> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.calregulatory.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # WEDNESDAY AGGREGATE: FERC Large-Load Order Enters PG&E Tariff Case as CPUC Delays Google Vote - URL: https://www.calregulatory.com/wednesday-aggregate-30/ - Published: 2026-08-13T00:34:22.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-22T23:59:36.000Z - Author: MC - Tags: biomethane procurement, San Jose data center, Kincade Fire, Dixie Fire, EL26-71-000, Federal Power Act, R.24-01-018, High Fire-Threat District map, Standard Biomethane Procurement Methodology, Renewable Gas Procurement Plan, Renewable Gas Standard Large loads lead Wednesday’s aggregate. FERC has landed squarely in PG&E’s transmission-level tariff case, forcing the CPUC to consider how its rules for data centers and other enormous customers would fit within a CAISO-wide regime. Also Wednesday: a draft resolution would put the CPUC’s Energy Division in charge of distribution-equity modeling, and a proposed decision would reject SCE’s bid to remove 61 areas from the state’s fire-threat map. Elsewhere, PG&E rate talks accelerate, and the major gas utilities move to widen eligibility for biomethane procurement. Two voting-meeting updates: - The Commission has [delayed action](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M614/K701/614701903.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) on Draft Resolution E-5455, which addresses PG&E’s agreement to energize Google’s 250 MW San Jose data center. The item moves from the CPUC’s **August 13** voting meeting to **September 3**; and - The CPUC has also [delayed action](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M614/K701/614701903.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) on two competing PDs that address PG&E’s request to exclude Kincade- and Dixie-related financing from its regulatory capital structure. More information on those items is available [here](https://www.calregulatory.com/august-13-2026-cpuc-voting-meeting-preview-competing-capital-structure-pds-lead-pg-e-heavy-agenda/). Like Draft Resolution E-5455, both PDs tentatively move to the September 3 agenda. --- ### PG&E TRANSMISSION-LEVEL SERVICE The CPUC issued [a ruling](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M613/K880/613880295.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) in PG&E's Electric Rule 30 proceeding (A.24-11-007) to take comments on a recent FERC [show-cause order](https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/EL26-71-000.pdf?ref=calregulatory.com) affecting large-load transmission service. FERC issued the order under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, in Docket EL26-71-000\. Its preliminary conclusion was blunt: the CAISO's tariffs, and those of the transmission owners, may no longer be just and reasonable because they never say how the grid should absorb a wave of enormous new customers. They set no clear timeline for studying a large load's request, no way to turn back speculative ones, no settled method for assigning the cost of network upgrades. FERC gave the CAISO 60 days to defend those tariffs or rewrite them. FERC's questions are the CPUC's questions. The CPUC had already set aside cost causation and recovery for more testimony, letting Rule 30 run in the meantime only for customers who prefund their upgrades in full. Refunds, interest, and repayment were all deferred to the final decision. Now the Commission asks whether the federal answer should shape its own, though FERC says any reforms would come slowly and only going forward. Opening comments are due **August 25**, with replies due **September 4**. **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** FERC’s order bolsters PG&E’s case for requiring large customers to fund the transmission upgrades needed to serve them. It also complicates the CPUC’s decision because FERC may establish CAISO-wide study and cost-recovery rules that overlap Rule 30\. This ruling allows the CPUC to account for that federal action before finalizing PG&E’s tariff. Large customers should continue to expect substantial upfront payments without guaranteed reimbursement. --- ### DISTRIBUTION PLANNING The CPUC issued [Draft Resolution E-5480](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M614/K609/614609073.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com). If adopted, it would approve with modifications proposals from the investor-owned utilities for measuring equity in their annual distribution-planning processes. The draft resolution agrees that the utilities complied with a 2024 decision ([D.24-10-030](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M544/K154/544154869.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com)). It rejects arguments from Community Choice Aggregators and environmental groups that D.24-10-030 required verbatim adoption of five Commission-identified metrics. It nevertheless finds the utilities’ proposals insufficient on their own to provide consistent, comparable results. The draft resolution would require all three utilities to report five populations separately: - CARE customers; - FERA customers; - Medical Baseline customers; - Tribal community members; and - Customers living in disadvantaged communities identified under [Senate Bill 535](https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535?ref=calregulatory.com). PG&E and SCE had proposed a shared regression-based approach examining available grid capacity and project initiation, while SDG&E proposed load-growth and project-initiation metrics using a broader binary classification of circuits as disadvantaged or non-disadvantaged. Draft Resolution E-5480 concludes that combining the customer groups could obscure differences among them and double-count customers. Energy Division would apply a common analytical framework examining forecast load growth and available circuit capacity, along with the likelihood that identified distribution projects advance. The models would serve as screening tools for potential disparities rather than findings of inequity. The utilities must submit the forecasts previously reported in their 2019–2025 planning filings, plus current forecast and planned data, by **October 16, 2026**. Energy Division would publish the first public report in the third quarter of 2027 and subsequent reports during the first quarter of each year. Customer-sensitive inputs could remain confidential, while aggregated results would be public. The draft also would allow Energy Division to revise the required data template without seeking another resolution, provided it gives the utilities and proceeding service list 90 days’ notice. It declines requests to add disadvantaged-community information to the utilities’ interconnection maps or establish a deadline for addressing capacity disparities, leaving energization timelines to the docket addressing them ([R.24-01-018](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M524/K427/524427971.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com)). **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** Energy Division will determine how equity is measured across PG&E, SCE and SDG&E, giving the CPUC a consistent dataset for comparing where grid capacity is available and which projects advance. The draft resolution provides no mechanism for correcting any disparities the analysis uncovers. Its practical significance will depend on whether the CPUC later uses the results to change project priorities or impose new distribution-planning requirements. --- ### WILDFIRES Commissioner **Karen Douglas** issued a [proposed decision](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M613/K135/613135536.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) that, if adopted, would partially grant SCE's [petition](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M545/K343/545343910.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) to redraw the state's [High Fire-Threat District map](https://files.cpuc.ca.gov/safety/fire-threat%5Fmap/2021/CPUC%20HFTD%5Fv.3%5F08.19.2021.Letter%20Size.pdf?ref=calregulatory.com). As written, the PD would approve the addition of 47 areas in SCE's service territory while denying the utility's request to remove 61 areas. SCE built its petition on an updated fuel map drawing on recent, spatially granular data and a multidisciplinary analysis spanning fire behavior, fuels, meteorology, grid operations, risk management, and geospatial modeling. The PD concludes that extending the enhanced fire-safety regulations adopted in a 2017 decision ([D.17-12-024](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M200/K976/200976667.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com)) to the new areas would deliver public-safety benefits exceeding any additional (and currently unquantified) compliance costs. On the removals, the PD finds that the proceeding record does not sufficiently demonstrate that wildfire risk in those areas has declined enough to justify withdrawing the enhanced protections. Citing the inherent uncertainty in fuel conditions, weather patterns, and wildfire behavior, the PD determines that any cost savings from deregulating the 61 areas would not outweigh the safety benefits of keeping them in the district. SCE would remain obligated to demonstrate the reasonableness of any incremental costs it incurs applying the stricter requirements in the newly added areas. SCE would have 30 days after issuance to file a Tier 1 advice letter implementing the approved map changes, with staff review limited to confirming the revised map accurately reflects the decision. The new boundaries take effect on staff approval, and SCE would have until **January 1, 2027**, to reach full compliance in the added areas across inspection frequency, vegetation clearances, correction timeframes, and other obligations. SCE's map has previously been expanded once by petition, in [D.20-12-030](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M356/K223/356223869.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com), and now faces a proposed second expansion that will have no legal effect unless the Commission votes to adopt it. The earliest the CPUC will consider the item is **September 3**. **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** The PD treats existing High Fire-Threat District designations as sticky regardless of a utility's own reassessment of local conditions. For SCE, that forecloses the near-term path to trimming inspection, vegetation-management, and correction obligations in the 61 contested areas even with a detailed, multidisciplinary showing behind it. Until a true institutional process exists, utilities should expect the CPUC to favor additions over removals and default to the status quo whenever fuel, weather, and fire-behavior evidence leaves room for doubt. --- ### PG&E RATE DESIGN Settlement talks in PG&E's 2023 General Rate Case Phase II picked up pace over the past month, with the number of conferences climbing from 30 as of July 10 to 53 as of August 7, the utility told the CPUC in a recent [status report](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M613/K988/613988290.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com). Parties are close to a settlement in principle on PG&E’s proposed changes to its economic development rate, leaving a single contested item after six conferences. PG&E and CalCCA separately reached preliminary agreement on two of four contested items involving fees charged to community choice aggregation and direct-access customers. The central marginal-cost and revenue-allocation subgroup has now held 22 meetings, and PG&E has run nearly 100 scenarios to help the parties weigh potential compromises. Every party has made at least one concession from its original testimony position, PG&E said, although “many details” remain unresolved. Those marginal-cost values are needed to complete negotiations over business electric-vehicle rate design and portions of commercial and industrial rate design. **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** The volume of modeling suggests the parties are now evaluating potential settlement packages rather than just defending their litigation positions. Agreements on the economic development rate and parts of the CCA/DA fee dispute would resolve secondary issues, but the eventual winners and losers cannot be identified until the parties settle marginal costs, the inputs that will drive revenue allocation and much of PG&E's final rate design. --- ### UTILITY RISK ASSESSMENT Commissioner **Christine Harada** issued [a scoping memo](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M613/K175/613175609.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) for SCE's 2026 Risk Assessment Mitigation Phase filing. The ruling focuses on whether SCE properly built its benefit-cost ratios, weighed reasonable alternatives to its mitigation plans, and justified its risk-averse scaling functions and wildfire tail-risk treatment. The Commission will also examine SCE's proposed alternatives to its best-practice quintile tranching method for risks including cyberattack, seismic, hydro dam failure and physical security. Opening comments are due **November 18**, with reply comments set for **December 12**. **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** The ruling puts the analytical foundation of SCE's 2029 General Rate Case under scrutiny. By scoping in benefit-cost ratios, mitigation alternatives, risk-averse scaling and wildfire tail-risk treatment, the CPUC preserves its ability to challenge how SCE converts risk estimates into proposed ratepayer spending well before the rate case arrives. --- ### BIOMETHANE PG&E, SoCalGas, SDG&E and Southwest Gas [jointly filed revisions to their Standard Biomethane Procurement Methodology](https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/GAS%5F5241-G.pdf?ref=calregulatory.com), implementing changes ordered by the CPUC in [D.26-04-044](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M606/K216/606216379.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com). First adopted under [D.22-02-025](https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M454/K335/454335009.PDF?ref=calregulatory.com) to implement [Senate Bill 1440](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill%5Fid=201720180SB1440&ref=calregulatory.com), the methodology retains its two-part structure. - Part A scores a project by comparing its proposed contract price with a calculated break-even price. That calculation balances the all-in cost of renewable natural gas against the corresponding cost of conventional gas, including baseload supply, delivery, [Cap-and-Invest](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-invest-program?ref=calregulatory.com) compliance and emissions. - Part B scores environmental and other nonmonetary benefits. The two scores are combined into a weighted project score, or P-Score, with a lower number indicating greater cost-effectiveness. The score helps utilities prioritize projects, but feasibility, viability and other criteria identified in each utility’s Renewable Gas Procurement Plan will also inform final contracting decisions. Most of the revisions affect the mandatory prerequisites a project must satisfy before it can be scored. Utilities may now procure biomethane from any eligible feedstock without first meeting the diverted-organic-waste target, although projects using any form of co-digestion (including co-digestion without wastewater) must separately attribute their component feedstocks. Landfill projects are no longer categorically prohibited from accepting new organic waste. Instead, they must deploy advanced gas-capture and monitoring technology and demonstrate that participation in an SB 1440 contract will not induce project activities that otherwise would not have occurred. The filing also creates a conditional path for wastewater-treatment plants to use incremental existing combustion-generation capacity for biomethane production. Such facilities must comply with applicable air-quality requirements; use high-efficacy filtration or demonstrate that it would be ineffective or uneconomic; include the combustion in the project’s lifecycle carbon-intensity analysis; and use the power only for Renewable Gas Standard-related production, processing and upgrading. Part B also adds credit for projects near population centers that demonstrate net local-emissions benefits for community health and well-being. The revisions define who may serve as the “officer” providing required attestations and update the methodology’s terminology to reflect the state’s renamed Cap-and-Invest program. Protests are due **August 24**. **INSTANT ANALYSIS:** Allowing utilities to procure from all eligible feedstocks before meeting the diverted-organic-waste target lets a wider range of projects compete from the outset, while the landfill rewrite replaces a blanket prohibition on accepting new organic waste with technology requirements and a safeguard against the contract inducing a landfill to take in more waste. The wastewater-combustion allowance and new population-center credit are smaller adjustments. Scoring is basically left alone; the CPUC has widened eligibility while attaching conditions intended to keep that flexibility from eroding the program’s emissions goals.