Here's a rundown of some recent happenings at the California Public Utilities Commission. Across several proceedings, the CPUC is using procedural tools (tracking accounts, accountability reports, cost-recovery sequencing) to shift risk and create future leverage.
DATA CENTERS
Draft Resolution E-5447 -- up for consideration on March 19 -- approves STACK Infrastructure's build-and-transfer of a switching station for its 90 MW San Jose data center in PG&E's service territory. Cost recovery and rate base conflicts are punted to FERC.
The main takeaway: the CPUC will let projects move forward first and push the financial disputes into later proceedings. That sequencing favors speed to energization over upfront clarity on long-term cost treatment.
CLIMATE CREDIT
CPUC President Alice Reynolds issued a proposed decision in R.25-07-013 (the Climate Credit rulemaking) ordering PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to pause distribution of the 2026 residential electric Climate Credit while it considers moving the credit to higher-billed summer months later this year.
The PD is a timing maneuver, not a change to Climate Credit amounts or eligibility. By pausing the spring 2026 residential electric Climate Credit, the Commission is preserving the option to redeploy those dollars into summer billing cycles.
Comments are due March 2.
UNDERGROUNDING
PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E jointly filed an application with the CPUC seeking approval of standardized methodologies to implement Senate Bill 884’s 10-year electric distribution undergrounding program.
The filing is a response to Resolution SPD-37. It asks the CPUC to approve a common benefit-cost ratio calculation methodology, an audit framework, and portfolio-level cost-recovery conditions applicable only to SB 884 undergrounding projects.
The utilities are pressing the Commission to situate benefit-cost testing, audits, and cost recovery in the existing Risk-Based Decision-Making Framework, rather than allowing SPD-37 to drift toward a bespoke or project-by-project construct.
SENATE BILL 1221
SoCalGas/SDG&E filed a reply in the CPUC's Long-Term Gas Planning docket defending their motion to amend existing Senate Bill 1221 memorandum accounts to track incremental, verifiable costs incurred in complying with a 2025 decision (D.25-12-042).
Responding to objections from the Indicated Shippers, the utilities argue that no petition for modification is required because they are not seeking to revise a prior decision, but merely to record costs associated with new Commission directives tied to SB 1221 implementation.
This is a procedural skirmish but with long-term implications. The utilities are only seeking authority to track incremental SB 1221 compliance costs tied to D.25-12-042, not recover them. But once tracking is authorized, future recovery debates shift to reasonableness rather than eligibility.
RISK MITIGATION
In the CPUC's Risk-Based Decision-Making Framework proceeding, Cal Advocates filed a proposal outlining an enforcement framework for utility Risk Mitigation Accountability Reports, responding to a directive in D.25-08-032 to develop a clearer accountability structure.
Cal Advocates is trying to embed Risk Mitigation Accountability Report enforcement directly into the General Rate Case cycle. By requiring violations to be filed in active rate cases and appended to future applications, the proposal would turn reporting deficiencies into litigation leverage.
More consequential is the proposed cost-allocation shift. Missed risk mitigation metrics or non-compliance would trigger shareholder-funded corrective actions. If adopted, the Risk Mitigation Accountability Report becomes a potential earnings risk mechanism, not just a reporting tool.
More details available at California Regulatory Intelligence.