“Why should a thermal plant spend money in a government-rigged market that threatens a reasonable profit? Why should the plant even remain in the market under these conditions?”

“For IVREs it’s a no-risk deal, with markets guaranteed and taxpayers country-wide adding profits. But what about the need for reliable power?”

This two-part post (Part II here) is a follow-up to Robert Bradley’s recent IER article, “Wind, Solar, and the Great Texas Blackout: Guilty as Charged.” His article discussed how regulatory shifts and subsidies favoring Intermittently Variable Renewable Energy (IVRE) producers resulted in prematurely lost capacity, a lack of new capacity, and upgrade issues with remaining (surviving) traditional capacity. These three factors–“the why behind the why”–explain the perfect storm that began with (or was revealed by) Storm Uri.

Part I below describes how the market was originally meant to work–but has not worked given the governmentally redesigned power market, beginning with generation.…

“’We fundamentally have to transform our economy in ways that are unimaginable to people who are over 40,’ Tomlinson said. ‘We have to cooperate, innovate and compromise, and most of all, we have to set aside our pride.’”

“[Tomlinson] said there is an unwillingness of pastors of all faiths to address climate change, knowing that many of their parishioners are involved in or invested in oil and gas.”

The Houston Chronicle business editorialist, Chris Tomlinson, is angry, impatient, and closed-minded when it comes to all things climate. A bona fide climate alarmist, he bullies the oil and gas industry to stop what they are doing. He wants Texans to stop eating meat to help save the planet. And he personally tells me in emails that I am not considered for his columns because I am critical about him (so be it).…

“Are RTOs central planning entities subject to the Mises/Hayek/Lavoie critique of access, pricing, and service quality? Is the ‘knowledge problem’ and ‘fatal conceit’ a defining issue for RTOs/ISOs compared to a private sector, unregulated approach to power coordination?”

“Vernon Smith: I don’t know”

It is a strange world in which a classical liberal espousing F. A. Hayek tries to justify a “market” based on a systemic violation of property rights and governmental central planning for an enormous territorial grid.

But this is the case with Lynne Kiesling, and maybe even Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith. I’ll let the reader decide from this social media exchange:

Kiesling: I’m pleased to report a new publication in the journal Energies, “Opening Up Transactive Systems: Introducing TESS and Specification in a Field Deployment,” available to read below.…

“Totally forgotten in this transformation [to mandatory open access] was a simple removal of the regulatory covenant to allow a real free market and genuine entrepreneurial discovery process…. Instead, we were told the ISO/RTO model worked: the planners knew how to price for volume and for reliability with Texas as the national model.”

Classical liberal theory explains market coordination and governmental discoordination, even “planned chaos.” The same intellectual tradition notes the propensity of government intervention to expand from its own shortcomings. Electricity is no exception. The rise and fall of the Texas grid is a case study–just the opposite of what some claiming to be classical liberal thought (see yesterday’s post).

The history of electricity in the U.S. is supportive of an undesigned order, beginning with inventor Thomas Edison and his business protégé Samuel Insull in the 1880s.…