“A free market in electricity is not ‘utopian’ or problematic. It is practical and timely with a strong intellectual case. It just needs classical liberal champions rather than technocratic schemers.”

“I will not dance to your tune” proclaimed technocrat Lynne Kiesling in our exchanges on electricity policy last year. A free market in electricity is “utopian,” she added in another exchange. All this in the service of a centrally planned wholesale market imbued with government-enabled wind, solar, and batteries (Kiesling’s VPP–‘virtual power plant‘). And an implicit preference for climate alarmism/forced energy transformation from an academic that pretends to be free market but is a woman of system.

Giberson Exchange

And so once again, I debated just this with Michael Giberson (Kiesling’s designated one-off voice in a peculiar relationship).…

The intellectual and practical case for separating government and electricity is strong. The historical record offers little support for “market failure”–quite the opposite. The laws of physics do not preclude private ownership and control of assets in this area unless you assume mandatory open access–Lynne Kiesling’s Ostrom trick–to make private operation of control areas problematic. [1]

So I labor against faux classical liberals/think tanks that offer suggestion after suggestion to try to make government planned ISO/RTO’s work. But the fix is in with the guilty who refuse to seriously consider a free market in electricity.

Two exchanges with my critics follow. One is with Michael Giberson, a “Right” central planner; the other with Robert Borlick, a Progressive Left central planner.

Michael Giberson Exchange

Giberson posted on his regulatory filing:

The DOJ Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force requested comments on how state and federal regulations act to impair competition.

Giberson: “I’ve seen a lot of mention of high electric power prices lately. Some blame wind and solar energy, others are blaming retail customer choice (i.e. “restructuring” or less accurately “deregulation”). Mostly it appears the analysts do not take inflation into account. Real retail prices of electricity in the US are on average about where they were a decade ago, and below the recent peak in 2008.”

Bradley: But what about US and state taxpayers footing part of the bill for the duplication of Texas generation? Factor that in and the price spikes when renewables fail and a wounded gas-and-coal industry is left.

And don’t forget–electricity policy reform is not only regulatory restructuring/re-regulation as eliminating the franchise and rate regulation for utilities. A real free market….

Bradley: This study needs to be redone with some of the comments I made above, starting with hassle costs from the whole switchover (which were not reflected in price) and the total costs of wind/solar/batteries not reflected in rates (born by US taxpayers).…

“A free market in electricity is based on private property rights and voluntary exchange.”

– Michael Giberson, May 19, 2024

It’s a start. It took me a few dozen tries, but the definition has come from a (not-so) free market electricity advocate, Mike Giberson. Maybe Lynne Kiesling, woman of system and “The Queen of Electricity Markets,” will be next.

Fake free marketeers at the Niskanen Center and at R Street Institute are a plague on sound public policy analysis regarding electricity and other climate/energy issues. The sad case of Jerry Taylor of Cato and Niskanen is recounted here and here. But the problem also is with the energy specialists at R Street, including senior fellow Giberson. (See yesterday’s post on Devin Hartman, Giberson’s boss.)

————-

Mike Giberson knows his energy stuff and was/is free market in many areas, except for electricity.…