>A private company sends excess capital to shareholders. A public utility is likely to send "excess" capital into politically driven projects.

Sending the capital to maintenance would be a politically driven project right now for public utility. For private company even right now it is still a conflict of interests between maintenance and shareholder interests.

I'm not saying that a private utility is the best answer. I'm saying that a publicly run utility may not be any better.

Consider the following regarding NY, DC & SF subway systems:

"How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways Disruptions and delays have roiled the system this year. But the crisis was long in the making, fueled by a litany of errors, a Times investigation shows." 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

"Metro sank into crisis despite decades of warnings Metro’s failure-prone subway — once considered a transportation jewel — is mired in disrepair because the transit agency neglected to heed warnings that its aging equipment and poor safety culture would someday lead to chronic breakdowns and calamities." 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...

"Past decisions haunt BART as it seeks voter OK for $3.5 billion bond" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-BART-s-futur...

That excess capital being sent to shareholders clearly isn't being reinvested into stopping fires and maintenance. Because then, you know, cutting power might not be necessary?

It's amazing we're debating the pros/cons of public vs private utilities while we have an example of an incredibly corrupt private utility that needs to be shutdown and with execs thrown in jail for gross negligence.

Private monopolies like PG&E, which face little to no competition, are not typically known for their efficiency. Such an important public service which naturally tends towards monopoly should either be publicly owned, or it should be subject to extensive regulatory control.