4 ms·

their profits should be $0

by nielsbot 2y ago

steelbrain 2y ago
Can you please help me understand your stance? Why do you think a company should have a $0 profit?
- PBnFlash 2y ago
  Because they killed dozens of people and destroyed a town though lack of re-investment and monitoring their infrastructure.
- rlt 2y ago
  One angle is they’ve been responsible for a number of major wildfires in California, so they should be reinvesting any profits in upgrades/maintenance/technology to prevent that in the future.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > One angle is they’ve been responsible for a number of major wildfires in California Why bother ? Those are renewables. In 50 years those trees will be back. /s
- free_bip 2y ago
  I'm not nielsbot so I obviously can't say for sure but I think I share a similar view that in an ideal world, they should only be charging what they need to survive (i.e. breakeven) in order to provide the greatest utility (pun intended) to the people. However, it's not an ideal world, and things like disasters, grid upgrades, paradigm shifts all happen occasionally and tend to require mass amounts of capital to get through. So maybe not $0, but also probably not $2B :)
- callc 2y ago
  Electricity is not a luxury good. People need it to survive. We should not allow companies to have control over these basic necessities, since companies invariably care about profit over human wellbeing (and is mandated as such if publicly traded) If PG&E sold hand crafted watches, sure let them do what they want. Earn the big bucks. If PG&E puts profit above all else, what happens? Equipment that should be upgraded a long time ago fails, more power outages, dystopian stuff. Conversely, help me understand why a for-profit company has any right to operate services for the public good? Capitalism works in certain places, with strict rules in place. There’s lots of places where it shouldn’t apply, and those places are where we value people over $$&
- dlcarrier 2y ago
  There are several non-profit organizations that act as public power utilities in California, as well as in other states. There prices are usually significantly lower than publicly-traded public utilities, although there are exceptions, because they can still be poorly run.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  It's a natural monopoly - literally no competition is possible because no other player could overbuild another electricity grid in their service area. Society should not allow a for-profit entity to operate as a monopoly (because all monopolies want to reduce service and maintenance, and raise prices as much as possible), so such a utility should be required to operate on a non-profit basis.
  - nielsbot 2y ago
    I was being glib, but exactly this. Electricity utilities should be publicly owned, with a service motive, not a profit motive.
- m463 2y ago
  They were granted huge rate increases to work on things like safety and infrastructure for EVs, but wow, $2b just about matches the rate increases. https://www.independent.com/2024/04/27/heres-the-real-reason-pge-rates-are-skyrocketing-in-california/ https://www.independent.com/2024/04/27/heres-the-real-reason... For comparison average residential electricity rate for a california resident is ~ 35c/kwh
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Its not that it should exist as a private company that makes no profit; PG&E--a firm that is basically California's most prolific mass killer with a sideline in diverting ratepayer funds into lobbying against public utility districts--shouldn't exist as a private company at all,
YetAnotherNick 2y ago
Their 2018 and 2019 losses are $10b each. It would take 10 years of same profit to become net 0 profit.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Good! They had losses because they were negligent in maintaining their infrastructure AND BURNED DOWN LARGE PARTS OF THE STATE. A power company is a natural monopoly. Every dollar of profit it makes is because the state allowed it to. The whole damn company should have been nationalized after the fires, it's nuts that we now pay 3x+ the national average for electricity to cover their mistake. It now costs more to charge a Tesla to fill a 12gal gas tank in a "green" state - and gas isn't exactly cheap here either.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  The 2018 and 2019 losses were born by the pre-second-bankruptcy PG&E, not the post-bankruptcy company of the same name. (And, when I say "born by the pre-second-bankruptcy PG&E", I mean, "born largely by its creditors as they were discharged in bankruptcy", those creditors including fire victims, who got a settlement fund with a fixed amount of cash and stock which is wrapping up claims settlement now and will have paid out a little bit over 70 cents on the dollar of actual liabilities.)
LinuxBender 2y ago
their profits should be $0 This may not be what you meant but considering they took the fall for massive amounts of arson, blew up a neighborhood and have aging infrastructure that is also causing fires and gas explosions, shutting off power for entire towns when it gets windy PSPS shutoffs ... it probably should be something close to that. It is not clear to me how they are still profitable unless the state is shielding them from legal challenges and/or bailing them out. PG&E was one of the many dozens of reasons I left the state. I had to run their power through massive switching and linear power supplies, then again through inverters just to clean up and stabilize it so they would stop destroying my gear.

their profits should be $0

steelbrain 2y ago

Can you please help me understand your stance? Why do you think a company should have a $0 profit?

PBnFlash 2y ago
Because they killed dozens of people and destroyed a town though lack of re-investment and monitoring their infrastructure.
rlt 2y ago
One angle is they’ve been responsible for a number of major wildfires in California, so they should be reinvesting any profits in upgrades/maintenance/technology to prevent that in the future.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > One angle is they’ve been responsible for a number of major wildfires in California Why bother ? Those are renewables. In 50 years those trees will be back. /s
free_bip 2y ago
I'm not nielsbot so I obviously can't say for sure but I think I share a similar view that in an ideal world, they should only be charging what they need to survive (i.e. breakeven) in order to provide the greatest utility (pun intended) to the people. However, it's not an ideal world, and things like disasters, grid upgrades, paradigm shifts all happen occasionally and tend to require mass amounts of capital to get through. So maybe not $0, but also probably not $2B :)
callc 2y ago
Electricity is not a luxury good. People need it to survive. We should not allow companies to have control over these basic necessities, since companies invariably care about profit over human wellbeing (and is mandated as such if publicly traded) If PG&E sold hand crafted watches, sure let them do what they want. Earn the big bucks. If PG&E puts profit above all else, what happens? Equipment that should be upgraded a long time ago fails, more power outages, dystopian stuff. Conversely, help me understand why a for-profit company has any right to operate services for the public good? Capitalism works in certain places, with strict rules in place. There’s lots of places where it shouldn’t apply, and those places are where we value people over $$&
dlcarrier 2y ago
There are several non-profit organizations that act as public power utilities in California, as well as in other states. There prices are usually significantly lower than publicly-traded public utilities, although there are exceptions, because they can still be poorly run.
stephen_g 2y ago
It's a natural monopoly - literally no competition is possible because no other player could overbuild another electricity grid in their service area. Society should not allow a for-profit entity to operate as a monopoly (because all monopolies want to reduce service and maintenance, and raise prices as much as possible), so such a utility should be required to operate on a non-profit basis.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  I was being glib, but exactly this. Electricity utilities should be publicly owned, with a service motive, not a profit motive.
m463 2y ago
They were granted huge rate increases to work on things like safety and infrastructure for EVs, but wow, $2b just about matches the rate increases. https://www.independent.com/2024/04/27/heres-the-real-reason-pge-rates-are-skyrocketing-in-california/ https://www.independent.com/2024/04/27/heres-the-real-reason... For comparison average residential electricity rate for a california resident is ~ 35c/kwh
dragonwriter 2y ago
Its not that it should exist as a private company that makes no profit; PG&E--a firm that is basically California's most prolific mass killer with a sideline in diverting ratepayer funds into lobbying against public utility districts--shouldn't exist as a private company at all,

YetAnotherNick 2y ago

Their 2018 and 2019 losses are $10b each. It would take 10 years of same profit to become net 0 profit.

SR2Z 2y ago
Good! They had losses because they were negligent in maintaining their infrastructure AND BURNED DOWN LARGE PARTS OF THE STATE. A power company is a natural monopoly. Every dollar of profit it makes is because the state allowed it to. The whole damn company should have been nationalized after the fires, it's nuts that we now pay 3x+ the national average for electricity to cover their mistake. It now costs more to charge a Tesla to fill a 12gal gas tank in a "green" state - and gas isn't exactly cheap here either.
dragonwriter 2y ago
The 2018 and 2019 losses were born by the pre-second-bankruptcy PG&E, not the post-bankruptcy company of the same name. (And, when I say "born by the pre-second-bankruptcy PG&E", I mean, "born largely by its creditors as they were discharged in bankruptcy", those creditors including fire victims, who got a settlement fund with a fixed amount of cash and stock which is wrapping up claims settlement now and will have paid out a little bit over 70 cents on the dollar of actual liabilities.)

LinuxBender 2y ago

their profits should be $0 This may not be what you meant but considering they took the fall for massive amounts of arson, blew up a neighborhood and have aging infrastructure that is also causing fires and gas explosions, shutting off power for entire towns when it gets windy PSPS shutoffs ... it probably should be something close to that. It is not clear to me how they are still profitable unless the state is shielding them from legal challenges and/or bailing them out. PG&E was one of the many dozens of reasons I left the state. I had to run their power through massive switching and linear power supplies, then again through inverters just to clean up and stabilize it so they would stop destroying my gear.