3 ms·
This is an incredibly silly characterization. There are a lot of reasons not to go after a public utility in a deeply punitive manner. With PG&E, for example, s
by leoh 6y ago
This is an incredibly silly characterization. There are a lot of reasons not to go after a public utility in a deeply punitive manner. With PG&E, for example, supposing the state sued them for billions of dollars and put them out of business. Guess whose pocket that would come out of?
- brobdingnagians 6y agoThat's a reason to not have companies in bed with the government or even just majorly subsidized by the government. It makes them de facto immune to prosecution, because it wouldn't do any good anyhow.
- edmundsauto 6y agoWe don't really put execs from private companies in jail (modulo some securities fraud stuff, on occasion). I don't think this is a good argument about having companies in bed or subsidized at all. There may be other reasons, not in evidence, but this one doesn't pass the muster.
- AndrewBissell 6y agoIt would come out of the pockets of PG&E executives and shareholders. And this is exactly what the state should do as a prelude to converting PG&E to a publicly owned utility.
- Ericson2314 6y agoExactly! I swear so much regulatory tip-toeing is just to uphold the charade that government-run services should be verboten.