“A free market in electricity is based on private property rights and voluntary exchange.”

– Michael Giberson, May 19, 2024

It’s a start. It took me a few dozen tries, but the definition has come from a (not-so) free market electricity advocate, Mike Giberson. Maybe Lynne Kiesling, woman of system and “The Queen of Electricity Markets,” will be next.

Fake free marketeers at the Niskanen Center and at R Street Institute are a plague on sound public policy analysis regarding electricity and other climate/energy issues. The sad case of Jerry Taylor of Cato and Niskanen is recounted here and here. But the problem also is with the energy specialists at R Street, including senior fellow Giberson. (See yesterday’s post on Devin Hartman, Giberson’s boss.)

————-

Mike Giberson knows his energy stuff and was/is free market in many areas, except for electricity.…

Update: Devin Hartman of R Street has blocked some of the links below. The debate is intellectual to me and PR/political to him. If he cannot define what a free market is in electricity, then he is not being honest with himself or the community.

“The core of [FERC] Order 1920 – economic planning – is sound policy.” (Devin Hartman, R Street Institute)

“You describe yourself as ‘pro-market,’ and R Street promotes itself as free market. What gives with central electricity planning and the ‘whole-of-government’ current federal approach? (R. Bradley, below)

R Street Institute advertises itself as “Free Markets. Real Solutions.” Devin Hartman, Policy Director, Energy and Environmental Policy; Resident Senior Fellow at R Street, advertises himself as “pro-market and environmental policy scholar and advocate” and

An established thought leader in energy and environmental policy with over a decade of experience, including nearly six years of experience at three regulatory bodies.

“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.…

In conclusion, the article ends, “the journey towards adopting electric vehicles as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-powered transportation is fraught with complex challenges, particularly concerning the environmental and ethical implications of battery production.”

Thomas Edison strongly advised Henry Ford to go internal combustion engine (ICE), not electric vehicles (EVs) in the late 19th century. EVs dominated the market until the advantages of ICE prevailed more than a century ago. Yet multi-pronged government intervention at the expense of taxpayers and ICE owners is desperately trying to create an industry that consumers do not like.

The economic and environmental problems of EVs are on full display–and the mainstream press is not afraid to report on them (unlike with on-grid wind and solar). A shining example of this was a recent article in Auto Overload (May 11, 2024): “21 Unfortunate Electric Vehicle Flaws That No One Is Discussing.”…