The New York Times today posted an article on the general failure of electricity deregulation to lower electricity prices or, in fact, to engender "competition.... The New York Times today posted an article on the general failure of electricity deregulation to lower electricity prices or, in fact, to engender "competition" at all. (California residents might have a particularly acute sense for failure of market systems in public utilities, still suffering as we are from Enron's depredations.)

From the article:

"Under the new system there have been some big winners — including Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm — that figured out that there were huge profits to be made in one area of the new system.

Such investors have in some cases resold power plants they just bought, making a large profit. In other cases, investors have bought power plants from the utilities at what proved to be bargain prices, then sold the electricity back at much higher prices than it would have cost the utility to generate the electricity.

Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general, said the supposedly competitive market has been “a complete failure and colossal waste of time and money."

Perhaps selling off generation and distribution infrastructure to investors--who after all want only return on investment; they're not in the game of actually working to produce anything--is not the way to approach the problem (if it exists) of unfair rates.

After all, a non-profit public utility is far more inclined to invest in efficiencies that benefit the public--and other inhabitants of the planet--than someone who sees himself as losing money by doing good, and gaining it by playing dirty (both environmentally and economically). The efficiencies they strive for are related only to ROI.

And since we're not going to have multiple sets of transmisison lines going to each customer, you cannot possibly have a real "marketplace" in electricity (or water or sewerage or any other of that sort of thing).

But maybe the answer isn't making large-scale power generation and transmission slightly less inefficient.

Maybe the answer remains what environmental progressive have known it to be since the '70s: the breaking up not of economic entities but of power generation itself, into smaller local units. Solar panels and windmils on every rooftop, small hydro on every stream, biomass by every garbage dump...power generated only a few miles, or a few inches, from where it will be used. Supplemented by larger, community-owned plants for things powering translocal uses such as subways, trains, and public lighting.

And, of course, just using less of the stuff. Twisting in some energy-saving light bulbs, avoiding appliances with standby modes (even if you have to wait a whole minute for the TV to turn on), just turning the damn lights off when you're last to leave a room.

It's not that hard, and you don't have to sell your community out to to a bunch of empty suits who want to get your money without giving you anything for it in exchange.

Local power generation: buy it from your neighbors, or make it yourself. That's the future of electricity.