May

10

Today, we are witnessing a tug-of-war within America’s deregulated power markets. It's between those advocating for free-market operations and state policymakers intervening in those markets. In the process, consumers of all kinds are paying unnecessarily high prices. Let me explain:

In deregulated power markets, energy producers are theoretically dispatched in economic order based on their production costs, excluding owners' capital costs. The last producer to clear the market sets the market-clearing price. In general, this order begins with producers with the lowest marginal costs—such as wind and solar—and ends with the least efficient assets that use the highest-cost fuel: typically oil, coal, or inefficient natural gas plants.

When markets attract more cost-leading producers, costlier assets are sidelined, and market-clearing prices fall. Even if cost leaders offer intermittent availability, consumers benefit on average because their aggregate energy costs decline.

Data centers consume massive amounts of electricity (and water). The global buildout of thousands of new data centers has increased demand for power generation. As a result, power markets now reward higher-cost producers that rely on expensive fuels. Consequently, market-clearing prices are rising, and consumers are paying more. As clearing prices rise, cost leaders' margins also increase.

A potential solution to higher power prices is to increase the number of cost-leading producers. Even if new cost leaders offer intermittent production, the strategy benefits consumers through lower average clearing prices, though backup sourcing merits consideration. This approach creates winners and losers: owners of costlier production assets lose when average clearing prices fall. Consequently, the costliest market participants oppose the introduction of new cost leaders.

In January 2025, the Trump administration began implementing policies to restrict investments in cost-leading production. The administration rescinded permits for wind projects and, by April 2026, had negotiated about $2 billion in payouts to compensate investors to walk away from permitted and partially completed offshore wind projects. Additionally, since August 2025, the Pentagon has delayed reviews of165 onshore wind projects (30 GW of capacity), citing unspecified national security concerns.

When energy policy restricts cost-leading producers from participating in markets, consumers pay higher energy prices. This dynamic creates competing interests: while owners of costlier generation assets benefit from reduced competition, all electricity consumers—including data center operators—face higher costs.

The solution is straightforward: remove the barriers. Instead of spending $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to prevent investment, use those same funds (or none) to let the market allocate resources based on market forces. If permitted, capital will flow to cost-leading producers in response to the buildout and rising prices.

Bud Conrad writes:

I'll add some less-discussed items: We all know that about 20% less oil is flowing out of the Strait. But the Ukraine war is hidden behind the I run daily policy changes. Both the Russian and Ukraine sides have escalated massively since the beginning of April by doubling their daily barrage of drones and missiles. Specifically, the energy generation systems of both sides are being attacked, and the relatively less noticed is that Russian refineries and ports have been getting hammered. The result is that, while Russia has reserves, its ability to deliver amid already reduced supplies has been damaged. Nobody knows how much, but multiple cities deep into Russia have been attacked with huge clouds of smoke. St. Petersburg ports and some cities 2,000 Km into Russia have been damaged.

It takes up to 2 months to get tankers from the Persian Gulf to customers. So to restart, it will take something like that time, from the Strait opening. Oil production from most Gulf states has been attacked and stopped, and it will take more than months to restart. The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is adding supply but cannot continue much longer, since it was already depleted, in an attempt to keep prices low to weaken Russia during the Ukraine war. In the tit for tat between Zalen ski and Moscow, Russia asked for a ceasefire on the Memorial Parade March 9 (Tomorrow), which has already been rejected by Ukraine, and Russia has announced plans to attack the center of Kiev with Oreshiks.

The pressure for oil prices to go much higher seems obvious.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search