PG&E Faces Backlash Over “Optional” Label for Microgrids in Certain California Fire Zones

Share Button

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is facing backlash for its proposal to label microgrids “optional” in certain California fire zones, a label that critics say would nearly double the cost of developing microgrids and result in fewer coming online.


Smoke from an approaching wildfire can be seen hanging over a housing development in Southern California. By StacieStauffSmith Photos/

The proposal emerged within a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to commercialize microgrids and implement SB 1339, which paves the way for utility microgrid tariffs expected to create more cost certainty and make microgrids easier to finance.

As part of the SB 1339 effort, PG&E is seeking approval for a Community Microgrid Enablement Program (CMEP) to provide technical and financial support for community microgrids in areas prone to public safety power shutoffs (PSPS).

In a proposed CMEP tariff, representing the three California investor-owned utilities, PG&E labeled microgrids as falling under Rule 2, or “optional,” a move that critics say will double the cost to developers by charging them for upgrades utilities make to their distribution systems to bring microgrids online. Opponents of the proposal would prefer to see microgrids labeled as “essential” so that at least some of the upgrades would be paid for through utility rates.

“One of the issues we have with the tariff is that no one was consulted about that or given any justification as to why Rule 2 comes into effect,” said Allie Detrio, senior advisor for the Microgrid Resources Coalition (MRC) and chief strategist for Reimagine Power. The CPUC has yet to approve PG&E’s advice letter so the issue is still pending review, she added.

Onerous fees

With Rule 2 in effect and microgrids viewed as non-essential, developers would have to pay sales taxes and ownership costs to help utilities pay for the system upgrades.

“If the (tariff) is approved by the CPUC, we hope that it will be modified such that microgrids developed under the tariff are not subject to Rule 2,” said Detrio.“Microgrids serving critical resiliency needs in communities that are in high fire threat areas or regions prone to PSPS events should not be subject to onerous fees like those assessed under Rule 2,” she said.

MRC supports efforts to develop community microgrids, but opposes establishing a CMEP tariff because the CPUC is supposed to develop separate rates and tariffs for microgrids as part a larger statewide microgrid commercialization effort under SB 1339, she said.

And the MRC, along with Community Choice Aggregators (CCA), wasn’t happy that one utility — PG&E —  developed a tariff. They fear it could result in a “fragmented and inefficient process” that would undermine microgrid commercialization in California.

“What we are arguing, given the need for microgrids and their value to ratepayers, these costs should be ratebased.” — McDuffie, member, Resiliency and Microgrids Working Group

The MRC also argues that the tariff was created with no stakeholder input on the terms and conditions or tariff language.

“The statute specifically states that the commission should develop separate rates and tariffs, which should be done as part of the CPUC public process with proper stakeholder input. The MRC believes that a statewide tariff should be adopted to promote consistency in microgrid development across California,” Detrio said.

Free Resource from Microgrid Knowledge Library

Energy-as-a-Service Municipal Microgrids
California’s Critical Facility Challenge: The Case for Energy-as-a-Service Municipal Microgrids
If California does not modernize its grid and power delivery infrastructure via sustainable premium power provided by microgrids, the state will be thwarted in its efforts to meet not only its economic and public safety needs, but aggressive carbon reduction and renewable energy goals. Download the new white paper commissioned by Schneider Electric that answers one of the most commonly asked questions: How can today's governments pay for the vital energy infrastructure upgrades they need? Enter Energy-as-a-Service municipal microgrids.
We always respect your privacy and we never sell or rent our list to third parties. By downloading this White Paper you are agreeing to our terms of service. You can opt out at any time.

Get this PDF emailed to you.

Tim McDuffie, a member of the CPUC’s Resiliency and Microgrids Working Group, said that he opposes the labeling of microgrids as optional and would like to see them treated as essential. In addition, he argued that the utility costs associated with adding microgrids to the grid should be rate-based.

The two extra costs associated with microgrids labeled as non-essential include cost of ownership and Income Tax Component of Contribution (ITCC) costs, he said.

The cost of ownership charge is a 14-year amortized payment microgrid developers would have to make up front or on a monthly basis, said McDuffie. It covers maintenance on upgrades needed to bring microgrids online. The second charge, the ITCC, is basically a sales tax that is added onto the cost of an upgrade.

He noted that there’s a precedent for ratebasing these two costs in net metered solar systems below the size of 1 MW. That’s because the solar systems benefit all customers, McDuffie said.

“What we are arguing, given the need for microgrids and their value to ratepayers, these costs should be ratebased,” he said.

Some PG&E funding available

Paul Doherty, a spokesman for PG&E, provided a fact sheet stating that the CPUC earlier approved with modifications PG&E’s CMEP, and that it included a capital expenditure budget of $17 million in 2021 and 2022 to help pay for the upgrade costs of adding microgrids to PG&E’s system.

“The capital budgets are available for costs actually incurred to provide certain upgrades to PG&E’s electric distribution system that are required in order to implement the islanding function of a community microgrid, or are deemed necessary by PG&E to ensure safe operations,” said the fact sheet.

PG&E will offset 100% of the costs for PG&E owned- and operated equipment, up to a cap of $3 million per project, said the fact sheet. This is for costs that the customer requesting upgrades would have to pay. Eligible equipment that could be covered include equipment to enable part of the grid to disconnect from the larger grid, PG&E’s microgrid controller and fault protection devices and hardening.

This funding will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis to customers who meet the requirements of the Community Microgrid Enablement Tariff. They have to complete a microgrid islanding study and sign a special facilities agreement, said the fact sheet.

However, the information provided by PG&E did not explain the company’s decision to address microgrids under the Rule 2 category.

Fewer microgrids would be built

Responding to the information provided by PG&E, Detrio said, “This is why we want a uniform tariff that applies to all the IOUs and has been vetted properly with stakeholders before it gets approved through an advice letter.”

It’s possible that opponents of the tariff could compromise and agree to have microgrid developers pay for the raw costs of utility upgrades, but avoid paying for the ITCC and cost of ownership charges, McDuffie said.

If the Rule 2 provision remains in place, fewer microgrids will be built to provide resilience in a state that’s grappling with wildfires and PSPS. In fact, without the microgrids, PG&E may continue to install polluting diesel generators near substations in areas affected by wildfires, said McDuffie.

“Additional fees that are assessed on microgrids when they are considered special facilities under Rule 2 are punitive and contrary to the resiliency goals of the state,” said Detrio.

Track news about California microgrids. Subscribe to the free Microgrid Knowledge newsletter.

Share Button


  1. PG&E is absolutely right. Why every single rate payer would bear the load of financing microgrids for a few, usually well off, people? I do understand you position because you have a keen interest on the microgrid business, but how would you justify that the costs incurred to build a microgrid shall be ported to the rates?
    Best regards
    Gustavo Brunello

    • Tim McDuffie says:

      Part of the CMET project is that these microgrids power essential buildings. It’s not about selling more microgrids, it’s about making sure people have the power they need to survive.

      I understand the counter argument but the notion that these are anything other than essential facilities is one that I cannot agree with.

      Thanks, Tim McDuffie

    • Right now, there are cities arguing the point of becoming their own CCA and installing their own renewables capacity. In that instance the city or town or even county CCA would define, and charge their sphere of influence ratepayers for the micro grid. When PG&E invoked a 72 hour PSPS in 2019, it was said to cost regional economies something like $750 million in lost revenues and commerce. How many times do you have to do this until the micro-grid pays for itself?

  2. Lee Layton says:

    I believe that the three US grids will eventually evolve into a system of thousands of micro grids. However shifting costs to other consumers is not the way to achieve this goal.

    Lee Layton

  3. Why does PG&E and the California Energy Commission resist the idea of enabling investors to partner with cities in California on Micro-Grid projects. Just as homeowners can purchase and operate a generator during black outs it seems a city could use a micro-grid like a generator to power their residents and businesses using municipal trash and area available urban yard wastes as well as storm, fire and demolition debris as feedstock fuels. What is needed today is distributed generation of greener energy that can power our energy needs on extraction of carbon from the atmosphere.

    • The scalable microgrid technology is available for demonstration. Find and contact me on Facebook for more info or Google Les Blevins and Advanced Alternative Energy.

  4. While not obvious at first glance this article raises two important questions about microgrids. 1) Where should the special facilities (isolating breakers, protective equipment, distribution line reconfiguration) needed for microgrid operation be installed? and 2) Who should pay for them? The PG&E Community Microgrid Enablement Program tries to answer these questions in a limited way by providing funding and technical support to local governments who will determine where critical facility microgrids should be located..

  5. Rinaldo Veseliza says:

    I am old enough to remember the days when Telephone companies owned all the infrastructure and ran all the payphones and residential phones through hard wires. I also remember when computers were run through large mainframes that only the government and big business could afford to run them centrally through cables. They are botrh now consolidated int my small phone. Power and Water Utilities are still so far behind because they are held back by big companies looking to profit. Now microgrids in both sewage treatment and power ditribution can be localized for the convenience, safety and financial benefit of the customer. Given its time has come and the public demands it and is willing to change, this too shall progress to make better, more sustainable communities.

  6. Rinaldo Veseliza says:

    Sorry for the typos