5 ms·
If you actually meant revenue when you said revenue, then it shouldn't be surprising that PG&E has higher revenue compared to companies with half the population
by p_j_w 1y ago
If you actually meant revenue when you said revenue, then it shouldn't be surprising that PG&E has higher revenue compared to companies with half the population. Revenue is merely income, no costs will be deducted from that number. So, if PG&E has the same revenue but twice the customer base, that means they're extracting on average, half the money per customer as those other companies, which doesn't make them sound more expensive! Did you mean profit?
- AlotOfReading 1y agoUtilities put most of their revenue back into costs and I'm not interested in the relative profitability, so I really do mean revenue. I'm assuming that users correlate to revenue, and the primary cost driver is service area, which means the efficiency is the ratio between area and revenue. I'm also making the simplifying assumption that the major utilities service their entire states and that the area being discussed is large / demographically similar enough that a lot of the other differences average out. These aren't true (e.g. PG&E only services part of California), but I'm hoping it's sufficient for a sanity check. The ratio of revenue to area served here is radically different though and the other states are significantly better. We can make a prediction to double check this that people in those states pay lower rates on average, which is also true. If you want to go and add up the customers directly, PG&E serves 5.5M. The others serve around 8.3M people collectively from some quick searches. I don't have info on actual service area, nor do I really want to spend months writing an industry report on it.