Sacramento municipal has a lot of customers in a small space. Running a grid in and around a major city is significantly different than covering an entire state with lots of mountains and forests from Oregon to San Luis Obispo.
All of their 2024 revenues combined are ~$22B vs PG&E's $24.4B, to cover an area 3x larger with just over half the population and even drier climates. All of those states have lower average rates as well.
PG&E is uniquely expensive for no legitimate reason that I've ever been able to discern.
Despite approving the cost increases, state regulators are now complaining that PG&E is spending too much on wildfire mitigation. For example, they're telling PG&E to shift from burying transmission lines to using covered conduction (i.e. plastic shielding around overhead transmission lines). But PG&E is pushing back because they're on the hook for the wildfire civil claims and argue the less costly mitigations are too risky.
[1] See https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/196kjtu/pge_rates_...
The ratio of revenue to area served here is radically different though and the other states are significantly better. We can make a prediction to double check this that people in those states pay lower rates on average, which is also true.
If you want to go and add up the customers directly, PG&E serves 5.5M. The others serve around 8.3M people collectively from some quick searches. I don't have info on actual service area, nor do I really want to spend months writing an industry report on it.