The headline "billions spent on lobbyists and PR" is wildly misleading. The billions with a b went to dividends paid to stockholders. It's possible that over many years that millions were spent on lobbying and PR, but there's nothing unusual about a large company spending in those ranges. One may disapprove, but it's hardly news. That former politicians performed such pricey services is distressing, but again, not news. And since no figure was quoted for infrastructure spending, the story fails to prove its main thesis. A good rule of journalism about numbers is to answer "compared to what?"

This article does talk about how money was spent on legal/lobbying fees but not as much about the infrastructure. I would like to know how much upgrades would cost, is this just a company in way over it's head now and trying to hide that?

This actually cites invoices and other materials to present their case. It does not present the side of PG&E via comment or response; however, it would be interesting to see how much they actually spent on infrastructure comparatively.

Although the article is a bit one-sided and stacks the deck against PG&E with unfriendly sources and quotes, I applaud the investigative look at this situation. I'm dealing with this issue first-hand, and I appreciate The Intercept highlighting this local story with the investigative resources it demands.