4 ms·

I would assume they aren’t billing for kW/hr when kilowatts aren’t being used. So, they seem to be turning off their income as well as some costs. Their expense

I would assume they aren’t billing for kW/hr when kilowatts aren’t being used. So, they seem to be turning off their income as well as some costs. Their expenses however still exist in the form of infrastructure, employees, etc. I find it more likely they themselves are under contract to create, buy, transfer, use, so many megawatts over so much time than the customer will have to pay for service that was turned off.

cronix 7y ago
> So, they seem to be turning off their income as well as some costs. Their expenses however still exist in the form of infrastructure, employees, etc. Yes, but they're weighing that loss of revenue against potentially having to pay out billions in damages if they cause another fire. It looks like the last fire is going to cost them over $18 billion, since that's what they're trying to cap it at last I saw. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-to-cap-wildfire-costs https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-...