Politics.

ok, could you elaborate?

here's my take: it's convenient for politicians to fingerpoint and threaten IOUs in a state where wildfires are practically unavoidable (CC, veg, massive size). it works the base well, but they don't actually want the massive liability of wf risk running the state's Tx grid themselves. Especially not in a state with inverse condemnation. Esp not a gov that already bears too much risk via FAIR.

Gov will rarely actually push to even just reduce the ROR... even though they have that lever. I'm curious why you think this is. Not a gotcha or anything, I think there's lots of answers

Now, whether transitioning POUs to IOUs would serve ratepayers better (lower costs and reduced wildfires), I'm not sure there's a clear answer. If it were possible, I would vote on such a thing because I share your optimism. But I'm not sure I share your confidence. Options of equity financing etc can be helpful...

I want to make it clear im not an IOU apologist. I just think the whole system is broken, not just 1 (or i guess 3) actors.

	▲	SR2Z 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, the problem with bringing all this stuff under direct government control is that it's REALLY expensive to keep it maintained for residents in wildfire prone areas. SF is planning on buying out PG&E's assets, which will almost certainly reduce rates for SF customers and increase them for the rest of PG&E's base. I think that CA could transition to the Texas model and take control of transmission while leaving generation to the market. If the state could properly assess transmission fees, it could guide future development away from wildfire areas and incentivize local generation where possible. It would also drive down electricity prices and finally fix the embarrassing issue with "drill baby drill" TX doing better with renewables than CA.