I don’t think you understood my comment. PG&E is as regulated as you can possibly get without literally being part of government. When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense.

My point here is not to argue that with less regulation, PG&E would do better job when it comes to maintenance — I don’t know if it would. However, considering how deeply regulated it actually is, and how much the regulator controls everything it does, some blame must also be placed on the regulator’s side.

> When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense.

...and did they ask? It's their job to ask. You can't blame the oversight organization's interference if it didn't interfere.

If you have to ask a government committee every time you go to washroom, you will notice a significant drop in your washroom visits.

if people die when I stop going to the washroom, I am willing to evaluate the idea that I may have some culpability in deciding to not do that

Getting approval once per campaign, or maybe every few months, is pretty different from petty micromanagment.

There's definitely an observable issue with Californian electricity supplies being significantly worse than in other parts of the world, which have more liberalised transmission operator firms.

Is it more liberalised in other parts of the world though? That’s not usually the case for Europe and China (the next two biggest global economies). Perhaps it might be true specifically with regards to electricity supply but I would be very surprised if that were the case knowing how the U.K. likes to regulate similar services which I have directly been employed by.