California Is Set to Decide Whether PG&E Is ‘Too Big to Fail’

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,458
I think this is an assault on our free market. Basically a major California utility caused several major wildfires that killed 44 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Now they have liability of up to 17 billion dollars. This is not one fire they caused. They caused 16 with 11 of those due to violating safety laws. Now the California legislature in all its wisdom is about to decide this company is to vital to have to pay for the damage they caused.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...paign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo





California lawmakers are debating whether utility giant PG&E Corp. is “too big to fail.”



The company -- which provides electricity and gas to 16 million people -- faces billions of dollars in liabilities from last year’s wildfires, and legislators have until midnight Friday to pass a bill that would direct regulators to limit how much PG&E shareholders would pay to cover the costs.





The outcome is critical for PG&E, which may owe as much as $17.3 billion from the blazes, JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated. The utility owner has raised the prospect of bankruptcy, and its lost more than $11 billion in market value in the last year. Nonetheless, consumer advocates contend that the bill pending before the legislature amounts to a bailout.



“This is the state acting like PG&E is too big to fail,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group. “They want to make sure PG&E has a guaranteed backstop no matter how badly they operate.”



775x-1.png

California investigators have already named PG&E power lines and other equipment as the source of 16 fires last year. In 11 of those instances, investigators said they found evidence that PG&E violated safety laws. Officials haven’t released the results of a probe into the most destructive of the 2017 California wildfires, which combined destroyed thousands of homes and killed 44 people.

Some lawmakers are concerned that massive fire claims could force PG&E into financial distress or bankruptcy. That could lead to higher bills, broken renewable energy contracts and job losses, according to testimony from labor unions, utilities and power producers before a legislative committee formed by Governor Jerry Brown to address the growing threat of fires.

“Having healthy utilities financially helps ratepayers,” State Senator Bill Dodd, a Democrat and co-chairman of the committee, said at a hearing this week. “This is an important premise that we all are going to have to grapple with. Otherwise, ratepayers pay more in the event of credit downgrades, bankruptcy or any of these unfortunate events.”

Pending Measure
Legislators have already cast aside a request from PG&E to change a state law that holds a utility liable for damages if its equipment caused a fire -- even if the company followed safety rules. Instead, lawmakers have proposed a series of measures to protect PG&E and other utilities from financial distress.

committee passed draft legislation that would direct regulators to conduct a stress test to determine how much PG&E can pay for the 2017 fires "without harming ratepayers and materially impacting its ability to provide adequate and safe service." Under the proposed law, the utility could cover the costs of anything above that amount by selling bonds backed by fixed customer rates.

“This issue is critical to our customers, the state and PG&E,” said James Noonan, a spokesman for the utility. “We are reviewing the proposed language to fully understand its implications, including potential impacts on wildfire victims and mitigation of future wildfire risks.”

PG&E shares fell 3.2 percent to $45.52 at 12:46 p.m. in New York Friday.

The provision takes "bankruptcy off the table,” said Andy DeVries, a credit analyst for CreditSights. However, the bill still "leaves significant uncertainty for investors" as it will be up to state regulators to decide how much PG&E pays, he said.

Brown and state leaders see PG&E as playing a critical role in helping the state combat global warming by investing in renewable power and infrastructure for electric cars. Lawmakers this week passed a bill that would require the state to get all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.

“The grid is an essential service,” said Michael Wara, a research fellow at Stanford University. “The idea that we are going to let the companies providing that service enter into severe financially distress -- it’s not in the state’s interest.”
 
Let 'em go into bankruptcy. Can't they still keep the lights on during whatever restructuring needs to take place?
 
California is communist enough, this sounds like an opportunity for the state to take over the company to keep it running and boot out all the execs and fine them and it would actually have public support
 
I've got a few friends that work for PG&E. It's a little selfish but I hope they can work something out for the sake of their families. But PG&E management needs to take a hit for the safety violations. Shit like that doesn't happen because the linemen are lazy. It happens because management is telling them to cut corners and get to the next job.
 
That's interesting. They're not bailing them out and they're not clearing them of liability. They're trying to avoid bankruptcy and the disruption that would follow because it would negatively impact millions of CA residents who have nothing to do with the underlying fire issue.

Tough position to be in as a legislature. Do nothing and screw over the general CA resident or do something and look like you're playing corporate favoritism.

Still, based on the limited amount of information provided in the OP, I think they're moving in the right direction. Also, probably a good sign that this needs to become a state utility.
 
Corporations taking shortcuts to improve their profit margin. Is this real life?
 
They are cunts. At one job site they wanted 75,000 dollars to run power to a new building. It was like 8 feet.

Oh, and my electrician said the power line to my house was a danger because it was exposed. They outer layer had rotted away. They refused to replace it when I reported it. Well when a tree fell and took down some lines near my house a worker saw my line, knocked on my door and was like, "holy shit we need to replace your line. It was almost knocked down and it is exposed and would have started a fire or zapped someone."

Cool. It could have started a fire.
 
Too big to fail is a horrible concept for taxpayers. It basically allows a business to avoid consequences for negligence or mismanagement of resources.
 
Too big to fail is a horrible concept for taxpayers. It basically allows a business to avoid consequences for negligence or mismanagement of resources.

Geisha Williams, CEO, has an annual salary of $4.1 million. I'm guessing the rest of the officers enjoy significant compensation.

"Too big to fail" should not include corporations that are insanely top heavy.
 
Geisha Williams, CEO, has an annual salary of $4.1 million. I'm guessing the rest of the officers enjoy significant compensation.

"Too big to fail" should not include corporations that are insanely top heavy.
Agree. Imagine running a company knowing that you can line your pockets at the expanse of the company’s profit margin, since the govt won’t let you go under. It definitely does not encourage good practices.
 
Geisha Williams, CEO, has an annual salary of $4.1 million. I'm guessing the rest of the officers enjoy significant compensation.

"Too big to fail" should not include corporations that are insanely top heavy.
I'm sorry. The CEO is named geisha? Taking the term corporate whore pretty literally.
 
If a tree knocks a pole down then they didn't do anything that merits being sued. The way the law is written now I believe they are still liable. Did they ever find out how the fire started in the first place?
 
It's ok they can just pass the charges for violations into their customers now.
 
If its to big to fail its to big to be private. Did we learn nothing from the bailouts? Absent moral hazard, America is pure plutocracy.
 
California is communist enough, this sounds like an opportunity for the state to take over the company to keep it running and boot out all the execs and fine them and it would actually have public support
Soon, the executives will be appointed by the governor.
 
Sue them. Let them go bankrupt. The State can buy the assets and continue operation.
 
If its to big to fail its to big to be private. Did we learn nothing from the bailouts? Absent moral hazard, America is pure plutocracy.

If we want are system to work big business have to be allowed to fail. This notion that companies will get bailed out if they make mistakes incentives companies to take unnecessary risks.
 
I think this is an assault on our free market. Basically a major California utility caused several major wildfires that killed 44 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Now they have liability of up to 17 billion dollars. This is not one fire they caused. They caused 16 with 11 of those due to violating safety laws. Now the California legislature in all its wisdom is about to decide this company is to vital to have to pay for the damage they caused.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...paign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

They should be wondering if California is too big to pfail.
 
California is communist enough, this sounds like an opportunity for the state to take over the company to keep it running and boot out all the execs and fine them and it would actually have public support

I think that is the most logical option.

Investors need to price risk correctly.

Of course legal penalties for those that were complicit in the safety violations. If they find no one responsible judgement goes against the board.

This really is the crux of the issue with unethical companies. Investors reap outsized rewards (till it bites them) but management (esp board level) reap vastly more but then suffer only marginally when it goes to shit. This is a classic and evet more frequent issue. It's not new (agency problem) but it's getting worse as board level pay blows out.
 
I'm glad we're served by Southern California Edison in Orange County. Never have safety issues with their maintenance schedule.

In fact, there are Edison billboard everywhere that reminds people to call them immediately if anything fishy is spotted, and Edison would would get right on it.

On the other hand, I have heard many horror stories about PG&E blatantly violating safety procedures, and now Sacramento is rewarding them with this bailout that come right out from the people's pockets.
 
Back
Top