California's investor-owned utilities file general rate cases with the California Public Utilities Commission, which determines which expenses are recoverable. Critics, including ratepayer advocates, have argued for years that PG&E folds marketing, lobbying-adjacent outreach, and executive compensation into those filings, effectively requiring customers to subsidize costs that have nothing to do with delivering electricity or gas.

PG&E has no residential competition in most of its service territory. Community Choice Aggregation programs — like CleanPowerSF in San Francisco — allow cities to source electricity from alternative providers, but customers still pay PG&E for transmission and distribution. That means the company's cost-recovery decisions land on ratepayers regardless of whether they've opted into an alternative program.

The CPUC most recently approved a major PG&E general rate case in 2023 authorizing billions in annual revenue. Intervenors in that proceeding, including The Utility Reform Network, contested several cost categories. How much of the marketing line was ultimately approved or disallowed in that decision has not been independently confirmed for this report.

The broader frustration on display in online commentary — pointing to the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion and the company's two bankruptcy filings — reflects a ratepayer base that has watched rates climb sharply over the past five years with limited recourse.

The next opportunity for formal public input comes through the CPUC's ongoing wildfire mitigation and grid investment proceedings. The commission's next public meeting is scheduled for late July. Advocates looking to contest specific cost categories can file as intervenors in active dockets.