> 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.
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.