Editor’s Note: This book review was published just short of 20 years ago in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics [Vol. 8, No. 3 (FALL 2005): 93–95] by Pierre Desrochers of the University of Toronto.

“Austrian economists have so far contributed very little to energy studies…. This book could therefore go a long way in providing a new set of concrete economic examples and principles for use in classroom discussions.”

Despite its obvious economic and social importance, energy (broadly understood) is an understudied field. True, among academics, one can find several engineers and geologists, along with some economists, geographers, legal scholars, and political scientists, who devote much of their research efforts to devising and/or analyzing various energy-related technologies, supply sources, markets, and institutions.

By and large, however, very few individuals have tried to understand how all the various parts of the energy puzzle fit—or not—together, and much—if not most—of the public discussion of the issue is agenda-driven and ignorant of basic physical and economic principles.…

In Memoriam, Thomas Roger DeGregori (1935–2025)

Pierre Desrochers

Tom DeGregori, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Houston whose work has been discussed on a few occasions on this blog, passed away a few days ago. Thousands of people knew him better than me (we only met twice), but he became an occasional correspondent nearly three decades ago after I had serendipitously come across his work on technological change on the bookshelves of the Université de Montréal while researching my doctoral dissertation.

I was hooked and tried to get my hands on anything he had published in defense of human creativity and material progress, including modern agriculture. At first my readings were limited to his articles in the Journal of Economic Issues and other academic outlets then available at my alma mater.…

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.

“The consolation prize for a lot of us is that Joe Romm is so extreme and unprofessional that his cause of “Hell and High Water” suffers. Climate change is exaggerated and nefarious, just like Joe Romm himself.

MasterResource has followed the mercurial climate alarmist/activist Joe Romm since its beginning (2007). Back in the late 1990s, I sparred with Romm while I was at Enron, (“a company I greatly respect,” said he) regarding what turned out to be its most deceitful business, one promising free-lunch energy efficiency. Enron Energy Services (EES) and Romm’s Center for Energy and Climate Solutions (CECS) both bit the dust. For-profit or non-profit, the “energy service company” (ESCO) was a mirage.

Romm has referred to me as a “sociopath” in a private email.…