Absolutely, barring the company bringing them to court for violating the "taking withouy compensation". But what people forget is that the CA state doesn't wan

Absolutely, barring the company bringing them to court for violating the "taking withouy compensation". But what people forget is that the CA state doesn't want PG&E. The state already exerts significant control over PG&E operations through the CPUC (members nominated by Gavin Newsom). CPUC approves/rejects all capital spending down to new fences for electrical substations. You can read about all the decisions in the 931 page rate decision, which is public. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M520/K896/520896345.pdf https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M520/K... But what about executive compensation? Well, a separate CA state agency approves that as well. https://energysafety.ca.gov/what-we-do/electrical-infrastructure-safety/wildfire-mitigation-and-safety/executive-compensation/ https://energysafety.ca.gov/what-we-do/electrical-infrastruc... So at this point the CA state government basically runs PG&E. But if they purchased it, they'd be exposing themselves to all the political risk when things go bad. But right now, they get political air cover. Despite the tight level of control over how PG&E is run, the CA state government gets none of the blowback. It's the optimal setup from a political perspective.