PG&E talking to banks on multibillion dollar bankruptcy financing

PG&E Corp is in discussions with investment banks about a multibillion-dollar financing package to help navigate bankruptcy proceedings, a sign that Chapter 11 filing preparations are intensifying in the wake of potentially staggering liabilities from deadly wildfires, sources said on Sunday.

The California utility owner is in touch with large banks about so-called debtor-in-possession financing that could total between $3 billion and $5 billion, though the exact figure remains in flux and could end up being higher, said the sources, who are familiar with the matter.

PG&E talking to banks on multibillion dollar bankruptcy financing

I could see you or I walking into a bank and asking for a loan because we were thinking about going bankrupt. We would be laughed out of the bank as security watched our every move.

A bankruptcy filing would represent a last resort if the company is unable to get government relief that would allow it to pass on liabilities to customers, a maneuver enacted into law to help the company grapple with 2017 fires, the sources added.

If it seeks bankruptcy protection, the new money could prove critical for PG&E, which spends roughly $6 billion annually serving millions of electric and natural gas customers in California.

Why would they need government relief to be able to pass the cost onto their customers? If that doesn't work they will get a loan to go bankrupt? They spend $6 billion a year serving their customers. How can a power company not make money? This sounds crazy even for CA.

Is this really payment to PG&E for taking the blame in the cover-up of what really started the 2018 fires. There was a thread here the other day with 3 YouTube videos that were pretty convincing that the source of the fires was some kind of energy weapon and not the fault of PG&E.

I thought I had read they would consider bankruptcy, as it will be hard/impossible to sue them for damages?
If so, looks like they are investigating that avenue.

Thanks for bumping my thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just made a post about PG&E there. I thought Jerry Brown already signed a bill letting them off the hook er rather passing on the costs to the consumers. (wouldn't that be a hoot having to buy power from the very company that burned your dream home down). I wonder if the bankruptcy isn't intentional as a method of vulture capitalism in action.

I would think new leadership is in order. Should have happened a couple years back.

a reply to: LookingAtMars


I'm not sure about California but I know here in Indiana the utility companies have to get government approval to raise rates.
This sounds like the same thing.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

A law was passed last year to keep PG&E from going bankrupt, but they are looking to get billion dollar loans anyway...

Setting California Ablaze: Gov. Jerry Brown Signs A Ridiculous Wildfire Bill

Brown's signed the bill into law to prevent Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E), the state's largest utility company, from going bankrupt, the Associated Press reported.

The company faces billions in lawsuits should investigators rule that faculty equipment caused the Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa last year. The Tubbs Fire destroyed thousands of homes and killed 22 people.

The bill was designed to help the utility company absorb more than $10 billion in insured losses, the most in California's state history, the Associated Press reported. Part of the special process the bill created was allowing additional costs to be billed to PG&E customers.

a reply to: Bluntone22

And when they cannot raise "rates" by going to the utility commission....they pass on "service charges" and similar end runs around rate hikes.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Is this really payment to PG&E for taking the blame in the cover-up of what really started the 2018 fires. There was a thread here the other day with 3 YouTube videos that were pretty convincing that the source of the fires was some kind of energy weapon and not the fault of PG&E.

I wasn't entirely convinced by their DEW theory, but they also delved into the possibility of smart meters exacerbating the issue. If PG&E's smart meters were proven to be a cause of the fires... that might present some serious liability issues.



a reply to: LookingAtMars

I'm curious if that new law only covers them from liability regarding the Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa, or all fires.

Hmmmmm, from your linked article...

One significant change for the three largest utility companies – PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – is the bill's mandated hardening of equipment. The state plans to contribute $1 billion over the next five years to help with that requirement.

Mandated hardening... sounds like they may already suspect something like faulty equipment was a cause (maybe their smart meters?).

a reply to: redmage

I think hardening means to protect it from a CME or EMP, but you may be right. It does not define hardening.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Yup, hardening generally implies protection from EM/RF energy like an EMP, CME, or maybe even just hardening against public wifi signals. What I'm saying is something like... perhaps those smart meters were rated to handle a power surge of "X" and couldn't, or perhaps there was another technical/security issue with them like susceptibility to being hacked/overloaded remotely.

Iirc, the vids in Asktheanimals' thread showed images of a few smart meters that had melted down with little to no nearby structural damage. This could imply that they may have been where the threat originated, and that those houses/structures were simply more resilient to a "meter meltdown" than others. That might have preserved the evidence of those possibly-faulty smart meters being a cause, and why this restricted-liability law was passed with mandated hardening of equipment.

a reply to: redmage

Got you, yea the video showed melted meter covers and no other damage to some structures. That may point to the meters being the cause.

What I read in other threads though was PG&E had faulty power lines and also did not clear brush around poles and other electrical devices.

I also read that the camp fire started from careless people. I have not seen any proof of what caused the fires and it seems a little odd that PG&E seems to be taking the blame with no proof.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

That's the thing. This new law helps protect them from financial liability (aka: protected from taking the blame) while also mandating hardening of their equipment. The vague part is... exactly what "equipment" is mandated to be hardened? Their lines? Their transformers? Maybe their smart meters?

they will get bailed out by the state and given tax breaks to cover the losses

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
What I read in other threads though was PG&E had faulty power lines and also did not clear brush around poles and other electrical devices.

Since this is ATS....

Hypothetically speaking... faulty power lines and/or simply clearing brush around poles would be an interesting cover story to help prevent public panic if the cause was already known to be risky/faulty smart meters, especially since vast numbers more are still in use all across the state, and the fact that many people are already suspicious of them.

I wonder if there will be a wave of meter replacements across the state in the next few months...

a reply to: redmage

What about 5g?

a reply to: toysforadults

I suppose that might be a factor if those are the frequencies their equipment needs mandated-hardening against.

I don't know how much of CA has 5G coverage, or if the areas covered directly correlate with the fires.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

This is all code talk for asking for a taxpayer funded defence fund ....... in the national interest you see.

The CEO of PG&E has just resigned and will be replaced by the company’s chief legal counsel.

Having an attorney installed as your CEO might be an indication that you are expecting some rough legal seas ahead.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Oh my!

The plot thickens.

It's not every day ya see a CEO resign to be replaced by the company’s chief legal counsel.