Full Breakdown
Utilities vs. Steyer: A High-Stakes Battle in California’s Governor Race
5/26/2026, 8:48:02 PM
Core Conflict
In the 2026 California gubernatorial primary, billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is being targeted by the state’s three largest electric utilities—Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE). State campaign filings show PG&E alone has contributed at least $13.5 million to independent-expenditure committees opposing Steyer, while the utilities collectively have funded ads and outreach that criticize his record and policy proposals.
Background & Context
California’s “top-two” primary system advances the two vote-getters, regardless of party, to the November ballot. Independent-expenditure (IE) committees, which may accept unlimited donations, have become a dominant force in the race. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sets utilities’ allowed rate of return, a point Steyer argues enables “perverse” incentives that favor costly infrastructure over cheaper alternatives.
Data & Statistics
- PG&E: $13.5 million (filings) or $10 million (anti-Steyer ads) spent against Steyer.
- Combined utility-backed IEs: $32.3 million targeting Steyer (record-setting).
- Steyer’s own campaign: $212 million self-funded, plus $1.4 million from supportive IEs (e.g., California Nurses Assn.).
- Statewide outside money: $79.6 million across all candidates.
- Unaccounted wildfire-prevention spending (2019-2020 audits): $2.5 billion.
Key Figures & Groups
- Tom Steyer – Democratic gubernatorial candidate, former hedge-fund founder, environmental advocate.
- PG&E, SDG&E, SCE – Investor-owned utilities serving Northern, Central, and Southern California.
- California Chamber of Commerce – PAC contributing $2 million+ to the anti-Steyer effort.
- Environmental Voters – Endorses Steyer; political director Matt Abularach-Macias calls utilities “threats to their business.”
- Anti-Steyer committees – “Californians for the People,” “California is Not for Sale,” and the California Chamber-sponsored “JOBSPAC.”
Official Statements & Responses
PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo declined comment on the utility’s spending, directing inquiries to the anti-Steyer committee. Steyer’s campaign framed the utilities’ opposition as evidence of his willingness to confront “special interests,” with spokesperson Sepi Esfahlani noting that being targeted by “the people responsible for devastating wildfires and outrageous rate hikes” validates his stance. The California Chamber’s John Myers asserted that the campaign’s spending “helps voters understand the cost of Steyer’s policy promises.” SCE’s spokesperson emphasized that “no customer dollars…are used to support political candidates.”
Criticism & Opposition
Environmental Voters’ Matt Abularach-Macias warned that the utilities view Steyer as a threat to long-term infrastructure plans. Associate professor Leah Stokes (UC Santa Barbara) described the utilities’ political spending as part of a “corrupt system” that “turns monopoly profits into political power.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
PG&E’s filing-based contribution figure ($13.5 million) differs from the anti-Steyer committee’s claim of $10 million spent, creating a reporting discrepancy. Additionally, while the CPUC’s audit uncovered $2.5 billion in unaccounted wildfire spending, the utilities have opposed legislation that would require independent audits of such expenditures, leaving the full scope of misallocation unclear.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Big energy companies really piss me off,” — Tom Steyer, campaign ad
- “When you’re opposed by the people responsible for devastating wildfires and outrageous rate hikes, you’re doing something right,” — Sepi Esfahlani, Steyer spokesperson
- “Loved sitting down to talk the future of energy with Tom Steyer at the Galvanize Solutions Summit,” — Patti Poppe, PG&E CEO (LinkedIn)
- “These are monopoly companies, you can’t choose to buy from anybody else,” — Leah Stokes, associate professor, UC Santa Barbara
- “No customer dollars, or any part of the rates paid by Southern California Edison customers, are used to support political candidates,” — Southern California Edison spokesperson
- “Our campaign has never paid for endorsements,” — Kevin Liao, Steyer campaign spokesperson
Why It Matters
The utilities’ opposition to Steyer could shape voter perceptions of corporate influence and affect upcoming regulatory reforms, including CPUC rate-setting and wildfire-prevention oversight. Steyer’s proposed reforms—appointing reform-focused regulators, expanding battery storage, and increasing solar capacity—hinge on the electorate’s response to the high-profile utility-backed campaign against him.
