3 ms·

I think it's to prevent liability from forest fires. The difference is subtle but important.

• dragonwriter 7y ago
  No, it's to prevent forest fires, which is why the policy was blessed by the federal judge overseeing their felony sentence and probation for the crimes they were convicted of in the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion (who is involved in the fire safety issue because PG&E’s role in last year's fires was charged as a parole violation), even though he noted that the reason it was necessary is because PG&E underfunded safety maintenance while issuing massive dividends.
  • salawat 7y ago
    May be off-topic, but... What exactly is the usefulness of a felony as applied to a corporation? As applied to an individual, it is capable of ruining your life through privation of constitutional rights (firearm ownership, right to vote, permanent mark on background checks make it increasingly unlikely you'll ever hold any sensitive position, etc...) What does it mean for a corporation to be a felon? It sure seems like the concept is discontinuous in terms of scale. Obviously, there's an extra layer of court oversight that's been mandated, so some autonomy is lost. Still doesn't seem though like the the punishment for a corporation is concommittant with the general treatment of an individual having committed the same relative severity of infraction. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone even wants to do business with anyone involved with the company during the period the felony was handed dowm. The more I think about it, it seems like all the "felon" label does is act as a signpost for discrimination being okay. Anyway. Brain dropping. My apologies for the tangent.