[inferiorhuman]

They're not. Rural electricity can be had in the United States for far less than PG&E's charging. Look at Hawaii, Alasaka, TVA, etc., etc. PG&E is expensive because they have to pay for negligence, homicide, stock buybacks, dividends, executive bonuses, lobbyists, and back maintenance.

It's also worth noting that PG&E's got a history of astroturfing. Back in the 00s there was a local blogger, Greg Dewar, who ran a blog called the N Judah Chronicles. Ostensibly it was a blog about Muni and transit issues, but when muni power in SF came up for a vote boy was he hopping mad. It wasn't until someone else called him out for being on the PG&E payroll that he owned up to being paid to astroturf.

[nielsbot]

This interview with Sandeep Vaheesan on the history of public power in the US was super interesting. Relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvu6oBAeJ6E

[Braxton1980]

1.The last time PG&E had a stock buy back was in 2006.

2. Their dividend yield was 0.8% in 2025, the average for utilities was 3% to 5%. Alaska's APTL was 2.4% to 3.4%

3. Their state lobbying for 2024 to 2025 was less than $4 million. Federal was $60k (both insignificant)

4. California AB 1054 means that almost all of their largest liabilities will be reimbursed via the state wildfire fund. They also have insurance for anything that is not covered. While this won't cover it all the amount actually owned is likely to be low.

I also checked executive bonuses and while the CEOs pay is on the higher end it's not extreme. Not sure how much other executive bonuses could really add up enough to stand on its own as a reason for high electric rates, especially since all your other main arguments seem to be incorrect or exaggerated.

Regarding "back maintenance" this is a standard expense for a utility. Do you have some evidence that it's particularly high for PG&E, taking into account the size of the state?

Why would you make the assumption that the reasons PG&E is expensive(which I haven't even checked) are mostly due to corruption, excess pay or benefits to stock holders, or that the utility has a high liability debt? Most of the reasons you gave are ones that look bad for the leadership of the utility and maybe even the state. Is it possible that due to political propaganda over the long term you default to the assumption that anything a California connected entity does is bad so much so you don't even bother gathering evidence?

Also Hawaii has much higher electric rates than CA.

(Sources for any claims I made are available if requested)

[inferiorhuman]

  The last time PG&E had a stock buy back was in 2006.

Right and that's money that could've been spent on maintenance.

   Their dividend yield was 0.8% in 2025, the average for utilities was 3% to 5%. Alaska's APTL was 2.4% to 3.4%

This is post bankruptcy, pre-bankruptcy PG&E paid much higher dividends. But again current rate payers are paying for past malfeasance.

  California AB 1054 means that almost all of their largest liabilities will be reimbursed via the state wildfire fund.

lol who do you think pays for that? And before you say "the state" keep in mind PG&E serves about 16 million people in a state of under 40 million.

  I also checked executive bonuses and while the CEOs pay is on the higher end it's not extreme.

Don't forget that they were caught once paying executive bonuses out of their safety budget. I'm sure they've never done that before or since.

  Also Hawaii has much higher electric rates than CA.

No, it doesn't.

https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payme...

https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/resid...

HE is claiming a residential customer will pay around $0.45/kWh which is absolutely on par with PG&E. Keep in mind that HE currently charges fixed fees for electric service, PG&E doesn't yet but will add a fixed fee of $24/mo beginning next year. It shouldn't even be close. Practical Engineering covers it but Hawaiian Electric has some of the biggest challenges of all POCOs.

[fragmede]

Peak rate for San Francisco residents is $0.71/kWh

[hamandcheese]

How do you explain Santa Clara's dramatically cheaper electricity compared to San Francisco?

[monero-xmr]

Most people agree that we need utilities to be monopolies. PG&E, for all intents and purposes, is an arm of the state. Perhaps it’s private in some sense but we all know it’s the government. It has to abide by all manner of government mandates, there is no competition. If you want it to go bankrupt just let it go bankrupt. Whatever replaces it will be the same thing. I don’t have a solution but all the teeth gnashing isn’t going to change the fact that electricity is a government issue and whoever runs it will work at the behest of the California government and the voters.

Pass whatever rules you want. It isn’t going to change the fundamental nature of the org, which is a reflection of the voters. This is a government problem, through and through

[kelnos]

> electricity is a government issue and whoever runs it will work at the behest of the California government and the voters.

That's hilarious. The CPUC is regularory-captured like nobody's business, and our governor has been in the pocket of the utility for as long as I can remember. I guess in some sick way that's "at the behest of the government", but it sure as hell isn't at the behest of voters.

Unfortunately, we rarely have choices in every aspect of political candidates in order to change this state of affairs.

[judahmeek]

I've never heard of any monopoly that worked "at the behest of the California government and the voters."

Monopolies work to enrich themselves, not to provide social benefit.

[Redoubts]

Perhaps that's in alignment with California government :)

[hamandcheese]

It's not government in at least one major way: there are private shareholders which dividends are paid out to.

This incentive structure perfectly aligns with most of the dysfunction of PG&E.

So no, it isn't really comparable with a truly government owned public utility.