News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces Collapse. Parent comment

Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by joe_the_user on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:23PM (#18906631)
Once you hit up the utility for all the money you can get, either you ditch the grid altogether, or everyone using the grid is going to end up paying for most of it in one way or another.

That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Thus the state of California could run PG&E as public utility pretty quickly if it wished and then charge whatever rates it felt appropriate, making up costs with taxes or not.

The main thing that would happen is PG&E shareholders and possibly bondholders lose their investment, high paid private executives and consultants are fired and the savings to the state.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by njarboe on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:28PM (#18906690)
The bigger question is would this cause a decrease of fires and other problems, reduce costs, and increase reliability and access to power. Hard to know. The problems of delivering power in California are hard and complicated.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by dahdum on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:37PM (#18906771)
I think you are underestimating the impact drastically of California seizing and nationalizing PG&E, or even trying to.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by nitwit005 on Monday January 14, 2019 @06:49PM (#18907689)
> That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior.

Nothing besides the fact that the state has no interest in running a power company? They could have nationalized it long ago if they wanted to.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by dragonwriter on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:38PM (#18906784)
> Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior.

Bankruptcy will indeed prevent that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by gruez on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:45PM (#18906830)
Why? Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts; you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PG&E Sparked at Least 1,500 California Fires, Now Faces C... by dragonwriter on Monday January 14, 2019 @05:03PM (#18906961)
> Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts

Bankruptcy sets a legally-defined priority of creditors, and prevents execution of judgements (it doesn't stop them being found liable and establishing a debt, but it does prevent execution of the judgement, i.e., by seizing assets to satisfy the debt.)

> you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets.

Sure, California could bid on the assets.

[ Parent | on HN ]