and that the utility expects greater than 40% emissions reductions from its 2025 efforts (the exact published reduction will appear in PG&E’s 2026 leak abatement filing). PG&E reported reducing the average days a leak remains open (noting multi‑year averages and a 2026 target of about 180 days; transcript lists earlier and interim figures for days open).

In response to questions, PG&E clarified that class A leaks are closer to the super‑emitter threshold (about 10 scfh), class B leaks are lower and generally not in the super‑emitter category, and that the company records leak locations and photos to support root‑cause analysis. PG&E said opportunistic repairs — bundling identified leaks with other scheduled premises work — and pilot repairs using tape/putty can reduce repair time and associated blowdown emissions.

The presentation closed with staff offering to provide emission‑rate tables and follow up on technical questions; no regulatory votes or commitments were taken at the workshop.