>What's the difference? State run organizations like Hydro Quebec, are IMO not apt to create short term profits, by sacrificing long term cost saving measures. There is no CEO of Hydro Quebec getting a massive boost to income via stock profits, or awards due to profit targets met.
This is where Canada's concept of a crown corporation works quite well.
It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature. Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform and are not subject to the whims of the annual government budget.
>It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature.
Doesn't that describe PG&E? It's run at "long arm's length" from the government because it's a private company, but it's also accountable to the CPUC.
> Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform
What are these "market incentives to perform", and how does it not lead us back to square one with "these companies will cut costs to boost profits"?
It's worth pointing out the US already does this. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a Federally-owned utility, and the sixth largest in the country.
There are lots of other examples like this outside of utilities. The US Postal Service, Amtrak, the Export-Import Bank, and many others.
Not really. While it's true that a state run organizations might not cut costs to meet profits, that's just replaced with cutting to meet budget requirements. eg. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...