They're polar opposites politically. It's an inherent part of the nature of deregulated generation. It's just a pretty straight forward math problem to show that there is a financial disincentive to maintain enough generation for low probably events when the generation is viewed in isolation.

This is compounded by the use of gaussian statistical models for nongaussian probability - like forecasting weather extremes. So the extreme events are underestimated.

But most importantly it's also compounded by the cost of capital. In rate of return regulated markets the cost of capital is lower across the board (that's why they provide cheaper service). Cost of capital is much lower for the capital projects targeted at the low probability events. Those are risky investments in deregulated matters and require high returns. So they don't pencil out as viable commercial projects. In regulated markets those facilities are ordered by the regulators and have a guaranteed opportunity to earn a fair return. The fair return on equity being much lower because of the low risk.

The result is that regulated markets with integrated utilities and good regulation tend over time to both lower cost and more reliable.