Comment It's more fundamental than 'capitalism' (Score 0) 120
Every firm only has so much money to spend on such things as maintance. That's regardless of whether the firm is owned by the stockholders or the people - i.e. the state. There will always be pressure to spend less - the alternative is to increase prices, which is even less popular if the state owns the utility rather than a private company. Unfortunately the only solution to inadequate expenditure on maintaince is micro-management by regulation; state ownership won't make a difference.
For a demonstration of what happens when the state fails to maintain a utility, look at the history of the railway lines of Africa after independence. It was politically impossible to increase fares or to get money out of the government - most of that was getting looted by the President and his cronies - so railways got less and less safe until services ended. That was a 'socialist' solution.
Of course if power companies are owned by the state in the West they are merely competing for money with welfare, defence and tax cuts, and not, usually, the President's cronies' Swiss bank accounts. But even so they will tend to lose out and expenditure will be insufficient...