California PUC says T-Mobile and Sprint can’t merge until it makes a final decision on the deal


Yesterday T-Mobile and Sprint announced that they had completed their merger, but the deal still hasn’t gotten official approval from the California Public Utilities Commission, the final hurdle it needs to clear before it can officially merge. Now the CPUC has something to say about that.

The CPUC has issued an order saying that T-Mobile and Sprint cannot begin the merger of their California operations until it makes its final decision on the application. The CPUC issued a proposal to approve the merger earlier this month, but it won’t officially vote on the matter until April 16th.

Here’s what the CPUC had to say in response to T-Mobile and Sprint announcing their merger’s completion yesterday:

“Public Utilities Code Section 854(a) states in relevant part that “[n]o person or corporation, whether or not organized under the laws of this state, shall merge, acquire, or control … either directly or indirectly, any public utility organized and doing business in this state without first securing authorization to do so from the commission.” Both Joint Applicants, T-Mobile and Sprint, have California subsidiaries that are public utility telephone corporations under state law, and subject to the jurisdiction of this agency.

“The merger of the companies’ operations in California is therefore subject to CPUC approval. Accordingly, Joint Applicants shall not begin merger of their California operations until after the CPUC issues a final decision on the pending applications.”

I’ve reached out to T-Mobile for a response to the CPUC’s order but have not yet received a response.

Tellus Venture Associates’ Steve Blum shared a letter from T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert to CPUC Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen from March 31st that says that T-Mo planned to go ahead with the merger despite not having the CPUC’s official blessing. In it, Sievert explains that an April 1st closure is necessary because of the uncertainty in financial markets related to the coronavirus pandemic and T-Mo’s need for financing to complete the deal.

Additionally, Sievert argues that closing the merger now will provide certainty to T-Mobile and Sprint’s customers and employees and that an April 1st close is necessary for accounting and financial reporting needs. Finally, the new T-Mo CEO says that he has the view that “the Commission lacks jurisdiction over this transaction” and that T-Mobile believes that the FCC has exclusive authority to approve wireless deals.

Blum suggests that this situation could lead to a dispute in federal court.

Yesterday was a big deal for T-Mobile and Sprint as they celebrated the completion of their merger two years after it was first announced, but now it looks like T-Mo may have a little more work to do before its merger is officially complete. It’ll definitely be interesting to see how this situation plays out, so stay tuned.

Via: Light Reading
Source: CPUC

Tags: , , ,

  • HotInEER

    Who would of thought, California holding something up.

    • Shaun Michalak

      wouldn’t it be more like.. “who would of thought, California screwing something up” be more accurate??

      • Bilesha Welton

        Technically it would be “who would HAVE thought, California screwing something up” if we’re going for total accuracy. Or “who would have thunk” if we’re splitting hairs.

        • Shaun Michalak

          True, but I just copied the first as to pun off of the last part..

  • Christian Flores

    Simple…just don’t operate in California till it gets approved…the rest of the states don’t have to be held accountable for one.

    • John Doe

      Simple, don’t hire this guy at a management level position at T-Mobile unless you want the company to sink. Not an ounce of analytical thinking or just basic common sense went into his comment lol

      • riverhorse

        Do you realize your first name is masculine but your last name feminine?

        • John Doe


  • Jay Trainer

    For crying out loud, they’ve had two years to figure this out.

  • Willie D

    At this point I dont even care anymore. Hard to give a darn about companies and wireless service when you dont have a job or income to support it. Prices go up, service goes down.. so who cares.

    • marque2

      I have only used them 6 years but have never had TMobile raise my prices. In that time they have only increased my service and speeds for the same price. Just recently they upgraded some extremely old plans from the 5 and 10gigs a month to unlimited usage.

      Why do you say this stuff. You enjoy trolling, or what. I doubt you are a TMobile customer.

      • John Doe

        T-Mobile didn’t change prices for you but they definitly raised prices of their plans, you are just stuck in yours. Also they changed their services like limiting video to 480P unless you pay more and limited hotspot. They limited all old plans to 480P until they were forced to provide an option for people to turn it off but it is on by default and turned it on for everyone.

        Not all T-Mobile customers are in love with T-Mobile lmao there can be customers who voice displeasure with the company. You are delusional.

        • Brandon

          I see both of y’all points of views. And u both are right. T-Mobile is the carrier that forces people off of grandfathered plans the least.

        • marque2

          Just last year – instead of forcing folks off of legacy plans, they kept the price the same and added data allowances to modernize the plans. I have heard of AT&T adding spurious fees and giving people a hard time over legacy plans – especially the infinite data plans they gave to the original iPhone accounts – but never Tmobile.

          In fact if you want to add a phone to a legacy plan, they will, at the legacy rate.

        • riverhorse

          I’ve migrated out of TMobile for my own “cellular cost & cord-cutting ” reasons, but the logic & intentions of your post are very suspect plus misleading to the point of untruthfullness.
          1. You wouldn’t expect any other business to freeze their product price permanently.
          2. Cellular service is not like groceries- you buy it once- & there’s no re-buying necessary, especially because to boot TMO grandfathers you in PLUS periodically boosts up adds even more.
          3. Plans from 2-3 decades still exist at the same price, with to boot extra higher allowances added… WHEN MAINTAINED ACTIVE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION:
          4. I’ve never ever heard of a single TMO customer complain their price went up andor features were removed or lowered.
          5. Ergo there’s only three reasons for complaining:
          A. Future customers (¿my acquaintances?) who missed a promo signup deadline may pay higher prices in the future.
          B. Bad credit luck incarceration triggered account adverse action.
          C. Competitor trolling.

        • John Doe

          Learn what inflation is.

          Also its cute that you think no T-Mobile customer complain (it does not have to be just about price).

      • Sayahh

        Come back when you lose your job and can’t even afford grandfathered plan prices, but I hope that never happens to you. Be empathetic. Real people are really suffering nowadays. Imagine if this thing goes on for 2 years (the COVID-19, not the merger delay)…

        • marque2

          Not sure how “TMobile never raised prices on me” turned into someday you will lose your job and not be able to pay $15 a month.

          If I am that bad off, I’ll get an obamaphone.

    • ObsidianVendetta

      The most logical statement ever!

  • Tim McKee

    California… Back of the line… You get 5g last just for being a douche.

  • Bilesha Welton

    Dear California,
    F off.
    Sincerely, the rest of the country.

    • John Doe

      Don’t speak for the rest of the country.

    • Ver

      I’m in California and for the merger so why don’t you just pipe down.

      • dickhammer

        You keep voting retards into office, bud.

        • marque2

          Can’t help it – with ballot harvesting allowing almost unlimited fraudulent votes, it is now impossible to get the ruling party out.

    • Sayahh

      I’m in California and I wouldn’t tell Florida or any other state to F off. But first amendment right prevails, so continue to feel free to tell us to F off. But if you don’t pay California state taxes, then we don’t care about what you have to say.

      Sincerely, me. (Because I don’t speak for everyone in California.)

      • Bilesha Welton

        I migrated LEGALLY to California and left because you all care more about the illegal immigrants than citizens or legal immigrants like me. Don’t believe me? Check out your homeless numbers. So California can definitely F off.

        • John Doe

          You are an idiot.

        • Bilesha Welton

          Nice argument lol

        • Jonathan

          That’s how they haVe a debate. Like children.

        • Bilesha Welton

          It’s okay. They can debate like children. It’s okay if people disagree but the name calling is not necessary. Plus I’ve been in California. I’ve seen it for myself.

        • John Doe

          That is the only way you argue with an idiot. You call them out for what they are. No BS here.

        • Ver


        • JG

          I can’t speak to the specific conditions your referring to…

          But immigration status isn’t the only way to become homeless, unfortunately. I’d imagine most states have issues with homelessness.

          I’d imagine the southern states probably would have higher numbers simply as people in the north would likely migrate south. If I were living on the street and I could make it happen I’d much rather be somewhere in the Carolinas or south. No more having to worry about freezing to death.

        • Bilesha Welton

          Nope. California accounts for one quarter of the entire homeless population in the country.

        • Mike Thaler

          That’s because – if you were homeless, would you rather be in a state like W. Va, Ky, or Ga. or a civilized state like Ca. where you know you won’t be left to starve?

        • marque2

          You mean civilized state that has shelter, or California where they have you live in the street and pretend to do so because “they care”

        • Bilesha Welton

          Civilized? Wow you are really stupid.

  • UniBroW

    I’m not for the merger but it’s hilarious that California thinks it has more power than the feds

    • Sayahh

      The 10th Amemdment lets states look out what’s best for their own residents.

      • JStatt

        Not when it conflicts with cross state commerce. The 10th grants states powers not expressly allowed to the Feds, but interstate commerce IS a power expressly granted to the Feds. There is not a strong argument. Good luck arguing wireless airwaves used in every other state can somehow be blocked by 1 state. Neither sprint or T-Mobile are even headquartered in California. They will lose.

        • JG

          Good luck arguing wireless airwaves used in every other state can somehow be blocked by 1 state.

          They could potentially cite the Courts recent Net Neutrality ruling as precedent. Each state can regulate the internet and impose their own unique laws on it within their own border, even though it is an interstate system used not across the US.

        • JStatt

          Not relevant really. That has no impact on wireless signal that goes across borders vs physical network lines. Further, that doesn’t deal with whether the CPUC itself would have authority, and lastly Title 1 even in net neutrality rules doesn’t apply to wireless carriers. The decision by the DC court of appeals is still subject to further appeals also. It’s grasping at straws.

        • marque2

          I can understand the DC court of appeals, the federal government has decided to no longer regulate the neutrality of networks. However , when the federal government asserts the right, states won’t have any power to make their own regulations.

        • marque2

          That is only because the federal government decided not to regulate net neutrality, and has not made it illegal to impose local rules. I am pretty sure eventually the federal government will step back in and regulate the internet uniformly across the nation.

  • gorilla

    Just cut the service in California. See what they would say now.

    • John Doe

      They would lose their spectrum after a while if they are not using it by the FCC. Not to mention the customers they would lose and money spent on improving their network. Also get a huge fine from the FCC because that would interrupt 911 calls which is illegal. Frankly that would be the stupidest thing they would do.

  • deepdebt

    I was against the merger, but I think this is the peoples republic going a bit too far. If they want to stop them from dropping or changing any of Sprint’s promotions until later this month ok, but otherwise I think they should be allowed to start merging their networks.

    California needs to remember that Sprint and T-Mobile are being very accommodating with data on their network during the stay at home order. Accommodation that, by the way, would not be so vital if the agencies had done their jobs and ensured that landline broadband was provided to suburban and rural homes instead of just to the cities.

    • Sayahh

      The devil is in the details. People signed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act without reading it and Snowden showed what impact that may have had.

      • taxandspend

        That evolved from what it originally was. Just ask the architects who were appalled when they found out what happened to it.

        • marque2

          Just ask the architects who were (wink wink) appalled when they found out what happened to it.

          Fixed it for you. Of course the architects knew. But what the patriot act has to do with two medium sized companies wanting to merge? The smaller because it was going bankrupt, the bigger because it needed more bandwidth for customers, to provide better service to its customers and the mergees customers.

          And the hysteria for companies wanting to provide more and better service – and just survive amongst liberal types is just bizarre.

  • James Veley

    90% of the rest of America has approved the deal. Tmobile should sue california for every cent that can get. California is happening the ability for Tmobile to compete fairly. Where were they when Verizon and ATT gobbled up internet providers, movie studios, and video services, not to mention other smaller wireless carriers?

    • Sayahh

      Sue California, then California decides they don’t want T-Mo to operate in that State. Nice going, lawyers.

      Microsoft gobbled up smaller companies, too, but if Microsoft wanted to merge to Google to go up against Apple or merged with Apple to go up against Google, you’d be okay with that?

      • JStatt

        California cannot ban T-Mobile from operating in the state without legitimate cause and “they sued me so I’m angry” would be tossed easily from court. Your comparison to the big tech companies is hilariously bad. Sprint is no Google. They are more similar to Nokia, a phone manufacturer that was once a dominant player but then declined to become a small player. Microsoft bought Nokia and no one had any issues. This merger is happening whether you like it or not. The CPUC cannot stop it.

      • marque2

        You are talking just extremes here. You are comparing the biggest company in the world, against maybe the 10th biggest in the world merging with two small fries that barely make a difference. One of which was on the verge of insolvency.

  • John Doe

    This merger is going to happen one way or another so they might as well get in a room and work out an agreement unless T-Mobile wants to be tied up in another lawsuit. The CPUC’s conditions are not even that crazy, its stuff T-Mobile as mostly promised anyways so they are just being childish not just waiting until April 16 until they vote and agree to it…

    “The CPUC is proposing conditions that sound along the same lines as what some other states ascertained, such as providing 5G with speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 99% of the state’s rural population by the end of 2026 and providing 5G with speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 85% of the state’s rural population and speeds of at least 50 Mbps available to 94% of California’s rural population by the end of 2026.

    The combined company must increase jobs in California by at least 1,000 compared to the total number of current Sprint and T-Mobile employees, and it’s supposed to have back-up power to serve customers for at least 72 hours after an emergency event or a utility public safety power shut-off.”

    • riverhorse

      Ok Mr. Lobbyist.

    • Sayahh

      “…get in a room and work out an agreement…”

      Governor might not let that happen right now due to social distancing.

      • John Doe

        lol figure of speech

    • Bumblebee

      I’m glad you have finally read up on this as opposed to previous comments of yours. The merger will go through, whether Tmobile “pays” one way or another; jobs or money will go through. If it doesn’t, then California will be responsible for leaving customers with even LESS choices by negating two companies to provide PUC services, as opposed to 1.
      That being said, it’s not JUST the increased jobs that California wants.

      • John Doe

        Yes but you were saying that the state AG wanted a bribe which is idiotic and a total bs conspiracy theory. Not the same thing at all. Nothing in the CUPCs conditions mentions anything about direct payments, it is about the network.

        • Francisco Peña

          each AG that withdrew got considerable concessions from Tmo.. so while not a “bribe” to their pockets, its a state bribe, nonetheless.

        • John Doe

          It’s called a settlement. If you don’t know the difference between a settlement and a bribe then you should consult a nearby dictionary but I am going to awesome that you don’t own one.

        • Cash

          Yes it is a bribe, the kind socialist goverments extract from companies.

        • John Doe

          I guess you never gotten a settlement before? You socialist judge really did you a disservice there.

        • Francisco Peña

          you can be awesome, but I will “assume” you aren’t.

          Settlements are PC terms in court. In this case, we all know it is a bribe.. call it what you want.

          CA: I’m suing you.
          TMo: no, this will be great for everyone
          CA: I’m suing you.
          TMo: OK, I promise that I’ll bring 10,000 jobs, 5G to 90% of California, no bill hikes, etc etc…
          CA: OK, you are approved

          Bribe: something that serves to induce or influence
          Settlement: an agreement reducing or resolving differences

          Settlement/bribe…. same difference. they are saying no unless they get concessions. like every other state that folded.

          hash it whichever way you want…

        • John Doe

          You don’t even know how to use a dictionary properly, no wonder lol

          1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

          Settlement (The one you got is not from Merriam-Webster btw)
          2a: an act of bestowing or giving possession under legal sanction
          b: the sum, estate, or income secured to one by such a settlement

          But even by your cherry picked definitions they are still completely different terms with different motives and meaning. That is like saying a surgeon would be called a murder if his patient died during surgery. So all surgeons are murderers :)

        • Francisco Peña

          Thanks for proving my point.

          California is holding this up because they want concessions, like every other state that caved. So California is basically asking for a bribe. They will give a positive judgement in the case as a result of something (in this case offer of jobs, coverage, etc). so yes.. that is exactly a bribe. Expecting something in return to giving your blessing, is essentially a bribe. Thanks for playing.

          And I see you are kinda clueless in things..
          Murder (from Merriam Webster): : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

          So a surgeon who has a patient die in surgery, as long as he’s actively trying to save his life, wouldn’t be convicted of murder. a Surgeon who was operating on someone and purposely did something, could be charged with murder, but then the Hospital and insurance, would try to give a settlement (i.e. bribe) to go away and not sue for more money. Plenty of instances of a healthcare worker purposely infecting, or killing patients and been charged, BTW.

          Subsequently, there are Samaritan Law’s (Based on the Good Samaritan story in the Bible) that absolve the regular public, in the act of trying to save someone’s life, of any crime if a person dies.
          So let’s say you have a heart attack and pass out on the floor. Someone comes up to you and does CPR and cracks your ribs, and either causes more damage, or kills you. That person would be innocent and can’t be charged or sued as they are actively trying to save you, which is what Samaritan Law’s are intended to do. Now if that person comes, kicks you, stomps on your head and kills you, then they are murderers, if its shown you could have survived. Also, if someone sees you injured or in need (like a heart attack) and don’t do anything, they could be charged with various other violation, it varies by state. Some do, some don’t. See.. its the context in how its done.

          Thanks for playing, but like each game show, there is a winner and loser, and you didn’t win.

        • John Doe

          I love how you sidestepped the actual issue at hand (you not understanding the difference between bribe and settlement) but going into a crazy and stupid rant about my analogy. A bribe is a crime, a settlement is not.

          Learn how to use a dictionary, have basic common sense then maybe you can call shots on who the winners and losers are. Idiot.

        • Francisco Peña

          you still around? lol

          I didn’t sidestep anything. I pointed out how your comment was idiotic (death from a surgeon isn’t necessarily a crime).

          I also said WAAAAYYYYY back that “Settlements are PC terms in court.”

          Its a bribe nonetheless, because the state wants a concession for their acceptance.
          Your comment:
          “money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust”

          let’s rework it…

          money or favor (extra jobs, more coverage, lower prices, etc) given or promised in order to influence the judgment (acceptance/approval) or conduct of a person in a position of trust (California PUC).

          Now you DO know, that a bribe works both ways… so if the person in a position of trust demand/wants/requests that money or favors to influence a judgement, its still a bribe.. you can spin it how you want, as Settlement is a term for the courts, but in this case, still a bribe nonetheless. Funny how every one of the states raging about this deal dropped their suits once TMo agreed to some concessions. You can call it settlement if you want.. everyone knows it for what it is.. a legal bribe to get them to go away.

          Enjoy your day, because I’m sure its pretty crappy. and you can post again if you want, but no use.. I’ve made my point, and if you can’t see it, that’s on you.

        • John Doe

          No settlements are not “PC terms”. It is a legal term. A bribe is illegal, a settlement is legal conducted under the supervision of a judge or regulatory body.

          Again here are the definitions:

          2a: an act of bestowing or giving possession under legal sanction
          b: the sum, estate, or income secured to one by such a settlement

          1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

          The california PUC was going to approve it anyways and they have approved but they still issued requirements that T-Mobile must meat.

          There is no such thing as a “legal bribe” and just saying that proves that your are the idiot you seem to be.

        • Francisco Peña

          You still around? I thought after 9 days you died from Covid-19. I guess I was wrong.

          And it seems you still rehashing the same crap as before.

          I have a question…
          “The california PUC was going to approve it anyways and they have approved but they still issued requirements that T-Mobile must meat.”

          What kind of meat does T-Mo need, sirloin or flank? Maybe in your case, a nice rump roast. LOL

          ps… if you’d actually read… ONCE AGAIN….
          “I also said WAAAAYYYYY back (Actually 17 days ago) that “Settlements are PC terms in court.””

          If you’d actually have some reading comprehension, you could have avoided looking like a fool.

        • John Doe

          That is exactly what I expect from someone with a flawed argument, to change the subject and focus on a misspelled word. That is also a grammar error and has nothing to do with reading comprehension but I would not expect you to know the difference.

          And I said that “No settlements are not ‘PC terms’. It is a legal term.” Again, you lack basic reading comprehension. You don’t even know the difference between a politically correct term vs a legal term.

          A bribe is a crime and a settlement is not, they can’t be used interchangeably. Stop making a fool of yourself, please.

        • Francisco Peña

          Poor Bambi.. I didn’t change the subject, note how I wrapped it back up with the actual topic.

          bribe bribe bribe. legal or not… The difference between the two is one is “allowed” because its in the courts, the other is because its not in the courts. They are both, in this instance, getting to the same result… “I’m not granting you permission, unless we get concessions”

          Spin it how you want bambi.

        • John Doe

          “The difference between the two is one is “allowed” because its in the courts, the other is because its not in the courts”

          Thank you, one is legal and one is illegal. You dumbass just proved my point. Bye

        • Francisco Peña

          You still around? Spin it how you want…
          legal bribe if you want to sleep better at night. Seems you like to keep coming back to this conversation.
          bribe bribe and another bribe…

        • John Doe

          Yes AKA Settlement :)

        • Francisco Peña

          if you have to come 19 days later, you know you lost the argument.
          Enjoy the bribe.

    • Douglas Anderson

      Wrong. California doesn’t have the authority to rule the country. This is a federal issue.

      • John Doe

        California is in charge of California, this has nothing to do with the rest of the country only California. States have a lot more power than the federal government, maybe try reading the constitution sometime.

        • Douglas Anderson

          I happen to be a student of our Constitution. I also happen to be a big believer in States Rights. This however, is not a states right issue. I suggest you look at the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This does not just affect California. That is the reason that California has not jurisdiction outside of the multi-state lawsuit they already lost. When that was over, the merge was approved. So, California is in charge of California.Therefore California does not get to rule over a national merger.

        • John Doe

          This only pertains to California you dim wit. T-Mobile and Sprint can continue to merge everywhere else except California. You maybe a “student of our constitution” (whatever that means lol) but you are not applying it correctly, California is not stopping the merger from happening outside of its borders. Actually T-Mobile and Sprint have already merged but in order for them to combine their network and stores inside of the state of california they have to get approval just like with global companies they would have to get approval from every country they operate in.

  • Jim Mill

    Can we just get rid of California, so sick of California and New York, it’s going to happen whether they like it or not.

    • Bilesha Welton

      Yes please

  • David

    damn,california… Though i live in the state but still geez move on cali it is gonna happen!!

  • Francisco Peña

    Tmo should drop the subsidiaries in California and merge.

    • Douglas Anderson

      No need. This is a necessary court fight. California has tried to rule the USA for decades. This is a federal issue. This is no different than the current administration saying California doesn’t have the right to set federal vehicle admission standards either.

      • pda96

        Rule the USA? Surely, you jest. I’d like to hear your argument on why the CA emission standard is “bad” for the USA. Also, what is the current Supreme Court ruling on this issue? If the SC hasn’t struck down CA’s right to set its own emission standards, then what is the problem?

        Other states had objections to the TMO/Sprint merger as well. But they were resolved. Now, TMO has to do the same with CA. Again, why are you huffing and puffing?

        • Douglas Anderson

          Incorrect, the states had the right to sue. They did and lost. TMO settled with several of them. California chose not to settle and lost the suit. Case closed.

          However, I do not jest. California thinks it is the only state that matters. I did not say that California emission standards were bad. I said they don’t have the right to do it. This particular issue is being litigated now, so the Supreme Court should do the right thing and keep federal issues federal and local issues local.

          You did make me laugh. You huff and puff when I simply point out that California is huffing and puffing. I am guessing you must be frome there.

        • pda96

          Whether I’m “from there” or not is irrelevant. Your statement “CA has tried to rule the USA for decades” brought me laughter as well. You must be a Trump supporter, I’m guessing.

          Cased close? Judging from the CPUC, case is NOT closed.

        • Douglas Anderson

          True. It doesn’t matter where you are from. It was just funny how “butt hurt” you were over California being stupid.

          I am a Constitutionalist. This has nothing to do with Trump. I didn’t personally like Trump or Hillary. It was a race between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. It looks like we will basically have a rematch in 2020. .

        • marque2

          Being a Californian myself there is more truth to California trying to rule the world – than what you have had to say.

        • marque2

          It is baby because it costs to much now for too little return. The summer and winter fuels that CA requires and other states that follow the CA standard also restricts supply of fuel causing about a 50¢ increase in gas costs. This reduces the economy size and increases costs for consumers all for negligible improvement to pollution.

  • slybacon

    The most retarded state government in the union.

  • Michael TEn

    Why the hell dose California think it Rules over everything I live in Ca for now it’s a hard state especially nothing Ca the highest Rents higher gas prices higher cigarette prices they don’t have last say in anything how bout this in all of Ca there’s different home gas and power companies just in the Bay Area is PG&E it’s a monopoly if you don’t use pg&e you don’t get power lights and gas they won’t make payments arrangements they act like they owner you pg&e got me evicted out of my house before I lost my home my deposit and rent of 12 months thanks to pg&e