3 ms·
From PG&E's standpoint, what they should do is use the blackouts to extort as many concessions as possible from the state in terms of having the taxpayers pay f
by csense 7y ago
From PG&E's standpoint, what they should do is use the blackouts to extort as many concessions as possible from the state in terms of having the taxpayers pay for maintenance, and passing some kind of liability protection legislation so they're off the hook.
What the state should do is seek some kind of emergency court judgment that electric power is an essential service that PG&E is not allowed to cut off for mere financial liability reasons. Then get a court order that says PG&E has to turn it on, if they refuse, jail people until they find somebody willing to follow the court order.
Basically, if the state's doing their job, they'll tell PG&E they made their bed and now have to lie in it. Meaning they're forced to run, and if more disasters happen due to their reduced maintenance, they go bankrupt. The shareholders and bondholders are wiped out, and since it's an essential service, the state runs it using tax dollars until they can find new investors willing to take it on. In practice, this probably wouldn't happen until the state was done fixing the maintenance backlog on the taxpayers' dime.
Since homes were destroyed and lives lost as a result of their actions, the people who originally decided to skimp on maintenance might be criminally liable and end up in jail, IANAL though.
- FireBeyond 7y agoExcept the fires are happening now. Telling PG&E now to keep power turned on in windy areas is increasing the risk. The state would have a hard time being absolved of the _increased_ liability for such a thing. In this case, while I completely understand the bigger picture, that would be the state telling them to make unsafe decisions.