“What is underemphasized or missing in the working paper is consideration of real-world competition as the industry understands it. In other words, rate discounting, surplus capacity, new entry and bypass, alternative fuel competition, and other factors make markets very competitive whatever the market shares of its individual participants.”

“[FERC] never considers the imperfections of regulation itself. It is assumed that regulation is a costless alternative to correct imperfect pipeline markets.”

In a previous life, I worked for an interstate gas transmission company that was rate- and service-regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). During this time, I tried to make a case for deregulation where both entry/exit and rates would not be regulated under cost-based public utility regulation.

Following neoclassical economics, FERC did not consider interstate pipelines “workably competitive.” Using a technical approach instead of a common-sense, real world approach, FERC could not see what those in the business saw on a day-to-day basis: that the pipeline business was very competitive, and discounts from maximum rates proved so.…

“IER [and AEA] would like to work itself out of a job by depoliticizing energy so that lobbying monies can be retained by individuals, foundations, and corporations for nonpolitical purposes, thank you. With the help of the New York Times, we can do so and get the saved money to other uses.”

[Editor’s Note: Ad Hominem attacks on free-market organizations espousing industry positions are a regular occurrence, even though the same organizations oppose the same companies when they seek special government favors. This repost from five years ago remains as relevant today as then. Part II tomorrow, also a repost from April 2012, explains the philosophy behind the Institute for Energy Research/American Energy Alliance.]

The New York Times is upset with “Big Oil,” including the advocacy group American Energy Alliance (AEA).…

“This year, the fossil fuel industry may top the list of Americans feeling most thankful. The election of Donald Trump not only promises to grant many of their fondest deregulation wishes, but it could also offer a potential Black Friday-like atmosphere on things like drilling leases and access to public lands.”

So began a fundraising pitch from Inside Climate News, a investigative journalism outfit starting from false premises to reach false conclusions.

The headlines from the same outfit in the same week were happy ones from a pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, anti-coercion viewpoint.

• How Much of Obama’s Climate Agenda Can Trump Undo With the Stroke of a Pen? by  Sabrina Shankman

• Here are 9 Obama Environmental Regulations in Trump’s Crosshairs by Marianne Lavelle

• Donald Trump and Climate Change: Top 10 Ways He Could Reverse Progress by John H.

“President Bill Clinton in 1997 announced the Department of Energy’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative as part of the buildup to the international negotiation on climate change held in Kyoto, Japan. The goal’s date was 2010.… Yet after 40 years of government plans and incentives, the U.S. is not halfway to Bill’s one-million goal.”

“If solar was really cheap, dependable, and competitive, Hillary would not need to be touting solar as the energy future — or espouse special government favor either. Let-the-market-decide would be enough.”

The centerpiece of Hillary Clinton’s energy plan for Election 2016 is to boost the nation’s installed solar capacity seven-fold between the time she takes office and the end of 2020 (four years). Going from 20 gigawatts to 140 gigawatts would involve a half-billion solar panels on twenty-five million roofs.…