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.

“Kiesling intellectually resides in the government sandbox, where dilute, intermittent, fragile, government-dependent wind and solar is coordinated by ISO/RTO planners. Add (subsidized) storage, then whatever is left on the supply side can be equilibrated on the demand side with ‘smart meters’ (another government play) in your home or business.”

She fancies herself a classical liberal, a free-market type fully conversant with the arguments against central economic planning (Mises, Hayek, Lavoie). But when it gets to government planning of the electricity market, her specialty, the veneer comes off. It is ‘market processes’ within the rigged, governmental market. Welcome to the woman of system, technocrat Lynne Kiesling.

Consider this exhibit:

Kiesling intellectually resides in the government sandbox, where dilute, intermittent, fragile, government-dependent wind and solar are coordinated by ISO/RTO planners. Add storage (another government play), and then whatever happens on the supply side can be equilibrated on the demand side with ‘smart meters’ (another government play) in your home or business.…

Ed. note: The Great Texas Blackout four years ago triggered a social media debate that reconfirmed ‘classical liberal’ Lynne Kiesling as an advocate of centrally planned, highly regulated electricity. It also revealed a cadre of electricity planners who bristled at the argument that government failed, including Eric Schubert and Robert Borlick. The exchanges began a debate that led the author to write a free-market primer, Free Market Electricity, to resurrect the 1960s tradition of such names as Harold Demsetz, George Stigler, Milton Friedman, and Walter Primeaux.

Lynne Kiesling (above) came roaring out the gate on Blackout Day February 16, 2021. But ‘the queen of power markets‘ was wrong. The Electric Reliability Commission of Texas (ERCOT) was government–and at the center of the worst electricity crisis in history.…

“The ‘virtual power plant’ is the end-state of electricity interventionism, where government-subsidized wind, solar, and batteries–and in-home regulated (rationed) electricity use, via ‘smart meters’–replace consumer choice and taxpayer neutrality in a free marketplace.”

Lynne Kiesling has long sold herself as a freedom-loving classical liberal. Except she is the opposite when it comes to her specialty, electricity markets. This social media post is illustrative.

The “virtual power plant” is the end-state of electricity interventionism, where government-subsidized wind, solar, and batteries–and in-home regulated (rationed) electricity-use, via “smart meters”–replace consumer choice and taxpayer neutrality in a free marketplace.

Tomorrow’s post, “Free Market Electricity,” will outline the worldview of the missing-in-action alternative to Kiesling’s politically correct statism.

Appendix A: Critical Posts on Kiesling and Electricity

Electricity Statism Conference: Kiesling Rides High (June 25, 2024)

The Great Texas Blackout of 2021: Triumph of the Unreliables (February 20, 2024)

Kiesling vs.…