If PG&E could be undercut by 25%, then why are there no private companies doing it? Either it is not as profitable as the author claims, or PG&E's monopoly is d

If PG&E could be undercut by 25%, then why are there no private companies doing it? Either it is not as profitable as the author claims, or PG&E's monopoly is due to state regulations (I don't know enough about the specifics) and it would be quite contradictory to demand the state solve the problems it created. Overall it reads like any other socialist argument for nationalizing (in this case "municipalizing") companies, which does not work both on theoretical grounds and based on historical experience. The claim "Walnut Creek could borrow from its utility in recessions, and loan money during booms" is laughable. We know how that ends: the city would finance its deficits with utility money until the company is bankrupt.