“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” – Milton Friedman
Even since the Great Texas Blackout of February 2021, I have tried to engage classical liberal scholars with the lost tradition of free market electricity in theory, practice, and public policy. An interesting exchange with economist Steve Postrel on social media some months ago is worth preserving, in this regard.
Postrel is very critical of Lynne Kiesling’s uber-technical optimism with governmental chess pieces (wind, solar, batteries, another story). But he rejects a free market in electricity.
I reproduce the exchange and then offer a critical comment. It began with my reference to my AIER primer: Free Market Electricity.
Postrel to Bradley: I am familiar with the old Primeaux and Demsetz [free market] arguments, but they have little concordance with each other or with the pre-regulation utopia you try to resurrect in your article.…
“Now that the subsidies are gone, are you going to fold your tent, or create a business that is a survivor?” – (Doug Houseman, below)
Electricity expert and solar advocate Doug Houseman (we debate on LinkedIn) recently posted on the new reality for the subsidy-entitled solar industry. He is reacting to the Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill rollback (but not elimination!) of the Inflation Reduction Act, Investment Tax Credit, and Production Tax Credit.
“Today the world changed,” he began. “With the passage of the Mega bill energy assurance went away.”
…It was that solar and wind developers and installers had a pretty good idea of what subsidies they would get, the subsidies were untouchable, and stable for decades. A little change here and there, but largely they stayed the same. Even though it made little sense to provide subsidies to rooftop solar, it was very stable too.
Ed. Note: With the multi-decade climate movement in crisis, the blame game is on. Today’s post follows a similar one earlier this week, Climate Messaging: The Alarmists are Alarmed.
Nathan Truitt, executive vice president of climate funding at the American Forest Foundation (a ‘carbon management’ entity), explained his “theory of what’s wrong with the climate action community and how to fix it.” He began:
First off, why do I think something is wrong? Well, we are facing an existential threat to human civilization, but the community that works to promote climate action is riven with internal disagreements, easily spending more time arguing with itself than trying to convince others.
Really? An existential crisis? Will he read the new DOE report on climate science and economics? Truitt continues in fantasy land:
…This shouldn’t be the case.