Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
CPUC workshop debates future of Natural Gas Leak Abatement program, funding and reporting
Loading...
Summary
At a CPUC workshop staff and utilities debated whether NGLA goals should change, how compliance-plan denials and energy-division cost-effectiveness tests affect funding, and whether GRC proceedings or revised reporting should be used for hydrogen blending and RNG credits.
Participants at a California Public Utilities Commission workshop held an extended open discussion about the future of the Natural Gas Leak Abatement (NGLA) program, funding pathways and reporting for new fuel blends.
Fred, a participant identified by first name, told the room there is currently no formal CPUC initiative to add program goals but outlined how change would typically occur: either by legislative direction or through utility-initiated requests and staff rulemaking. “SB 1371 told the commission you gotta have a program,” he said, explaining the statute originally established the NGLA framework and noting that changes usually flow from legislative or formal rulemaking processes.
Several utilities urged using the General Rate Case (GRC) process as the primary forum to defend funding for NGLA programs. Renee, who identified herself as a senior analyst on the proceeding, said the energy division has placed a renewed emphasis on affordability and called the GRC a better venue to review and justify program costs than isolated compliance-plan reviews. “The GRC offers a much better forum,” Renee said, because it draws broader stakeholder review and testimony.
Panelists debated cost-effectiveness for low-emission-value repairs such as Class D leaks and whether the NGLA decision already allows exceptions. Fred noted a provision in the current decision that permits utilities to request relief if repairs would be excessively costly: "If the utility can demonstrate that repairs would be excessively costly, they can point that out and request that they not be required to do them," he said, describing that as a mechanism to seek a variance.
Utilities pressed how to demonstrate customer-facing benefits to ratepayers — for example, notifying customers of meter-side leaks or documenting co-benefits such as reductions in volatile organic compounds and public-health impacts. Participants also discussed whether methane capture from third-party projects (landfill or dairy digesters) could be reflected in NGLA reporting or the GRC; utilities said those activities are typically tracked in separate programs and contracts but could be described as ancillary reporting.
On hydrogen blending, Fred said the CPUC has no immediate plan to modify the NGLA reporting template but invited stakeholders to propose specific template changes for CPUC consideration.
The open discussion surfaced three recurring themes: (1) a desire by some utilities to relax or re-prioritize best-practice requirements that energy division found not cost-effective; (2) interest in folding some NGLA funding and program elements into the GRC process so stakeholders can review cost recovery; and (3) interest in public-facing metrics showing customer and public-health co-benefits to justify continued ratepayer support. The workshop closed with no formal decisions; utilities and CPUC staff identified the GRC and upcoming compliance-plan filings as the next procedural venues to resolve funding questions.
