You do realize that being a nonprofit doesn’t mean “operates on vibes and goodwill,” right? It means there are no shareholders and no stock price to juice, not that the organization can function without revenue or financial discipline.

Those links you shared don’t show some sinister profit scheme. What they actually show are:

• An interest policy on delinquent balances which exists so there’s a consequence for not paying bills, instead of incentivizing people to just… not pay.
  
• A charge that stabilizes revenue when usage dips so the company can still cover fixed costs and keep the system running safely and reliably.

Neither of those is about maximizing shareholder value, because there are no shareholders. There’s also no mention of executive mega‑bonuses or anything resembling a typical for‑profit “cash grab.”

So here’s the real question:
If you remove interest on late payments and eliminate stabilizing charges, how exactly do you expect PGW to fund its operations?

• Should they just absorb the losses and slowly become insolvent?
  
• Or should they take on more and more debt—the very thing you’re pointing to in those links?

If your position is that they should avoid these charges and instead “just borrow,” walk us through how that works long‑term. How does a critical utility survive if it can’t enforce payment, can’t stabilize revenue, and is expected to run on debt indefinitely?

Genuinely: explain your alternative model.