This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

For the second time in three months, a little-known team within Pacific Gas & Electric has hired someone to watch the CEO’s back. Responsibilities include proactively monitoring for threats, helping executives map out business and personal travel, coordinating with law enforcement and around-the-clock availability for executives and their families. Must have a concealed carry permit or equivalent and combat shooting expertise.

The job – called “executive protection officer” – is part of the company’s “executive protection department,” a subset of its internal security arm dedicated to protecting PG&E’s CEO and other prominent company leaders. The utility said it has always offered such security and declined to answer questions — such as how much it spends on bodyguards and whether ratepayers are on the hook for their cost.

California’s next largest utility company, Southern California Edison, also acknowledged to CalMatters that it provides executive security. Experts say their use of executive bodyguards raises questions about what sorts of threats they are receiving, how they are addressing the underlying controversies and how they are handling the expenses.

PG&E’s job listings come on the heels of rising interest in security for executives after the CEO of insurance behemoth UnitedHealthcare was fatally shot in Manhattan in December. And there are signs public sentiment toward PG&E has turned more negative in recent years. The utility’s customers saw several rate increases last year alone, ratcheting up bills that are already among the highest in the nation. At public meetings for approving such rate hikes, unhappy ratepayers regularly rail against the company and admonish utility regulators. And PG&E’s equipment was associated with several fires in recent years, including the Camp Fire, in which the company pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges for the 84 victims of the fire.

PG&E appears to work with multi-national security firm Allied Universal for some of its security needs. Allied has said it protects 80% of Fortune 500 companies.

“I know that some in California have been blamed for some of the wildfires,” Allied Universal’s president of enhanced protection services Glen Kucera said in an interview. “We work with some of those companies now to identify [threats] and put together an executive protection platform to protect those key assets when they’re traveling anywhere.”

Related Story: Fresno Pays the Most for Electricity. What Are Lawmakers Doing About It?

Murder of United Healthcare CEO Triggers Concerns

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s death kicked off a wave of concern among corporate executives that they could be targeted as a result of their business. Kucera said Allied received as many inquiries in the first quarter of this year as it did in the past five years combined.

The common thread among companies seeking protection for their leaders, he said, is that they do or produce something that could be controversial. That includes major utilities around the country.

Kucera said that non-disclosure agreements prevent him from naming specific clients. Allied Universal’s website, however, currently lists an available position for a security patrol driver for PG&E.

“We have always provided security for our executives so this is nothing new, and is a common practice industry-wide,” Jason King, spokesperson for PG&E, said in an email.

Protecting Executives and Company’s Value

Protecting executives isn’t just about their personal safety, Kucera said. It’s also about protecting the company’s value. UnitedHealthcare lost about $63 billion in value after its CEO was killed. PG&E’s recent listing notes that its executive protection department “plays a critical role” in not only securing its leadership but “maintaining business continuity.”

Jeff Monford, spokesperson for Southern California Edison’s parent company Edison International, acknowledged that Southern California Edison provides executive security, paying for it through a “combination of both shareholders and customers.”

Who pays for it makes a difference, said Aneil Kovvali, law professor at Indiana University who studies corporate governance. Shareholders paying for the protection is less of an issue, he said, because they would be taking a cut on their returns to do so, while ratepayers would be footing the bill for an additional item.

Why companies have this protection in the first place also matters, further complicating politics around who pays.

“If there isn’t a specific threat against the CEO and it’s just that you like having people around you to make you feel important, that feels more like a perk,” Kovvali said. “If they’re getting specific death threats or law enforcement is telling you that there’s a problem, that puts you in a different category.”

Five of California’s investor-owned utilities, including PG&E, declined to answer questions about whether they have received threats against leadership or about specifics of their executive protection operations. They cited policies about not commenting on security. Bear Valley Electric did not respond to requests for interviews.

Should Shareholders or Ratepayers Cover the Costs?

Kellie Buster, president of advocacy group Stop PG&E, said that her organization is firmly against violence. Shareholders, she said, should be covering any executive protection.

“Ratepayers shouldn’t be paying one penny for any of it until we can audit and see where all this money is (going),” she said.

It’s also important for utilities to understand the root cause of what they’re protecting against, according to Timothy Pollock, business professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville whose research focuses on corporate governance and reputation. Without this component, utilities could be missing the forest for the trees.

“If they’re that angry with you, you need to look at why,” he said. If security is the main response to negative sentiment toward the company, “I would see it as a bad sign for their reputation. That would tell me they don’t really understand what the issue is.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.