You'll have to verify this yourself, but my understanding is that there is no clear winner on the public choice issue of public vs private electrical. There are well-run and poorly-run examples on both sides.
In PG&E's defense, it's not literally cost-plus, and the CPUC doesn't always rubber stamp everything. Imagining the government alternative, what would really be different? There will still be a big bureaucratic organization full of imperfect humans with muddy incentives and limited resources. Would PG&E be better if the board of directors was appointed by politicians instead of elected by shareholders? I doubt it.
The most expensive energy would be Alaska and Hawaii for obvious reasons. California’s rates are similar to northeastern state rates (a bit lower than their average) but is definitely high for a western state that benefits from a lot of cheap hydro.
In PG&E's defense, it's not literally cost-plus, and the CPUC doesn't always rubber stamp everything. Imagining the government alternative, what would really be different? There will still be a big bureaucratic organization full of imperfect humans with muddy incentives and limited resources. Would PG&E be better if the board of directors was appointed by politicians instead of elected by shareholders? I doubt it.