Corporations are a free expression of how individuals want to conduct business and earn a profit. Recent Supreme Court decisions especially have been expanding the individuals ability to exercise free speech in any organized manner.
Perhaps it would be worth it to make the distribution grid a public utility - as you say it's already paid off, often with the aid of large government subsidies. If the power companies wont play fair with independent power generation and storage entrepreneurs then perhaps it's time to cut them out of the equation. Inform them the cables have been claimed via eminent domain and will be paid for at an amount of (materials - subsidies) amortized over the next N years. They still control the bulk of power generation, at least at first, and get paid the same rates as everyone else. It would probably raise energy prices at first, but I don't see any way to get off fossils that doesn't, and it would facilitate a much faster and market-driven adaptation period.
You're forgetting the huge legacy maintenance costs. PG&E is scared shitless because the price they've been charging customers has been below the cost necessary to maintain leaky natural gas pipes. PG&E had to raise rates and is now undertaking a massive generational renovation process. The grid takes a constant life cycle maintenance plan. The fixed cost of installation is minuscule and already the risk had been borne by the installer. That's like the government saying "this Gmail experiment worked; Google thanks for the memories, eminent domain bitch."
First of all, I don't think you know what the word subsidies means. Credits and subsidies are two different devils. I honestly think someone smart explains this for each overreaching governmental naysayer. Subsidies is what solar panel producers, like Solyndra, receive. They are cash money and they are given to companies to distort the energy market. Credits are money you have earned that you don't have to pay to the government. You are paying the government less money you have earned. Its an offset to tax. Tesla makes a larger proportion of its revenue from subsidies and credits. If we were to equally apply your winners and losers strategy to all companies, lets start with companies that receive more of their revenue from the government than they do from actual sales. That's fair right? Nationalize a company that makes over 51% of its revenue from profiteering off the government?
But let's be honest with ourselves. You're not looking for equality in the name of the law. You support crony capitalism "for the right reasons." Playing fair has a lot of meanings. One definition of playing fair is not hiring lobbyists when you can't compete in a fair capitalist market. Another one that is much more subversive is a fair price. That's the fair you mean. When the government has already picked its winners and losers the producer who charges the lowest energy cost to the poor is not always the winner. You're interested in factoring in government kickbacks.
Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum. The producers aren't playing fair. They are charging the price of their costs plus profit plus government interference. Well since you plan on setting prices for the cost of energy all businesses are going to go out of business unless the government forces the cost of the inputs, oil, natural gas, silicon, et al. You can't just set the price of the end result. So let's go farther, to retrieve these natural resources takes capital and labor. Guess which one will be less costly to cut over the long run? I can make an automated natural gas miner a lot more economically efficient than I can cut the wages of employees.
Suddenly we not only have a cut in the labor force but we've subjected the poor to higher energy costs. Is that the end game? Because at this point I kinda feel that we're intentionally keeping the poor poorer with this false effort to man-make the temperature the same. Oh wait? Even if we enact these changes we don't expect to change the direction of the climate's increase (which hasn't increased for 20 years)? Wow than go ahead and explain sustaining the proletariat to me. Because you are better at it with government fiat than any capitalist selling $2 cream cheese at Walmat ever could be.
Player 2:"shutup and stop complaining you take this game too seriously, this is unranked."
and then you get reported and you throw your hands up in the air because half the players on this game are contrarians.
Calling out one player for treating his team as pawns in his high score strategy is also an easy way to make your whole team pissed off.
"STFU his score is 12/0/1 you are 12/12/400 he is obviously a better team player."
And then you have the LOL forums. Its a cesspool of hypocrisy and groupthink. As an experiment search for any topic a moderator started that outlines a controversial change. Find the first post that disagrees with the moderator. Then read the next ten posts. They will all defend Riot and convey varying degrees of saying the dissenting player is an idiot and rude for calling the moderator an idiot.
If you're trolling in LOL and you get put with another group of trolls do you think you care about the game? There could be some type of ven diagram that will have varying shades of grey for troll/teamplayer/cusser/asshole/nice guy/supporter/high ratio kills/deaths/low kills/deaths. It'd be a lot better than to start with a stick, find out its a bad idea and then add a weaker carrot, then dilute the stick. It just shows they are aimlessly trying to adapt their original strategy. I've played since Beta and all I've seen is a homogenization of play styles and attitudes and its not the best attitude and I'll argue to my death its a bad strategy.