On Feb. 22, a misleading opinion article appeared in the Sacramento Bee with the headline, “PG&E says splitting utility would improve wildfire safety, but there’s a downside.” We’d like to take a moment to set the record straight and dispel some misinformation.
In the article, columnist Dale Kasler cites PG&E’s latest CPUC filing and erroneously claims that the company document indicates that separating the gas and electric operations would increase customer safety. While the quotes that he excerpts in his column do appear in the filing, they were taken entirely out of context. In truth, the filing states that separating gas and electric could reduce the risk managed by each entity, but only after explaining how a split doesn’t inherently reduce the total risk.
The filing clearly states:
“Any discussion of the effect of corporate structure changes on a utility’s safety and performance must recognize that the exposure, drivers, frequency, and consequences of risks remain unchanged, regardless of corporate structure or ownership of utility operations. Whereas changes to corporate governance and management have the potential to directly affect safety, changes to corporate structure can affect safety risks only indirectly and, in some cases, may simply shift risk from one legal entity to another. For instance, a gas-only entity would not be exposed directly to the risks associated with electric operations but those risks would nevertheless still exist and still directly impact the electric business. There are, however, certain corporate structures that may prove better for implementing and overseeing a comprehensive enterprise risk management system and thus positively affect safety performance. An evaluation of alternative structures should consider both the potential benefits as well as the time and resources required to implement and align those new structures.”
The filing also identifies several downsides to such a split – but in Kasler’s column, he only discusses the potential for higher rates.
The filing is long and technical, and we don’t believe Kasler intended to mislead readers – more likely, he simply misunderstood the complexities and as a result, drew a faulty conclusion. IBEW 1245 has reached out to the Sacramento Bee to request that they issue a correction.
Local 1245 firmly believes that our members, as well as the millions of customers in PG&E’s service area, are best served through continuity, and that means maintaining PG&E’s current structure, which includes both the gas and electric businesses. The union has and will continue to oppose any sale or break-up of the company.