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.

It doesn't happen overnight. We're seeing this in Texas and California now. It takes time for these markets to mature.

Incidentally they're also more expensive than regulated integrated markets

No. There's still a control room deciding how much water to flow. It possibly could be fully automated, but hydro on my system is still operated via the control room by humans. My guess is that yours is too.

Every wire is a fuse with enough current.

This is the core problem. It's a single interdependent system. With no central planning like we have in other regulated electric systems the Texas failure is expected.

The reason is that generation is HIGHLY capital intensive and the generation needed for the tail risk events is uneconomic to own for anyone, but very economic for the system. It's this way because as long as that marginal generator exists the market prices stay too low. So on is own the generation isn't going to run many hours and will never make enough revenue. But in a systemic look it becomes economic because it's value to the system during tail events is so high and the entire system that benefits pays for the value during all hours.

In competitive deregulated energy markets this is the natural outcome - under building generation for peak or design day loads.

The system would still fail very quickly. Components are designed to trip off line anytime the power is to far out of balance. And most at the utility level don't automatically come back online.

If you want power when the grid is down, solar and battery is the best bet.