Part of my problem here is that PG&E has had rate hikes rejected by the government. When you back out the insanely profitable natural gas from their financials,

Part of my problem here is that PG&E has had rate hikes rejected by the government. When you back out the insanely profitable natural gas from their financials, their margins don't seem that great on the electrical side (if they are profitable at all, there's no breakdown of O&A/DAD). California can't reject rate hikes and then say "hey you didn't spend enough on safety!". For example > If history is any guide, PG&E probably won't get all the money. > While the utilities commission seldom rejects rate-hike requests outright, it typically gives utilities less than they want, sometimes much less. In its last general rate case, PG&E asked for a revenue increase of $4.2 billion, spread over three years. The commission approved $1.9 billion. In 2009, the company proposed spending $2.05 billion to fight blackouts on its electricity grid. The commission approved $366.6 million. I don't really see how this is entirely the company's fault. I hate to go full unpaid shill for some massive corporation but PG&E seems to have a history of the government telling them they can't raise rates to pay for this stuff. [1] 2017 financials including years they had rate hike rejections in the article I quoted: http://s1.q4cdn.com/880135780/files/doc_financials/2017/Q4/PG-E-Corporation-Reports-Full-Year-and-Fourth-Quarter-2017-Results.pdf http://s1.q4cdn.com/880135780/files/doc_financials/2017/Q4/P... [2] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-rate-plan-would-cost-15-6-more-typically-3680344.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-rate-plan-would-cos...