"Among its stated goals for energy regulation are to establish service standards and safety rules, authorize utility rate changes, oversee markets to inhibit anti-competitive activity, prosecute unlawful utility marketing and billing activities, govern business relationships between utilities and their affiliates, resolve complaints by customers against utilities, implement energy efficiency and conservation programs and programs for the low-income and disabled, oversee the merger and restructure of utility corporations, and enforce the California Environmental Quality Act for utility construction."
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Utilities_Co...
> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation...
For anyone who may be less familiar with 90s CA politics, this refers to then governor Pete Wilson (R) who was responsible for the utility deregulation which then became an albatross around his successors' necks.
Pete Wilson (R) who was responsible for the utility deregulation
For 22 years now, every committee in both houses was chaired by a Democrat.
Deregulation passed both houses with veto-proof majorities. Wilson had zero say in the matter -- CA doesn't have a "pocket veto" mechanism.
What makes California different that deregulation failed so badly?
The problem is that the remaining regulations created a hugely complicated market and still involved a lot of price controls for arbitrary things. Eg, "network charges component of retail electricity prices is set ... by the Australian Energy Regulator ... based on ...operational and maintenance expenditure" [0]. So we have an unregulated market where the cost of electricity goes crazy because wholesalers overspend on grid maintenance and get no-risk profit.
I don't know how California tried to do it, but in Australia deregulation didn't mean 'try and set prices using a market'. That was too hard and they didn't manage to set up a system that worked. It meant 'try and redirect profit from government to private enterprise'. Not surprisingly, the whole system is a disaster and worse than if they hadn't ever tried. I still think an actual free-market system would have worked but the design might be too delicate to run the political gauntlet and get legislated.
[0] https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure-log/pdf/10... - I think I'm characterising the situation fairly but rely heavily on general knowledge.
also in the 1990s, deregulation allowed the valuable parts of various electricity companies to be sold off in a classic private equity vulture move, leaving the utilities basically holding the bag on largely crufty shells. the governor said it all:
> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by "the next governor".
it's hard to imagine this ending well. i would advocate for regulatory enforcement via state attorney general election as the most direct /potential/ route for changing things. obviously jailing executives would be more effective, but despite way more deaths than boeing, that seems unlikely.