Yet much of America has utilities run for profit with far cheaper rates than California, where PG&E operates as a vertically-integrated regulated monopoly.
As a California resident, I'm well aware. But that doesn't change anything; I still believe utilities should be run as non-profits (or co-ops or even just as government agencies, depending on what works best for local conditions).
The real problem in CA is that our governor is in PG&E's pocket, and the body that regulates the utility (with members appointed by the governor) is a textbook example of regulatory capture. I'm not sure why the legislature hasn't done anything about this, but I assume it has something to do with money, there, as well.
At this point I want SF to own its own grid, like Santa Clara and Palo Alto do. Of course, PG&E refuses to play ball with any plan/offer the city has put forth.
> that doesn't change anything; I still believe utilities should be run as non-profits
That's a valid position. My utility is a member-owned coöperative [1]. It pays me a dividend every year that I have the option of investing back into it for a return.
But that's not why its power is 10x cheaper than California's, despite my buying exclusively wind and hydro.
