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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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".
