Wired for corruption - Alta community center event

PG&E recently hosted a public meeting at the Alta Community Center, just across the street from one of their office buildings. John Rabe, the political liaison for Stop PG&E, attended the event on behalf of the grassroots group, expecting a formal sit-down presentation. However, what he encountered was far from what he anticipated.

Upon arriving, John was warmly greeted at the door by County Board Supervisor Cindy Gustafson. She was engaging, welcoming attendees with genuine interest. Inside, instead of a traditional presentation, John found a room filled with about 20 different stations, each manned by two or three PG&E employees. It quickly became apparent to John that this wasn’t going to be a straightforward Q&A session.

As he made his way through the stations, John, armed with knowledge and ready to advocate for the community, posed pointed questions. At one station, he asked, “Why is PG&E focusing on undergrounding power lines instead of using insulated wiring with necessary safety infrastructure?”

The employee’s response was vague: “The CPUC ordered us to install 10,000 miles.”

John, not one to let things slide easily, pressed further. “Who told you that?”

“I’m not sure, but that’s the fact,” the employee stammered.

“Wasn’t that actually part of a plan that Patti Poppe put together?” John asked, referencing PG&E’s CEO.

“I don’t think so. It was ordered by the PUC,” the employee responded, clearly unsure.

It was obvious to John that the employee either didn’t know or was given incomplete information. Moving on, he asked about the cost of undergrounding. “What’s the cost per mile for undergrounding?”

The employee replied, “I think it’s around one million per mile.”

John knew better. “Really? Your company’s reports show the cost ranges between three and six million dollars per mile.”

The employee appeared confused and struggled to provide a clear answer, dismissing John’s correction without much confidence.

John continued through the event, engaging with different employees. When he asked about PG&E’s profits from undergrounding, he was told, “They don’t make a profit.”

John, armed with detailed research, corrected the statement: “Actually, the PUC allows for up to a 10% profit per mile.”

“Where did you hear that?” the employee asked, visibly uncomfortable.

“From the PUC and your own company documents,” John replied. But once again, the employee denied the information, highlighting the lack of knowledge or transparency among the staff.

At another station, John raised a critical point about safety. “Isn’t it cheaper and faster to install insulated lines? Wouldn’t they provide better safety coverage over more miles?”

One employee responded that while PG&E does use insulated lines in some areas, they were focused on undergrounding in Alta.

John followed up, “Why?”

“In the long run, it’s safer,” the employee explained.

“How much safer?” John pressed.

“Well, it’s hard to measure, but trees can fall on the lines and cause arcing,” the employee said.

“Really? How does that happen with insulated wiring?” John asked, knowing that insulated lines would prevent such incidents.

The employee hesitated, unsure of how to respond. John then brought up the fact that fast trip circuit trippers could shut down power in 1.3 seconds, preventing fires. The employee acknowledged that this technology was used, but the entire conversation left John unsatisfied.

John didn’t stop there. At another station, he asked about PG&E’s lobbying and advertising expenses. “Where does the six million dollars for lobbying and advertising come from?”

“All lobbying money comes from the stockholders,” the employee confidently replied.

John, however, knew the truth. “Actually, the entire six million comes from the Wildfire Safety Fund,” he corrected.

“That’s a lie,” the employee snapped, clearly irritated by John’s challenge. But John calmly explained that this information came directly from a Senate committee report. Despite the facts, the employee refused to acknowledge it, growing increasingly defensive.

Throughout the event, John encountered similar interactions—PG&E employees either lacked the necessary knowledge or were misinformed about critical details. He had expected a more data-driven, transparent discussion but found himself frustrated by the lack of preparedness from the staff.

The highlight of the event, however, was John’s interaction with Cindy Gustafson. Throughout the evening, Cindy had been engaging with John, asking thoughtful questions and taking notes as they spoke. She was genuinely interested in the issues he raised, even calling over her aide to take down John’s contact information to set up a follow-up meeting with the leadership team of Stop PG&E. Despite having to greet other attendees, Cindy kept returning to John to further their conversation, leaving him impressed by her commitment.

Before leaving, John made sure to thank Cindy for hosting the meeting and for taking the time to engage with him. Reflecting on the event, he realized that if a few more members of Stop PG&E had attended, wearing their T-shirts, the group’s presence would have been even more impactful.

John’s experience highlighted a critical issue: PG&E’s lack of transparency and the need for better-informed staff to address the community’s concerns. Despite the frustrations, his interactions with Cindy Gustafson gave him hope for future collaborations and efforts to hold PG&E accountable.