Comments on: Deregulation Hits Montana

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:11:32 +0000

Actually Anjin-san, the problem was "deregulation" per se, but how it was done. There were a number of very dumb moves.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:41:02 +0000

We sure got screwed in California when we went down this road. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Sadly, in an unregulated environment, the sharks eat the minnows.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:36:47 +0000

BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, or sometimes Anyone

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:37:43 +0000

BANANAism? I've never heard of BANANA. But this kind of talk has me hankering for a snack...

By: Kent

Kent — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:28:17 +0000

Can there be true deregulation in a market that remains so susceptible to NIMBYism, BANANAism, and the like? My experience is that a partially deregulated market can easily be worse than either a heavily regulated or a truly deregulated market. California is a case in point, if I correctly remember some very old posts by Steve in other forums.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:37:51 +0000

No Ron it is really me.

As for the transmission system, part of the problem are things like NIMBYism, BANANAism, and so forth. Not sure if you'd count those as part of the economics or not, but they sure can kill a deal.

By: legion

legion — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:37:10 +0000

So what's the solution? Re-regulation? I'm not saying you're wrong, Steve, but you're going to have a hard time selling that kind of fix in an era where Big Gov't is already too big for most peoples' tastes (and shows too much incompetence at what it's already doing). The simple fact is that whererever there is a system, there will be players who game that system, taking advantage of any loophole for their own benefit. No system can avoid this, it can only be built to make the abuses more apparent and easier to fix when detected. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of an economist to apply that philosophy to our current situation...

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:12:34 +0000

If your transmission line is economically feasible to build, wonâ??t it be built?

They will only be economically feasible for major metropolitan areas. The four people in bumfuck Montana is SOL. Maybe that's why they used to have things called Rural Electrical Co-ops.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:10:30 +0000

If economic feasibility is the sole basis for building transmission lines, then they will all be built to serve the major metropolitan cities where all the people are. Nobody is going to invest anything to serve the 4 people in bumfuck Montana. I think that's why there used to be things called Rural Electrical Co-ops.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:59:28 +0000

Lemme check again who wrote this post... Yep, it sure says Steve did it. What is this, brainwashing? Invasion of the body snatchers? Will the real Steve Verdon please stand up.

Anyway, it seems you're relying on the redundancy argument. Wasn't that argument used opposing the breakup of the Bell System? Long distance calls are now dirt cheap, but local calls (still having local monopolies) are not.

If your transmission line is economically feasible to build, won't it be built?

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:27:00 +0000

That can't be! Regulation is bad, free enterprise is good! Okay, enough tongue in cheek. I remember a few years back in California when they were saying how great electric utility deregulation was going to be, and how competition will bring the prices way down. We all know what happened, with Enron cheating the customers, etc. This just goes to show not everything the government does in regulating commerce is bad.