Pacific Gas & Electric is taking issue with a proposed California Public Utilities Commission decision that would disallow recovering from customers over $930 million in pipeline safety enhancement costs. \u201cWe strongly disagree with the significant disallowances of cost recovery for these approved programs,\u201d PG&E attorneys Bill Manheim and Kerry Klein stated Nov. 16. \u201cWhen PG&E submitted the [Public Safety Enhancement Plan], it believed that every dollar of cost recovery requested was reasonable and that we had proposed a fair and equitable sharing of these costs.\u201d The utility opposes administrative law judge Maribeth Bushey\u2019s $930.6 million disallowance in capital expenditures from 2012-2014. The proposed decision would do five things: -Disallow all program contingency amounts included in PG&E\u2019s estimates for the safety plan; -Deny over $342 million in cost recovery for PG&E\u2019s 2012 expenses in automated valve, strength testing, and pipeline replacement programs; -Reduce PG&E\u2019s future returns on investment to the cost of debt by an estimated $130 million, something the utility calls \u201cpunitive\u201d and \u201cthe wrong message to investors;\u201d -Delete $123 million in cost recovery of PG&E\u2019s Gas Transmission Asset Management program (the proposed decision categorizes the management program as a remedial effort to remedy deficiencies in PG&E\u2019s recordkeeping); and -Adopt a 1.5 percent escalation rate and a 65-year depreciable life for gas transmission mains installed as part of the safety plan. PG&E\u2019s response calls the proposal \u201carbitrary and unsupported by record evidence.\u201d According to the proposed decision, PG&E\u2019s authorized revenue requirement increase is $277.8 million. That represents 36 percent of the $768.7 million revenue requirement increase requested by PG&E. The utility maintains that it won\u2019t seek cost recovery for any activities that must be undertaken to comply with preexisting regulatory requirements. But, customers should fund work that PG&E hadn\u2019t been obligated to perform before regulations required California natural gas companies to file plans setting criteria under which untested natural gas pipeline segments are identified for testing or replacement. PG&E requests modification of Bushey\u2019s proposal, including finding that recovering the 2012 costs of the programs are reasonable; that the return on equity for PG&E\u2019s implementation plan not be reduced from the return on equity approved in the most recent cost of capital decision; and that the utility\u2019s gas transmission asset management program costs are included in customer rates, since it counts as a significant technology upgrade. The City of San Bruno--the site of the Sept. 9, 2010, PG&E gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and left another 58 injured--also filed a response to the proposed decision. It supports the cost recovery limits and rejection of the requests for contingencies, but makes some recommendations of its own. \u201cAs currently drafted, the proposed decision does not guard against PG&E making the same reckless judgments related to natural gas transmission system investment and safety that it has made in the past,\u201d the city wrote. San Bruno recommends the utility be publicly chastised because it \u201cmade a choice to shift from proactive investment in natural gas infrastructure to nominal compliance,\u201d which jeopardized public safety. As part of its 2014-2015 general rate case, PG&E has asked the commission for $1.28 billion more than presently authorized spending levels in 2014 for investment in gas and electric distribution and electric generation infrastructure and new technology, among other things. PG&E also has requested additional increases of about $500 million annually in 2015 and 2016 to cover what it says are additional infrastructure improvements and increased costs of labor, materials, supplies, and other expenses.