PG&E’s lobbying cut back
While the political campaign spending of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was recently questioned by a federal judge, public records show the company paid far more trying to shape the debate in Sacramento behind the scenes than it did giving directly to candidates or causes in the past few years.
Since the start of 2017, PG&E has spent $12.7 million on lobbying, more than double the amount it contributed to people running for elected office, political parties or committees, according to figures from the California secretary of state’s office. The total includes money PG&E spent to influence both state lawmakers
and utility regulators.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E’s probation stemming from the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, last month ordered the company to account for its political payments following media coverage of its contributions and its maintenance of its highvoltage power lines.
In response, PG&E told Alsup on Wednesday that its contributions to candidates and other political groups since 2017 totaled $5.3 million — a figure backed up by state records. PG&E said the contributions are important to “ensure that the concerns of customers, shareholders, and employees are adequately represented before lawmakers and regulators.”
Late Wednesday, the company also filed its most recent lobbying report with the state, showing it is spending less than it did in 2018 but also underscoring just how great the company’s clout has been.
As with its contributions to political campaigns, PG&E pays for its lobbying through shareholder funds, not customer rates, said company spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo.
“Like many individuals and businesses, PG&E participates in the political process,” Paulo said. “We hold ourselves to the highest standards of public disclosure and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”
The vast majority of PG&E’s lobbying costs came last year, when the company spent $9.9 million, or $9.6 million excluding its contributions to the California Public Utilities Commission. That made it the state’s biggest lobbying spender in 2018, according to the Sacramento Bee.
PG&E’s efforts came after its power lines were involved in many of the October 2017 Wine Country wildfires and amid related debate in the Legislature. Lawmakers ended up passing a bill, SB901, that created a new process for utilities to pass wildfire costs along to their customers, among other measures.
The bill did not give PG&E the solution it really wanted: a change to the state doctrine through which utilities can be held liable for fires started by their equipment even if they were not negligent.
Patrick McCallum, a lobbyist for wildfire victims who lost his own Santa Rosa home in the 2017 Tubbs Fire, said PG&E’s true 2018 presence has a much higher — but unknown — price tag when considering other expenses such as advertisements.
“It was a bad strategy (and) inappropriate,” McCallum said. “It was just terrible.”
Through June this year, PG&E reported $876,445 in lobbying expenses, compared to $2.3 million during the same time in 2018. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in January because of its liabilities from November’s Camp Fire, which was started by a PG&E electric tower, and 2017 wildfires.
“They’re much quieter than they used to be,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s energy policy program.
Records show PG&E’s peers have spent far more this year. Southern California Edison and its parent company led the way, reporting $1.4 million in lobbying expenses through June while Sempra Energy, the parent of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Co., spent about $958,300, according to the secretary of state’s office.
Over the same time period, the California Community Choice Association — which represents community energy providers who buy power distributed on infrastructure controlled by traditional utilities — reported nearly $947,000 in lobbying costs.
Wara said the difference makes sense because the Southern California utilities — particularly Edison — had more to lose than PG&E, as Wall Street threatened credit rating downgrades if the Legislature did not act quickly enough to address the ongoing risks faced by electric companies in the state.
PG&E benefits from the bill, which passed, as well. But the company seems to have “wisely concluded” to let the other companies take the lobbying lead, Wara said.
“They needed not to be a very highly visible presence in Sacramento,” he said. “The more it seems like it’s a PG&E bailout because PG&E lobbyists are asking for it, the less likely it is to pass.”