3 ms·

They could take it out of the profit portion of the rates, or cut executive pay. But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance, maybe sell a power plant; m

They could take it out of the profit portion of the rates, or cut executive pay. But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance, maybe sell a power plant; most likely creditors will pay then lose out the next time they file for bankruptcy.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. There were some fun articles back when they were blamed for fires about how PG&E had spent the last several years trying to allocate money to equipment maintenance only to have their budget rejected whenever they tried.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
  At this point the state might as well just take over the company as it sounds like they have essentially done so through regulation anyway.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    But then there won’t be a fall guy when things go wrong.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Well, yes, that would make more sense. I assume the idea behind the current setup is that having the state own a power company would be "communist", whereas having a "private" power company for which the state determines the areas it serves, the rates it charges customers, and how it spends its money is "not communist".
    - fastball 6y ago
      Never attribute to anti-communism that which can be more easily explained by crony capitalism.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Huh, a private corporation where their budget is approved by state and the state meddles to prevent it from investing in critical infrastructure. That sounds like the worst of both worlds.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. Oh, like PG&E would never commit fraud to conceal bnot doing what it is legal obligated to do with regard to safety. I mean, its not like its been convicted of 91 federal and state felonies in two separate incidents producing substantial property damage and death which involved exactly that behavior. The PUC controls (some of) what PG&E is legally obligated to do, but it doesn't control what PG&E actually does.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    > but it doesn't control what PG&E actually does. Except for the part where they control what PG&E is and isn't allowed to spend on? AKA we're not controlling what you do, jus your ability to do it.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Except for the part where they control what PG&E is and isn't allowed to spend on? Once again, PG&E’s 91 recent state and federal felony convictions demonstrate that controlling what the company is legally allowed to do with resources is not the same thing as controlling what the company actually does with resources.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        You say this like nobody's ever been punished for doing exactly what they were told to do.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. There were some fun articles back when they were blamed for fires about how PG&E had spent the last several years trying to allocate money to equipment maintenance only to have their budget rejected whenever they tried.

SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
At this point the state might as well just take over the company as it sounds like they have essentially done so through regulation anyway.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  But then there won’t be a fall guy when things go wrong.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Well, yes, that would make more sense. I assume the idea behind the current setup is that having the state own a power company would be "communist", whereas having a "private" power company for which the state determines the areas it serves, the rates it charges customers, and how it spends its money is "not communist".
  - fastball 6y ago
    Never attribute to anti-communism that which can be more easily explained by crony capitalism.
bawolff 6y ago
Huh, a private corporation where their budget is approved by state and the state meddles to prevent it from investing in critical infrastructure. That sounds like the worst of both worlds.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. Oh, like PG&E would never commit fraud to conceal bnot doing what it is legal obligated to do with regard to safety. I mean, its not like its been convicted of 91 federal and state felonies in two separate incidents producing substantial property damage and death which involved exactly that behavior. The PUC controls (some of) what PG&E is legally obligated to do, but it doesn't control what PG&E actually does.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  > but it doesn't control what PG&E actually does. Except for the part where they control what PG&E is and isn't allowed to spend on? AKA we're not controlling what you do, jus your ability to do it.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Except for the part where they control what PG&E is and isn't allowed to spend on? Once again, PG&E’s 91 recent state and federal felony convictions demonstrate that controlling what the company is legally allowed to do with resources is not the same thing as controlling what the company actually does with resources.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      You say this like nobody's ever been punished for doing exactly what they were told to do.