No that’s exactly what we want. We want the free market to create efficiency without entrenched regulation, which could lead to some short-term increase in risk. But what you really want is to price in the risk, and the only way to do that is to remove government protections of individual corporations so that the free market can operate. Little companies increasing the risks of fire is a misnomer because competition and a truly free market would crush those companies and eliminate that problem faster than you could think of a solution. It’s only when you entrench a bureaucracy that you end up with problems like PG&E - a company that doesn’t have to deal with real consequences because it’s political connections will protect it.

What your describing sounds fantastic and is politically expeditious because there is less risk in backing the prevailing methodology, but it is not improvement.

Competition in transmission is good, because alternatives like alternative energy would completely displace these systems and technology advancements would be available and legal - unlike the current insanity.

You know how you can’t put in an oversized solar system and sell power back to the grid, even if you can afford to? Did you notice that the grid is super inefficient because it’s got a limited number of highly centralized generation sources? No? Well that’s the consequence of ownership of the transmission lines. If you own the last mile you own the network. And if you also own the politicians who can protect your last mile interests, why would you invest in change?