PG&E is a public utility. That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality. It has two potential sources of income - ratepayers, and taxpayers. Where do you think the money is going to come from?
PG&E is making the argument that the cost to too high to be paid off by investors. If they state allows the cost to be fully covered by rate payers (keeping profits margins unchanged) what is the incentive for PG&E to take actions that reduce fire risks in the future?
This issue has come up in the past as well, e.g. the San Bruno pipeline explosion and what resulting safety upgrades should be financed though state approved rate increases vs. investors (reduced profits)
PG&E may be publicly traded, but it's not subject to market forces. It's a government-granted monopoly in the strictest literal terms. Penalizing the company or their shareholders doesn't change the market landscape; it doesn't improve the position of competitors or risk bankrupting the company.
PG&E's profit (dividend) is effectively decided on by a public committee. They pick how much profit the company gets on a cost-plus basis. They could pick any number at any time; they could certainly pick zero.
Let's say these bad events keep happening and we just keep the number at zero indefinitely. What changes?
No, it's a publicly regulated private utility.
> That it is not officially an arm of the government is a mere technicality.
No, it's not.
> It has two potential sources of income - ratepayers, and taxpayers. Where do you think the money is going to come from?
It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different (sometimes actually public, e.g., SMUD) utilities instead of PG&E.
And I say that as a PG&E ratepayer.
If PG&E doesn't have enough cash on hand, they should be forced to borrow it. If that wipes out dividends for investors for years to come, so be it.
But yeah, most of us who wind up shouldering the public burden of externalized costs to maximize private profit would call it greed.
It should come from ratepayers, because significant portions of the state are served by different utilities
That's like saying PGE customers should pay for SMUD's choice to decommission a functional nuclear plant.
I was accepting, for the sake of discussion, the implicit premise in the post I was responding to that on some level the choice was between taxpayers and ratepayers paying; otherwise, yes, stockholders would have been at least part of the answer.