The last time we "reformed" CPUC so that energy markets could be more competitive and reliable, we essentially rendered the whole thing subject to the free markets. Immediately, both PG&E and SoCalEd teetered on the edge of bankruptcy due to corrupt energy traders (e.g., ENRON, but not just them) manipulating the markets. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Reform is not as simple as 'more' or 'less' regulation. A web of rules and processes can be quite permissive yet so complicated as to cause gridlock. Or they can mess up markets, create perverse incentives, or drive up (or down!) costs.

https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1541472199235710976?t=bD...

Regardless of what you think about how to manage going forward, it's hard to argue that current policies are working well. PG&E sells electricity to residential customers in Northern California at approximately 3x the national average price. By comparison, if you're in Oregon (right next door with similar climate, resources, and topography) your power is typically right around (or even slightly cheaper) than the national average. And it's less likely to go out in windy weather. As far as I can tell, PG&E is precisely the company you would expect to get out of the regulatory environment in which it operates (e.g., you guarantee fixed margin on opex and a larger fixed margin on capex, obviously the power company is driven to maximize costs and minimize maintenance). So I blame the regulators more than PG&E.