Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

No, power was not cut to polling places during voting | Fact check

A Nov. 5 Threads post (direct link, archive link) accuses one of the nation’s largest utilities of interfering with the presidential election.
“BREAKING: THEY SHUT OFF THE POWER ON REPUBLICAN VOTERS,” reads the post’s caption. “Pacific Gas & Electric in California has shut off power in several ‘Republican’ areas.”
The post goes on to question why the company would “cut off electricity” to polling centers on Election Day.
The post was liked nearly 200 times in three days.
More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page
Polling places in California had power throughout all of Election Day. PG&E warned residents it might cut off power as a last resort to mitigate the risk of wildfires in accordance with California utility regulations. But the shutoffs were not to happen until after almost all polls were scheduled to close, and polling places were provided with backup generators so the voting centers could operate without interruption.
As Election Day neared, PG&E was looking at forecasts of windy and dry conditions in 17 northern California counties and alerted residents that it might have to switch off electricity in some areas to mitigate the risk of wildfires. Utility companies in California have routinely preemptively shut off power in areas as a last resort to prevent their equipment from sparking wildfires for several years, according to KUNC News.
The shutoffs, however, were planned in a way to not interfere with voting, according to Jeff Smith, a PG&E spokesperson. The utility provided backup generators to all five of the polling places that could be affected, and only two of the possible shutoff windows extended into scheduled voting hours.
“This is the first time it has happened on an Election Day, but we have planned for this situation,” he told USA TODAY.
The shutoffs did end up happening in areas that included all five polling places, Smith said. The utility’s plan called for several notifications to customers of possible shutoffs in advance, and media reports alerted residents to the possible shutoffs and how they were not expected to affect voting. The backup generation was switched on when needed so voting could continue uninterrupted, Smith said.
Fact check: Video shows conversation with county official, not ‘illegal’ voters ‘cutting’
California regulators ruled in 2012 that investor-owned utilities had the right to shut off electric power flowing through their wires “to protect public safety,” a tool that has grown in importance as the size and cost of wildfires have grown over more than a decade. The move is considered a last resort to “prevent catastrophic wildfires when strong winds, heat events and related conditions are present” and could, for example, topple energized transmission lines into dry vegetation, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.
The commission also said utility infrastructure has been identified as a cause of less than 10% of wildfires, but electrical infrastructure represents about half of the most destructive wildfires ever recorded in the state. PG&E infrastructure has been linked to some prominent blazes, although it did not admit any fault in a 2022 settlement of charges stemming from a pair of northern California wildfires.
Voters in California do not have to vote at polling places, as all registered voters are sent an absentee ballot. Those votes are counted as long as the ballots are turned in by Election Day or, if mailed, postmarked on or before Election Day and received no later than seven days after Election Day.
USA TODAY could not reach the social media user who shared the claim for comment.
PolitiFact also debunked the claim.
Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.
USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.

en_USEnglish