5 ms·

I don't understand the outrage. PG&E is a public utility. That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality. It has two potential sourc

I don't understand the outrage. PG&E is a public utility. That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality. It has two potential sources of income - ratepayers, and taxpayers. Where do you think the money is going to come from?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> PG&E is a public utility. No, it's a publicly regulated private utility. > That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality. No, it's not. > It has two potential sources of income - ratepayers, and taxpayers. Where do you think the money is going to come from? It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different (sometimes actually public, e.g., SMUD) utilities instead of PG&E. And I say that as a PG&E ratepayer.
- duxup 8y ago
  It's not like the rate payers made any bad choices that PG&E did ... nor do they have a choice to switch do they? Lower income folks will get hit hard too I would think as far as a % of their income won't they?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 8y ago
  I'm a PG&E ratepayer as well. I disagree that we should pay for it. PG&E is a publicly-traded utility. The shareholders should pay for it through reduced dividends. They're ultimately responsible for PG&E's management, who is responsible for the failed process that led to their culpability in the wildfires. If PG&E doesn't have enough cash on hand, they should be forced to borrow it. If that wipes out dividends for investors for years to come, so be it.
  - lozaning 8y ago
    The Forum program on NPR this week at one point covered this. The ceo of the company said on the last earnings call that this would not bankrupt them. I dont recall if they had cash, or just had secured financing for the repayment amount, but they can cover at least this fire okay.
    - masonic 8y ago
      (minor correction: Forum is a KQED production, not NPR). KQED-FM broadcasts content from NPR, PRI, and others as well as their own original content.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      Then what's going on here? Why is AB33 a thing? Just greed?
      - bobwaycott 8y ago
        It’s a systemic imperative of capitalism to externalize the costs of extracting profits from society onto society itself. Governments are incentivized to facilitate this because they have long been captured by and dependent on capital for continued support and existence. If there is a path for increasing profits by offloading costs onto the public, it will be pursued to the maximum extent. But yeah, most of us who wind up shouldering the public burden of externalized costs to maximize private profit would call it greed.
- masonic 8y ago
  It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different utilities But the premise that customers, rather than company resources, should pay does not follow from the unrelated fact that there are other suppliers serving other customers. That's like saying PGE customers should pay for SMUD's choice to decommission a functional nuclear plant.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But the premise that customers, rather than company resources, I was accepting, for the sake of discussion, the implicit premise in the post I was responding to that on some level the choice was between taxpayers and ratepayers paying; otherwise, yes, stockholders would have been at least part of the answer.
greenburger 8y ago
PG&E is publicly traded (PCG.SG), the debate in the capitol is how much those stock holders should pay (through reduced dividends) vs. ratepayers. PG&E is making the argument that the cost to too high to be paid off by investors. If they state allows the cost to be fully covered by rate payers (keeping profits margins unchanged) what is the incentive for PG&E to take actions that reduce fire risks in the future? This issue has come up in the past as well, e.g. the San Bruno pipeline explosion and what resulting safety upgrades should be financed though state approved rate increases vs. investors (reduced profits)
- stickfigure 8y ago
  I think you miss my point. PG&E may be publicly traded, but it's not subject to market forces. It's a government-granted monopoly in the strictest literal terms. Penalizing the company or their shareholders doesn't change the market landscape; it doesn't improve the position of competitors or risk bankrupting the company. PG&E's profit (dividend) is effectively decided on by a public committee. They pick how much profit the company gets on a cost-plus basis. They could pick any number at any time; they could certainly pick zero. Let's say these bad events keep happening and we just keep the number at zero indefinitely. What changes?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> PG&E is a public utility. No, it's a publicly regulated private utility. > That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality. No, it's not. > It has two potential sources of income - ratepayers, and taxpayers. Where do you think the money is going to come from? It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different (sometimes actually public, e.g., SMUD) utilities instead of PG&E. And I say that as a PG&E ratepayer.

duxup 8y ago
It's not like the rate payers made any bad choices that PG&E did ... nor do they have a choice to switch do they? Lower income folks will get hit hard too I would think as far as a % of their income won't they?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 8y ago
I'm a PG&E ratepayer as well. I disagree that we should pay for it. PG&E is a publicly-traded utility. The shareholders should pay for it through reduced dividends. They're ultimately responsible for PG&E's management, who is responsible for the failed process that led to their culpability in the wildfires. If PG&E doesn't have enough cash on hand, they should be forced to borrow it. If that wipes out dividends for investors for years to come, so be it.
- lozaning 8y ago
  The Forum program on NPR this week at one point covered this. The ceo of the company said on the last earnings call that this would not bankrupt them. I dont recall if they had cash, or just had secured financing for the repayment amount, but they can cover at least this fire okay.
  - masonic 8y ago
    (minor correction: Forum is a KQED production, not NPR). KQED-FM broadcasts content from NPR, PRI, and others as well as their own original content.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    Then what's going on here? Why is AB33 a thing? Just greed?
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      It’s a systemic imperative of capitalism to externalize the costs of extracting profits from society onto society itself. Governments are incentivized to facilitate this because they have long been captured by and dependent on capital for continued support and existence. If there is a path for increasing profits by offloading costs onto the public, it will be pursued to the maximum extent. But yeah, most of us who wind up shouldering the public burden of externalized costs to maximize private profit would call it greed.
masonic 8y ago
It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different utilities But the premise that customers, rather than company resources, should pay does not follow from the unrelated fact that there are other suppliers serving other customers. That's like saying PGE customers should pay for SMUD's choice to decommission a functional nuclear plant.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But the premise that customers, rather than company resources, I was accepting, for the sake of discussion, the implicit premise in the post I was responding to that on some level the choice was between taxpayers and ratepayers paying; otherwise, yes, stockholders would have been at least part of the answer.

greenburger 8y ago

PG&E is publicly traded (PCG.SG), the debate in the capitol is how much those stock holders should pay (through reduced dividends) vs. ratepayers. PG&E is making the argument that the cost to too high to be paid off by investors. If they state allows the cost to be fully covered by rate payers (keeping profits margins unchanged) what is the incentive for PG&E to take actions that reduce fire risks in the future? This issue has come up in the past as well, e.g. the San Bruno pipeline explosion and what resulting safety upgrades should be financed though state approved rate increases vs. investors (reduced profits)

stickfigure 8y ago
I think you miss my point. PG&E may be publicly traded, but it's not subject to market forces. It's a government-granted monopoly in the strictest literal terms. Penalizing the company or their shareholders doesn't change the market landscape; it doesn't improve the position of competitors or risk bankrupting the company. PG&E's profit (dividend) is effectively decided on by a public committee. They pick how much profit the company gets on a cost-plus basis. They could pick any number at any time; they could certainly pick zero. Let's say these bad events keep happening and we just keep the number at zero indefinitely. What changes?