This is how your link describes deregulation in California:

"very limited and is conducted by a lottery system called DirectAcccess"

There was a semi-deregulation in 1996, but it was largely rolled back in 2001. So any price data post data 2001 should be bucketed in regulated.

What’s interesting about those numbers is that Georgia generates much more power per person than California or New York. Georgia has a population of 10 million. California is at 40 Million and New York 20 million.

Ok, you are right.

But the thing still remains: the supposed Vogtle 3/4 boondoggle of gazzilions of dollars of cost overruns did not result in consumers paying more for electricity. Sure, historically they used to pay less than the national average, but they continue to pay less than the national average, and by about the same amount. The cause could be regulation or deregulation, or better geographic position, or whatever. But the consumers are not paying more, after Vogtle 3, am I right?

It resulted in the consumers there paying more than they would have had Vogtle 3/4 not been built.

Being a counterfactual, your statement is by definition opinion, not fact.

One can look at the cost of the alternatives and see I'm speaking the truth. Also, demand didn't increase as much as the (likely fraudulent) projections used to justify Vogtle 3/4.

All the "nuclear renaissance" nuclear builds aside from Vogtle 3/4 were cancelled because the utilities realized the alternatives were much better economically. V. C. Summer was cancelled after dropping $9B on it. Even with that sunk cost, it still wasn't worth completing.

What happened between back then and now is two (well, three) things: fracking crashed the price of natural gas, demand didn't increase as much as utilities said it would, and then (later, after fracking) renewables also became much MUCH cheaper. One can excuse the nuclear industry for not seeing this would happen (or perhaps for not wanting to see that it would happen), but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen, and that the nuclear builds turned out to be economically unjustifiable.

Things got so bad for nuclear we were seeing already completed NPPs being shut down because they couldn't even make an operating profit! The other reactor at TMI had been cash flow negative for the last six years it was in operation, for example. In that sort of environment, building a new NPP (which would also have to amortized construction and financing costs) would be totally out of the question economically.

Ok, so let's talk facts.

Fact 1. People in Georgia pay about 1.7 cent per kwh less than the national average ($0.110 vs $0.127 [1])

Fact 2. People in Georgia paid about 1 cent per kwh less than the national average 20 years ago ($0.077 vs $0.087, [2])

Are you disputing these facts?

[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Historical_state_electricity_prices

Comparing to the national average is clearly dishonest on your part, since those rates can differ for other reasons. What matters is the difference between what Georgia rate payers would pay with or without Vogtle 3/4.