Well, their net profit would be higher if they hadn't spent over $25m in executive compensation in 2019. That's a healthy amount of money for some electrical li

Well, their net profit would be higher if they hadn't spent over $25m in executive compensation in 2019. That's a healthy amount of money for some electrical line maintenance, even if it wouldn't cover the cost of all of it. With how poorly the company is being run right now you can't really argue that compensation is buying The Best Executive Leadership... Keep in mind that even if PG&E is doing their best to keep costs low, the cost of wildfires is being passed on to the consumer anyway (in some cases the cost is being passed on as dead humans instead of higher electrical costs). Is it better for PG&E to be able to have a profit margin of 25%, or for their lines to not cause wildfires? What about a low profit margin stops them from maintaining lines? If the state and/or counties are operating the electrical company, profit need no longer be an issue. If they aren't making enough money to cover maintenance cost, that can come out of tax dollars or state-issued bonds just like road maintenance does. It's not as if electrical infrastructure isn't important. Taxpayers may not like higher taxes, but they also don't like having their power cut off or their houses destroyed.