Into the Dark: PG&E and its Public Safety Power Shutoffs
Graphic produced and owned by DPR Designer Erika Ortega
Power out for thousands across the region. Homes and businesses in the dark for days at a time. What seems like a disaster may soon have to be considered the new normal for Northern Californians in light of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s new policy. This policy temporarily shuts down power to customers when the risk of a wildfire is increased, such as during an event of high winds. PG&E refers to these outages as “public safety power shutoffs.” This policy comes in response to more than $18 billion in damages that PG&E incurred for its role in causing wildfires in 2017. This payment has led the company to file for bankruptcy, and as a result, the state is looking to reorganize it.
A side effect of this attention toward PG&E and its public safety power shutoffs are calls to reexamine its status as an investor-owned utility. Some, including California chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America, have even called for a public takeover of the utility. Critics have claimed that PG&E is accountable to shareholders instead of the general public, as they are choosing to shut off power to customers, as opposed to making the investments necessary to improve the safety of their lines. Rather than being accountable to a corporate board of directors, critics argue, PG&E should be accountable to a public board. However, although PG&E designed this power shutoff policy, the California Public Utilities Commission, a public agency that supervises PG&E, voted to approve this measure, so it is incorrect to claim that the company can act without approval from the state.
Democratic socialists are not alone in calling for PG&E to be made into a public utility. More than two dozen mayors across northern California, led by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, signed a letter calling on the California Public Utilities Commission to make PG&E a customer-owned utility. Making PG&E a public utility would certainly end its practice of paying out dividends to shareholders and its propensity for donating to state and local politicians, with $5.3 million going to state and local campaigns in 2017 and 2018 alone. After all, a publicly owned utility is accountable to the general public and does not need to influence public officials unlike an investor-owned utility.
Along with PG&E’s investor-owned status, critics also take issue with its status as a monopoly, as consumers have little choice in their electricity provider. However, some customers do have some options in regard to their electricity services if they live in an area with a community choice aggregation, such as Marin Clean Energy. Community choice aggregations are programs through which local governments select and purchase which energy sources to provide electricity to the community. They often opt for greener sources, such as wind farms, rather than traditional forms of energy. However, the choice is still limited, as community choice aggregation still relies on PG&E’s transmission and distribution lines to deliver electricity to customers. As a result, while community choice aggregations are a great way to promote greener energy sources, they cannot solve the problems and mismanagement that have thus far characterized PG&E.
Another critique of PG&E is that it is too large and should be broken up into smaller utilities. Some critics have even suggested that California should move to microgrids, or “a locally controlled power system that can be connected to or disconnected from the electric grid.” However, the use of microgrids has been limited to smaller communities not within reach of a utility's transmission and distribution lines. Furthermore, it has not been tested on a larger scale. However, in the greater context of reforming PG&E, microgrids should remain as a potentially innovative idea in the toolkit.
A more technical solution to PG&E’s problems involves burying all of its power lines so they can no longer spark wildfires. However, underground power lines are susceptible to damage from both floods and earthquakes. In addition, PG&E estimates that it would cost roughly $2.3 million to install underground lines per mile of line. The company currently has 81,000 miles of overhead lines. As a result, any restructuring plan for PG&E to resolve its glaring safety issues would require a significant financial investment. With 125,000 transmission and distribution lines and 15 million customers, any reform to PG&E is no easy feat. In addition, PG&E has estimated the cost of inspecting and repairing its entire grid at $150 billion, so even if PG&E is a public utility, substantial investment will be necessary to fix all of its problems. However, we should expect more from an institution that provides such an essential service to every resident.
Furthermore, the increased risk of wildfires has been attributed to the larger threat of climate change, which looms over us. As the threat from wildfires and the impending consequences of climate change grow, we must act in radical ways, with more concern for people than profits. If we do not, we will all be forced to make radical changes to our present-day livelihoods and not on our own terms. It is up to us, as Northern Californians, to demand the change we seek or else we will be forced into a new normal of sitting in the dark.