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.

“Get off your high horse, all of us are ‘pro climate’, you just have a different view on how to achieve that. Mr. Bradley interacts with anyone who challenges his statements. As far as your charge that he, “declare a position”? He does so every day. Catch up….” Mark Rohrbacher to Thomas Ortman (below)

Social media exchanges between free market and government energy/climate proponents are an excellent way to understand the arguments, politics, and motivations of all involved. Cancel culture not, may the best ideas win. Here is a LinkedIn exchange of note, where I (and others) rebut a familiar ad hominem. In this case, one Thomas Ortman just … disappeared.

The exchange occurred with a post by Gavin Mooney, self-described “energy transition optimist.”. “Batteries have taken a huge leap forward in California this spring, soaking up solar during the day and discharging it when it’s needed in the evening” he wrote.…

“… the knowledge problem and governance problems are intertwined.” (Kiesling, October 20. 2023)

Those eight words from an electricity technocrat dressed in classical liberal garb represent a major concession regarding the (governmental) centrally planned wholesale electricity markets, known as ISOs (Independent System Operators) and RTOs (Regional Transmission Organizations).

Before, Keisling only acknowledged governance. “Where the RTOs should have done better IMO is in governance, which is quite flawed but flawed differently in each RTO…”, to which I responded:

One question you have refused to answer: apply the knowledge problem to ISOs/RTOs. Can you do that for us all at substack? And not only Hayek–bring in Don Lavoie’s analysis on noncomprehensive planning, and the Austrian view of competition.

And now she has answered in part. It is not easy dealing with an assumption-making academic who seems to be hiding something from her classical liberal friends and sponsors.…

“In business and economic terms, what is physically ‘worse’ [with climate] today is actually better [than in the past]. Thus I would argue that social justice demands affordable A/C for many more or all rather than mitigation policies that make A/C less affordable or unaffordable.”

This exchange was with Susan Krumdieck, “Professor, Author and Leader in Energy Transition Engineering.” While I have criticized her approach to “transition engineering” as uneconomic in a true marketplace and thus government-driven, I appreciate her polite engagement toward mutual learning.

Our latest exchange began with her post comment:

Thanks everyone for sharing the news about the extreme weather. But I feel like we are on a run-away train. Here is a metaphor story. Maybe it will help.

A Speeding Train?

Her article, “We Are All on Board a Speeding Train,” (August 17, 2020) followed.…