San Francisco to Break with PG&E for Power Supply

San Francisco is escalating efforts to sever its longstanding relationship with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and transition to a publicly-owned utility system, following a series of widespread power outages that left hundreds of thousands of residents without electricity this winter. State Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 875 on Monday, February 23, 2026, aiming to remove legal obstacles that have historically hindered cities seeking to acquire their utility infrastructure from PG&E.

The move comes after a particularly disruptive outage in December 2025, when a fire at a PG&E substation cut power to over 130,000 San Franciscans for up to three days. City officials have criticized PG&E’s response to the blackout, citing inaccurate restoration estimates and a general lack of reliable service. “It’s just unacceptable,” Senator Wiener stated at a press conference held at City Hall, flanked by several city supervisors. “For decades, San Francisco has been trying to get out of this toxic relationship. The city has repeatedly offered to purchase PG&E’s infrastructure here in San Francisco, and PG&E keeps refusing.”

SB 875 seeks to streamline the process for cities like San Francisco to pursue a public acquisition of their utility services. Currently, the process is complicated by legal challenges and lobbying efforts from PG&E. The bill aims to create a more equitable framework for potential takeovers, specifically addressing what Wiener described as a need to “unrig” the existing process. The legislation does not mandate a public takeover, but rather facilitates a fairer process should the city choose to pursue one through eminent domain.

The push for a publicly-owned utility is fueled by comparisons to other Californian cities, such as Sacramento and Palo Alto, which already operate their own municipal utilities. Supporters point to significantly lower utility rates in those cities – up to 50% lower than those currently paid by San Francisco residents – despite what they describe as inadequate infrastructure maintenance and service from PG&E. The prospect of lower costs is a key driver for the initiative, particularly as San Francisco residents face consistently high electricity bills.

PG&E, however, disputes the claims that a public takeover would result in lower rates. The company argues that a municipalization effort would likely increase costs for consumers. This disagreement underscores the central conflict in the debate: whether public ownership can deliver more efficient and affordable utility services than a privately-owned investor utility.

The timing of this legislative push is significant, coming after years of criticism leveled against PG&E regarding its aging infrastructure and its role in devastating wildfires in 2017 and 2018. These fires, linked to faulty electrical equipment, have raised serious concerns about the company’s safety practices and its ability to maintain a reliable grid. The recent blackouts have further eroded public trust in PG&E’s ability to provide consistent service.

The bill is expected to be heard by the state senate committee around March–April of this year. Prior to that, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scheduled to present a resolution supporting SB 875. Four of the five supervisors have already publicly voiced their support for the legislation, signaling a strong local commitment to exploring the possibility of a public utility.

This effort is not entirely new. San Francisco leaders have been considering alternatives to PG&E for years, but previous attempts have been stymied by legal hurdles and the utility’s lobbying power. This latest attempt, however, is being presented as different, with a focus on creating a more level playing field for cities seeking to exercise their right to pursue public ownership. The success of SB 875 could pave the way for other Californian cities to follow suit, potentially reshaping the state’s energy landscape.

The implications of San Francisco’s potential departure from PG&E extend beyond the city limits. A successful transition to a public utility could serve as a model for other municipalities grappling with similar issues of reliability, affordability, and safety. It also raises broader questions about the role of investor-owned utilities in the 21st century and the potential benefits of public control over essential infrastructure.