According to Tom Dalzell, a union lawyer and Local 1245’s business manager, the change in ownership would diminish workers’ pension plans. PG&E union agreements require 30 years of service and 55 years of age to receive a full pension, and most employees would likely remain with PG&E rather than work for the city and take the hit, according to Dalzell.
“The city will be out there looking for a lot of very skilled workers to work in a very idiosyncratic, very complex network system,” Dalzell said.
Plus, PG&E has access to thousands of employees in the greater Bay Area who can respond instantly, whereas a municipality would need to call a contractor and negotiate prices — which could create serious reliability issues, according to Dalzell.
But those aren’t his only concerns.
The expansiveness of PG&E’s service territory allows the utility’s many customers to pay less individually for costs ensued from expensive fire-prone areas, according to Dalzell.
“San Francisco’s saying ‘we are a cooler coastal area with very low risk of fire, so screw the rest of California, we’re going to save a little bit of money,’” Dalzell said. “I don’t think the Board of Supervisors cares one little bit, or mayor Breed.”