“Giberson and Kiesling are all in with the Biden Agenda of the Production Tax Credit for industrial wind; the Investment Tax Credit for solar; pricing CO2, even if that means international ‘border adjustments.’ Two ‘classical liberals’ accepting rather than debating/criticizing climate alarmism and forced energy transformation? They should explain themselves rather than dodge, deflect, pretend.”

He steadfastly refuses to define what a free market is in electricity–and what the end state is for a classical liberal. Bonded with Lynne Kiesling, another pretend classical liberal when it comes to electricity, Michael Giberson can only claim to try to make the politicalized system better. And that is getting harder and harder to do.

Here is my latest exchange with Giberson on social media where he makes a specious argument that a regulated gasoline market at wholesale is analogous to a centrally planned electricity market.…

“But messages [against] … Lynne [Kiesling] … just serve to marginalize you. …. I’d encourage you to divert your efforts to re-establishing the reputation you have had, because your existing approach has tarnished and is tarnishing it.” (Michael Giberson, below)

“Lynne and Mike’s modus operandi is tweak, tweak and continue down the road of climate alarmism – forced energy transformation – centrally planned electricity.”

Keep your eye on the ball. In recent days, I have noted the irony of the “Queen of Power Markets” Lynne Kiesling presiding over a Public Choice conference where her central planning electricity model (Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission Organizations) is not teed up for some serious Public Choice application. That’s the situation going into the conference, judging from the scheduled panels and talks.

Such was my Friday post, “Public Choice and Electricity: Kiesling Ducks Again (Plano, Tx.…

“It’s a very regulated market, so I wouldn’t call the current state a ‘free market’ in any pure sense.” ( – Michael Giberson, R Street, October 27, 2023)

The understatement of the year, political economy-wise? I’ll take it, just as I did with Lynne Kiesling’s belated acknowledgement that the “knowledge problem” applied to ISOs/RTOs (yesterday’s post).

Is the Kiesling/Giberson obfuscation of today’s centrally planned wholesale market (and a government monopoly to boot) coming to an end? For more than a year, I have begged both Lynne and Michael on social media to simply define what is a free market in electricity–and compare that to the present governmental system.

“I will not dance to your tune,” Lynne answered once in the heat of battle, reversing her no-response, disengagement strategy. And now Giberson, almost as an aside, has put a trump card on the table.…

“So will Michael Giberson and Lynne Kiesling ever consider the opportunity cost of their politicized electricity ‘market’? Will they consider a real free market that was at the center of the classical liberal debate before mandatory open access (etc.) came along? How much failure–and how far on the ‘road to serfdom’ does U.S. energy policy have to go before mid-course corrections?”

Lynne Kiesling and her close associate Michael Giberson have done great damage to the simple conception of a free-market electricity market and related public policy. By the use of hidden assumptions, cloudy definitions, and disengagement (all to “raise rival’s cost”), they have misled many free-market scholars in regard to a fundamental industry.

I am documenting this as much as I can for the historical record. Kiesling counters that I am ignorant of the technical subject matter and exhibit “aggressiveness” in my quest for clarification and openness.…