3 ms·

PG&E is kind of public. We just structure it in a way that it’s technically private. This has a lot of clever tricks like the fact that if it loses a ton of mon

PG&E is kind of public. We just structure it in a way that it’s technically private. This has a lot of clever tricks like the fact that if it loses a ton of money it can go bankrupt without the state of California going bankrupt or having to cover all the losses. Also, PG&E cannot just set whatever prices they want etc. the state has quite a bit of say over it.

labster 6y ago
PG&E is only public in the same sense as in IPO. They are regulated more than most industries, but make their own decisions on profits and investments. Which is why SoCal Edison and SDG&E are so much better off, better corporate boards. The state owns no share of the company, like say Norway does from its national oil company. California is prohibited from owning a portion of a company (outside of things like CALPERS), so it really cannot impose a true socialist model without violating the state constitution. It must own 100% or 0% only.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  My mind is unable to reconcile the claim that CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company and yet CALPERS invests most of it's ~$350B in companies, and quite a few CALPERS board members come from the CA government, and CALPERS is known as an activist shareholder that uses its ownership in companies to influence them. So the more accurate statement seems to be CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company, except not really.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    CALPERS isn't CA, pretty simple.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      In what way? The bosses at CALPERS come from CA government, the losses in CALPERS have to be made up by the CA government, the earnings of CALPERS go the CA government. They named it something different, but it's basically CA department of retirement benefits for CA employees. I don't see how it's different than any other CA department of <x>.
- refurb 6y ago
  but make their own decisions on profits and investments I'm not so sure about that. I can't find the link, but someone posted the CPUC minutes on the discussion of PG&E's budget. It was a 900 page document. It has things like "PG&E recommends replacing the chain link fence surrounding the substation located 10 miles outside Modesto, CA". Then a comment by CPUC like "We find this request unreasonable as the fence still prevents site access and has an estimated remaining lifespan of 10 years". The way the minute read was PG&E doesn't make any decisions around where money is spent with the CPUC approving it. But maybe it's not binding? Either way the CPUC is deeply embedded with how PG&E operates.

labster 6y ago

PG&E is only public in the same sense as in IPO. They are regulated more than most industries, but make their own decisions on profits and investments. Which is why SoCal Edison and SDG&E are so much better off, better corporate boards. The state owns no share of the company, like say Norway does from its national oil company. California is prohibited from owning a portion of a company (outside of things like CALPERS), so it really cannot impose a true socialist model without violating the state constitution. It must own 100% or 0% only.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
My mind is unable to reconcile the claim that CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company and yet CALPERS invests most of it's ~$350B in companies, and quite a few CALPERS board members come from the CA government, and CALPERS is known as an activist shareholder that uses its ownership in companies to influence them. So the more accurate statement seems to be CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company, except not really.
- pishpash 6y ago
  CALPERS isn't CA, pretty simple.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    In what way? The bosses at CALPERS come from CA government, the losses in CALPERS have to be made up by the CA government, the earnings of CALPERS go the CA government. They named it something different, but it's basically CA department of retirement benefits for CA employees. I don't see how it's different than any other CA department of <x>.
refurb 6y ago
but make their own decisions on profits and investments I'm not so sure about that. I can't find the link, but someone posted the CPUC minutes on the discussion of PG&E's budget. It was a 900 page document. It has things like "PG&E recommends replacing the chain link fence surrounding the substation located 10 miles outside Modesto, CA". Then a comment by CPUC like "We find this request unreasonable as the fence still prevents site access and has an estimated remaining lifespan of 10 years". The way the minute read was PG&E doesn't make any decisions around where money is spent with the CPUC approving it. But maybe it's not binding? Either way the CPUC is deeply embedded with how PG&E operates.