Why is it automatically the case that (for example) administrative policies set in place by government regulators in Venezuela couldn't already be set in place by PG&E's private administrators?
You can't just respond to every federal agency with "just like sugar companies in Venezuela". It's absurd.
As for Venezuela, they've also been subject to US sanctions when the privatize something, so cause and effect are hard to determine.
PG&E employees are not guaranteed salaries, pensions and benefits by the state. This means they need to stay competitive as they may get fired if revenues drop.
Presumably if California nationalized PG&E, it would be run by people with experience running utilities, not Hunter Newsom.
It's essentially a license to print money, with no incentives to improve. If you don't like their service, there's no competing power provider you can switch to. If you don't like them starting wildfires, you can sue them, and end up paying for your own lawsuit out of your next power bill. If you don't like them deferring maintenance, while paying shareholders dividends, you can... Complain on the internet?
At least with a state-owned utility, if you don't like how it's ran, you can always exercise your democratic rights to vote someone in who can fix it. Surely, of the 39.5 million people in California, you may be able to find one politician who knows how to run a business? Or knows how to hire managers that know how to run a business?
Here's an example:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M102/K3...
Then the price of Oil skyrocketed in the '00s, and the USA began destroying and sanctioning the economy to keep those oil rates high. This is the same reason Iran has sanctions, protecting the USA and OPEC.