“The separation of government and electricity (six words) or, more precisely, the separation of government and the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity (twelve words) is simple enough…. Why deny this Political Economy 101 definition between free-market reliance and government intervention?”

The separation of government and electricity is a straightforward, time-honored application of classical liberalism (or the free market). It has existed as long as I have been in the debate (the 1990s) and probably since the beginning of the industry. In contrast, restructuring, partial deregulation, or reregulation connotes the mixed-economy alternatives of market here-government there in this sector.

Deregulation as an escape from public utility regulation harks back to the Reason Foundation and Robert Poole Jr. in the early 1980s. In 1985, Poole’s Unnatural Monopolies: The Case for Deregulating Public Utilities (Lexington Books) challenged the “natural monopoly” case for franchise protection and rate-and-service government regulation in the different industries.…

“Are you sure you don’t want to just go ahead and say the PTC is bad policy? (It is.) … I’m asking why you’d leave it for another day when the downsides are so painfully clear.” – Fisher to Kiesling (below)

“Because I’m tired after two hard days of riding in advance of a gravel bike race next weekend and it’s a holiday weekend.” – Kiesling to Fisher (below)

And the great dodge continues where the coverup is worse than the crime. The ‘crime’ is pretending to be free market or classical liberal in electricity policy when you are not. Mandatory open access with all the trimmings (renewables favoritism in particularly) is an obvious regulatory, interventionist model. Period.

The cover-up is ‘woman of system‘ Lynne Kiesling (and Michael Giberson of R Street) refusing to define, much less advocate, a free market/classical liberalism policy program for electricity.…

“The idea that the ‘man of system’ would be so enamored of his own system that he would impose it on others without much regard for their preferences or, to use the phrase of one of the participants, for their moral autonomy, continues to be a power criticism of interventionist approaches to government. To put it in my girl-next-door vernacular, how arrogant are you to think that you should impose your system on me?” – Lynne Kiesling on Adam Smith (and herself?)

Oh how the author of the above quotation needs to look in the mirror with an impartial observer at hand. Oh how this person has fallen into the collectivist/planner trap so well recognized by Adam Smith. Stage one was her embrace of mandatory open access for electricity … Stage two was remaining quiet on climate alarmism/forced energy transformation … Stage three was silence on the wind/solar takeover in Texas … Stage four was blaming natural gas for the Texas debacle … Stage 5 is pushing for a ‘virtual powerplant’ approach of more wind, more solar, more batteries, and demand-side control. …

“People who pride themselves on their ‘complexity’ and deride others for being ‘simplistic’ should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth. – Thomas Sowell

Imagine a self-described classical liberal that cannot define classical liberalism (a real free market) in their area of specialty. Imagine a self-described “directionalist” who cannot define the end-state. And imagine this person telling me, as her critic, “I will not dance to your tune.”

Political Economy 101 deals with the difference between a free market and governmental intervention. For months, I have begged this person to get to the essence of electricity policy, only to be rebuffed as ignorant and out of step. Meanwhile, this person traffics in hidden assumptions, deep jargon, rhetorical flourishes, and technicalities intended to obscure the fundamental questions.…