Republish
Hedge funds’ proposal to ‘rescue’ PG&E is probably too good to be true
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Hedge funds’ proposal to ‘rescue’ PG&E is probably too good to be true
Share this:
By Mike Gatto
Mike Gatto is a Democrat who served in the Assembly from 2010-2016 and was chair of the Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee, opinion@mikegatto.com. He wrote this commentary for CALmatters.
The Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom are grappling with the most significant utility-related public-policy issue our state has faced in some time–California’s wildfire vulnerability and the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Crafting a legislative solution is challenging. Add an active bankruptcy court proceeding and billions of dollars at stake, and the stage is set for a complicated mess.
Recently, Wall Street bondholders made an unsolicited proposal full of promises: they would get PG&E out of bankruptcy quickly, pay the victims rapidly, and even rename the company.
Upon evaluation, the proposal isn’t good for the millions of Californians who rely on PG&E for power, the wildfire victims desperately in need of compensation, or the state as a whole.
Let’s start with some healthy skepticism.
I find it suspect that these Wall Street bondholders cast themselves as altruistic. Indeed, the consortium’s leader, Elliott Management Corp., is known for things like trying to seize an Argentine naval ship due to that struggling nation’s missed bond payments.
So I feel comfortable assuming it’s no knight in shining armor for California, and that its proposal has but one purpose: make as much money for the Wall Street consortium as quickly as possible, from our pockets.
Moreover, it could turn PG&E into a zombie company, laden with debt. The consortium wants PG&E to replace the bonds it owns with new debt, costing billions more, while hedge funds and bankers reap hundreds of millions in fees to underwrite and secure that debt.
And get this: the group would also take control of PG&E and install its hand-picked board of directors. Therefore, it’s safe to conclude that this proposal would end up similar to the leveraged buyouts we’ve seen in the past: a new master demands juicy returns, which lead to higher costs for customers, diminished service quality, and future worker layoffs.
But it gets worse.
In addition to the costs of these financial machinations coming directly from PG&E customers, who will pay higher rates, Elliott’s plan would have other consequences. It would diminish PG&E’s ability to invest in safety measures to prevent future wildfires.
It would hurt PG&E’s ability to meet our clean-air goals. And it distracts from the Legislature’s difficult task of trying to fix the wildfire mess once and for all. Each of these results would be bad for California.
I’m no fan of PG&E. Indeed in the past, I have been one of its sharpest critics. But the company recently underwent a much overdue house-cleaning after it filed for bankruptcy, and the new team has been willing to work with Gov. Newsom and the Legislature on comprehensive safety measures–something we never saw during my tenure in the Assembly.
It has followed the proper legal process, and it seems to recognize that it must compensate wildfire victims fully. Thus, at this point, I see no point in substituting in a set of distressed-debt profiteers for the current board.
A quick fix from a firm with a history of exploiting bankruptcies is analogous to a sugar high. Sure, there may be a short-term boost, but I worry about the ensuing crash.
Additional litigation, delay, and higher costs are the last thing California ratepayers need. If a proposal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Mike Gatto is a Democrat who served in the Assembly from 2010-2016 and was chair of the Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee, opinion@mikegatto.com. He wrote this commentary for CALmatters.