PG&E and good faith cooperation.
Did you get a form letter from Eric Daniels? If not, you can read the text below.
Below, find four reasons we think PG&E doesn’t seem serious about listening to SLCUSD parents.
If you want to respond to Mr. Daniels directly, we’ve also guidance for trying to get real answers.
(By the way, we haven’t heard from CEO Patti Poppe yet)
If you would like to respond to Eric Daniels and PG&E, here are some questions to get you started:
Is there a legal reason PG&E can’t make a donation to SLCUSD to match the CIMP payments that ended this year?
Why were employee retention payments to PG&E extended indefinitely by SB 846, but our schools and County were left out?
If DCPP operations are continuing, why shouldn’t support for our schools?
Who specifically has PG&E talked to about supporting our community going forward? When? What actual solutions have been proposed or rejected? Why?
How can we trust PG&E to cooperate in good faith when it sends us vague talking points that feel intentionally misleading and disingenuous?
Issue number 1: No forward-looking details.
What might Patti Poppe say?
What did PG&E say?
Not much (though they used a lot of words). The only real details included in PG&E’s email are the property tax and CIMP payments PG&E has made in the past (information readily available here).
What do we say?
The message parents sent PG&E asked for collaboration on a plan for the future of our kids and our community. By highlighting PG&E’s past support and not directly responding to parent concerns, the company only highlighted how much it will hurt when PG&E turns its back on its commitments.
Ask PG&E:
Who has PG&E talked to about supporting our community going forward? When? What actual solutions have been proposed or rejected? Why?
Issue number 2: Confused language about “reinstating the unitary tax”
What might Patti Poppe say?
“Clarity might help make sense of this complex business”
What did PG&E say?
“[T]he only way to reinstate the unitary tax is through new legislation.”
What do we say?
Our letter did not ask to “reinstate the unitary tax” because this is a vague (and largely meaningless) phrase that muddles the conversation about PG&E’s responsibility to our community. Parents are looking for actionable solutions and detailed answers.
Clarity is absolutely essential for meaningful cooperation. Mr. Daniels (and you!) can read our property tax and DCPP decommissioning pages to learn more.
Ask PG&E:
Is there a legal reason PG&E can’t make a donation to SLCUSD to match the CIMP payments that ended this year? If DCPP operations are continuing, why shouldn’t the support for our schools?
Why is this response so focused on legislation, which is a years-long process that does nothing for our kids today? Tomorrow? Or next year?
Issue number 3: Unitary taxes on non-DCPP assets
What might Patti Poppe say?
“I knew that a company like this could be run well and could be trustworthy.”
What did PG&E say?
“PG&E continues to pay unitary taxes on non-DCPP related assets in the county, which are still distributed to the various taxing authorities involved.”
What do we say?
This is why PG&E does not use actual numbers when it matters. In 2024-25, the total amount PG&E paid for non-DCPP unitary property was $20,000. No, we didn’t leave off any zeroes. $20k total to SLO County. It’s disappointing that PG&E is being misleading with parents about its true level of support. Check out PG&E’s actual 2024-25 tax bills for its non-DCPP unitary property below.
Ask PG&E:
Are parents supposed to be grateful for PG&E’s $20,000, when you’re taking away $7,500,000?
(By the way, only one-third of that $20k goes to SLCUSD)
Issue number 4: No details of why SLCUSD was left out of SB 846, with a focus instead on whether SLCUSD would repay CIMP money
What might Patti Poppe say?
“The company is on a path to rebuild trust with the people that we serve.”
What did PG&E say?
Senate Bill 846 “did not reinstate the unitary tax for this extension period. However, nor did the legislation require re-payment of the $85 million-dollar CIMP.” (note the phrase “reinstate the unitary tax” again)
What do we say?
First, this passage highlights one of the biggest missing pieces about 846: the law ended payments to SLCUSD and SLO County, but other elements of the CIMP (specifically, more than $350 million PG&E receives for employee retention) were extended for as long as DCPP remains operating. Why was our community left out?
Second, we think taking credit for doing what is legally required is not acting in good faith, and certainly doesn’t build trust.
Claiming a win that SLCUSD didn’t have to pay back CIMP money is a tactic to make SB 846 more appealing to those of us ignored during its creation. PG&E executive Tom Jones used the same line on the SLO Board of Supervisors in September 2022. What PG&E never mentions is that the Joint Agreement codified by SB 1090 specifically prohibited clawback of CIMP funds: “In no event shall the Coalition of Cities or the County be required to refund any amount paid under this Settlement.”
Ask PG&E:
Why were payments to SLCUSD and SLO County not extended as part of SB 846, when money PG&E receives for employee retention was extended indefinitely?
How can we trust PG&E to cooperate in good faith when it sends us vague talking points that feel intentionally misleading and disingenuous?
Let’s be clear: We would love PG&E, local elected officials, and other stakeholders to bring forward concrete, actionable ideas for making sure our kids get fair and adequate funding. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Members of SLC-PIN are not intimidated by complex issues. We are not deterred by vague and confusing language.
PG&E needs to understand that SLCUSD parents are well informed and we are not going anywhere.
Join our mailing list to make sure you don’t miss out on continued advocacy!
Think we got something wrong? Let us know! Our goal is cooperation, accuracy, and accountability for all stakeholders involved in this process.
Full text of PG&E’s email to SLCUSD parents
Classification: Public
We want to acknowledge receipt of your email to PG&E leadership and thank you for sharing your concerns about the financial challenges facing the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). We understand how deeply these issues impact students, families, and the broader community. Please know that I, along with members of PG&E’s State Government Relations team, have met with District leaders and legislative staff to listen to and discuss SLCUSD’s concerns regarding the unitary tax once paid on Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) property assets.
It’s important to note that state legislation has outlined the process we must follow, and under current law, the only way to reinstate the unitary tax is through new legislation. PG&E remains committed to working collaboratively with stakeholders to explore equitable and appropriate solutions.
It may be helpful to provide some context about PG&E’s past efforts and agreements related to DCPP and the support extended to the community and SLCUSD during this transition.
After announcing the planned closure of DCPP in 2016, PG&E participated in a Joint Proposal Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo, SLCUSD, and a coalition of local cities. In 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized the Joint Proposal Agreement, which outlined the seven-year planned depreciation of DCPP, as the plant was then on a path to closure in 2024-2025. Later that year, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1090, which required that the CPUC approve the Community Impact Mitigation Program (CIMP) settlement of $85 million. SLCUSD was the largest single recipient of these funds. PG&E fully supported funding the CIMP, as it was designed to support the region and the school district while they adjusted to new economic realities where those dollars would no longer be available. It is also important to note that PG&E continues to pay unitary taxes on non-DCPP related assets in the county, which are still distributed to the various taxing authorities involved.
For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, PG&E paid $11.4 million in unitary taxes to San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, PG&E provided the County with the annual $9.375 million CIMP payment in 2024 and one additional payment in the amount of $9.375 million was made in July 2025 to complete the $85 million CIMP funding agreement.
In 2022, the Legislature, led by the Governor, sought to extend operations at DCPP through Senate Bill 846 to ensure electric reliability as California continues towards its clean energy future. Passage of SB 846 extended a path for up to a five-year continued operation period. The legislation did not reinstate the unitary tax for this extension period. However, nor did the legislation require re-payment of the $85 million-dollar CIMP created in SB 1090, thereby protecting the funding agreements that were already in place. As stated previously, any changes to the tax structure of DCPP will require further legislative action. Generally, any such legislation would typically be introduced in Q1 or Q2 of 2026 and need to be passed through both the Senate and Assembly before going to the Governor’s desk. This process can take several months and must be resolved before the end of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session on August 31st, 2026.
Again, PG&E has been in communication with the SLCUSD administration on several occasions surrounding this situation, and we stand ready for further discussions considering an equitable and appropriate legislative solution.
Thank you for reaching out.
Eric A. Daniels
PG&E Public Policy and External Affairs Expert
San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties