The Good, the Bad and the Ugly II

This follows up the comments on the EWPC article The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I certainly agree with Warren Causey that the idea of demand response as a condition of service seems to be emerging. EWPC is about ending the rampant value destruction to generate large value creation.

Don,

Be a good sport. As you will see below, this is "a fascinating time-period in which to live."

EWPC is no about the left or the right. It’s about ending the rampant value destruction originated in the Old System, the Bad System, and even more the Ugly System. The Good EWPC System is about developing the resources of the demand side for innovation to flourish and generate a lot of value creation in the benefit of ALL stakeholders.

I certainly agree with Warren Causey that the idea on mandatory demand response seems to be emerging. As part of the Sierra Energy Group, his idea is to be taken seriously as he is in close contact with the private sector of the industry. It used to be called earlier in California as “demand response as a condition of service.” I don’t see how that has anything to do with left win. I think it has ALL to do with Law of the Situation: the utilities don’t understand.

This is what Warren Causey also wrote in the post All the issues crux of the matter :

With regard to good ideas dying at the utility/commission staff interfaces, I don’t disagree at all. In fact, I consider that as proof of the argument in my original post, and as both the crux of the issue and the fly in the ointment of Dr. Silverio’s, and other bloggers’, restructuring proposals. My educational training actually is in history and that’s why I consider this a fascinating time-period in which to live.

Over the last couple of generations, the U.S. has become increasingly socialist (regardless of the party in power) and people increasingly expect the government regulate everything and solve every problem. The issue with that is that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem. You can ask the Russians what a long, slow dive into an empty swimming pool feels like. Of course don’t pay to much attention to what they say because now they seem intent on climbing, dazed, back up onto the board and trying it again.

When you introduce government planning into any operation at any level of government (local planning commissions and their interventions into private property are a nightmare) and remove or distort economic incentives, you produce a horse designed by a committee—it looks a lot like a camel. Add politics (most state regulators are elected and national politicians’ raison d’etre is to get elected regardless of the consequences) and the possibility of allowing free markets to work out problems via trial-and-error disappears.

During so-called “deregulation,” not one regulator or one “staff,” which by Mr. Pullin’s description constitutes the bureaucracy, disappeared. Don’t blame the staffs, they’re just doing what bureaucrats do!


The following is taken from the WTO Website:

Virtually all decisions in the WTO are taken by consensus among all member countries and they are ratified by members' parliaments. . . At the heart of the system — known as the multilateral trading system — are the WTO’s agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world’s trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody’s benefit.