I disagree gentlemen. I lived in TX for 10 years before moving to CA, and they have a true market system for power, that provides for high resiliency, high renewable generation, and extremely competitive rates for the end user.
The companies that own the poles+wires in TX are not usually the same as the power producers. Most customers in TX can choose which power producer they want to purchase power from (
www.powertochoose.org), and because of this competitive landscape, the price for power is a fraction of what it is in CA. Usually 8-12c/kwh.
And TX also has comparable renewable generation to CA. It produces as much wind energy as the next 3+ states combined (
https://www.power-technology.com/features/us-wind-energy-by-state/), but it is behind the curve in solar deployment (
Which States Are Best for Solar Power? | Vivint Solar Learning Center).
A for-profit monopoly (CA system) is the worst possible design for customers, although I would argue the sky-high rates in CA have been instrumental in selling crazy amounts of rooftop solar.
A non-profit model has merits, but the weakness in that kind of system is that you are beholden to the politicians and bureacrats to have your best interest and set power rates accordingly. That doesn't always happen.
A for-profit model with FORCED competition (i.e. the gov doesn't allow monopolies to take hold) is the best possible system for the consumer. Individual companies are incentivized to be ingenuitive in business model and keep prices competitive to attract customers.
