3 ms·

>Well that's all I needed to see. If an increase every two months and setting a new profit record every year isn't enough then maybe someone else should be in c

>Well that's all I needed to see. If an increase every two months and setting a new profit record every year isn't enough then maybe someone else should be in charge of this. Gross profit is not relevant, $2.4B on sales of $24B is only a 10% profit margin. With 5.6 million customers, that is $440 per customer in profits.

altairprime 2y ago
They said they invest 97% of profits back into infrastructure, prior to this rate increase proposal. A 3% investors profit share is quite enough and I hope they’re denied by the state. PG&E capped at returning 3% of profit to investors a year for a century would be an appropriate sentence and sentencing term for the Redwood City explosion. Investors will invest in it no matter how small the guaranteed profit, because they’re a monopoly, and literally every dollar the state allows them to pay out in shareholder dividends is paid for out of the state’s GDP after the year’s wildfires and outages. It would be interesting to do the math and estimate about how many dollars they expect this to generate in payouts, and then express that payout in terms of infrastructure ruggedization. Are they asking for an investor payout the size of “10% of the estimated cost of deploying underground wiring in wildfire-probe forested regions”? 25%? 150%?
- tracker1 2y ago
  It could also mean doing what health insurance corporations are doing... just spending more, so they get their $limit% return from a larger pie.
  - altairprime 2y ago
    They are of course perfectly welcome to spend more, given their catastrophic underinvestment in every aspect of their business other than shareholder dividends. Pay line workers more! Buy more electrical service gear! If they do that they’re absolutely welcome to the higher dividends.
    - tracker1 2y ago
      LoL that's not how they're spending more money.

altairprime 2y ago

They said they invest 97% of profits back into infrastructure, prior to this rate increase proposal. A 3% investors profit share is quite enough and I hope they’re denied by the state. PG&E capped at returning 3% of profit to investors a year for a century would be an appropriate sentence and sentencing term for the Redwood City explosion. Investors will invest in it no matter how small the guaranteed profit, because they’re a monopoly, and literally every dollar the state allows them to pay out in shareholder dividends is paid for out of the state’s GDP after the year’s wildfires and outages. It would be interesting to do the math and estimate about how many dollars they expect this to generate in payouts, and then express that payout in terms of infrastructure ruggedization. Are they asking for an investor payout the size of “10% of the estimated cost of deploying underground wiring in wildfire-probe forested regions”? 25%? 150%?

tracker1 2y ago
It could also mean doing what health insurance corporations are doing... just spending more, so they get their $limit% return from a larger pie.
- altairprime 2y ago
  They are of course perfectly welcome to spend more, given their catastrophic underinvestment in every aspect of their business other than shareholder dividends. Pay line workers more! Buy more electrical service gear! If they do that they’re absolutely welcome to the higher dividends.
  - tracker1 2y ago
    LoL that's not how they're spending more money.