Nationalizing them now would just ‘socialize the losses’ as the state would be on the hook for all the crap.
Yes, several, e.g., SMUD in Sacramento (PG&E spent a boatload lobbying against SMUD expansion to some of its territories a while back.)
Because profit maximizing organizations are generally cheaper for consumers and provide better services than state run enterprises. State run entities are beholden to political rules, not economic ones.
I think some might argue for full privatization, but does that ever work out with a natural monopoly (the transmission portions at least, not so much with generation)? It's like if Comcast provided electricity.
I don't think I'm far left enough to want to nationalize everything as a matter of course -- the state bureaucracy, as you imply, isn't great at staying nimble -- but something as mundane and essential as basic infra? Sure, why not.
From an equitable services standpoint, right now they're basically charging everyone (via rates) to pay for the actions for a few (solar homeowners), while shrugging off the wildfire situation with no real accountability. As a state enterprise they'd have to have more transparency and accountability (unless they're the Pentagon), and would be subsidized by the existing taxation structures that are already progressive. Right now, the skyrocketing electricity costs in the state are pretty terrifying to behold (I don't even live there), especially if they want to move everyone to EVs. It's just a mess...