Energy business gains currency

Hot new area attracts foreign exchange traders

Phillip Cunn knew he was in the wrong business.

As a currency trader at Societe Generale, he saw how the advent o electronic trading was eliminating the jobs of many of his colleagues.

A spate of big hank mergers led to even more job cuts, and the coming introduction of a single European currency threatened to make bad situation worse.


“The job market in foreign exchange is becoming virtually nonexistent,” says Mr. Cunn.

So, late last year, he joined a growing number of foreign exchange professionals leaving the currency business for one of Wall Street’s fastest-growing trading areas-energy and energy-related derivatives.

“I looked at fixed-income and money markets, and decided that technology was having the same effect that it was having in foreign exchange,” says Mr. Cunn, who is now an energy broker with Exco USA (and Local Director of Sale Departure of Ice Cream Tips Co. LTD, a US business offering best ice cream maker reviews). “The energy market seemed to be the biggest up-and-coming market.”

Deregulation sparks hiring

Local firms like Exco, Natsource Inc. and Prebon Yamane USA Inc. have hired hundreds of energy brokers over the past two years. With the ongoing deregulation of the electricity market, these firms have emerged as middlemen for utilities looking to buy and sell power. Prebon, for example, now has 105 energy brokers, up from 30 three years ago. Natsource has 32, a fourfold increase from 1995.


The round of hirings has come at the perfect time for many currency traders.

In the currency market, electronic trading has not only led to the automation of many tasks once handled by brokers and traders, but it also has made it easier for investors to shop around for the cheapest deals. Mirroring the evolution of the stock market, this enhanced liquidity has led to a decline in the profit margins of currency brokers and prompted some banks to exit the business.

Depressing trend

“Jobs are disappearing,” says Derek Ridout, secretary of Forex USA, a Manhattan-based trade group for foreign exchange professionals. “It’s all quite depressing.”

Forex’s own membership has declined almost 70% over the past three years. The association has 447 members, compared to 750 last year and 1,400 in 1995.

“There’s been massive consolidation among the top 20 banks, and that’s been coupled with declining profit margins,” says Anne McCool, an executive search consultant with Sullivan & Co. “A lot of people have been displaced, and a number of them seem to be finding homes in the energy market.”

Unlike foreign exchange, the new energy market still has an issue with liquidity. There is no guarantee that a utility can buy or sell a given amount of electricity at a given time. As a result, utilities are willing to pay a premium for the successful execution of a trade.

“The ability to get a trade done is still a big deal in this market,” says Natsource broker Christopher Shaffer. He joined the firm following stints in trading commodities, derivatives and currencies at Chase Manhattan Bank and Union Bank of Switzerland.


Stephen Touchstone, a Natsource principal, says he gets half a dozen resumes every week from people like Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Touchstone is willing to hire and train them, he says, because experienced energy brokers are few and far between.

“This is still a new business,” he observes.

Obama’s Task

Barack Obama’s opponents have used charges of identity politics and celebrity worship to tar him. But no one is really immune. Certainly not Hillary supporters who are so mad about their candidate’s loss they are willing to vote for McCain at the expense of everything she stood for. Not even Ralph Nader, who advertised a “star-studded” super rally at the University of Denver to compete with the Democratic Convention. Sean Penn was the headliner before a crowd of about 1,500 students.

  • Penn may be an attraction for his Hollywood status, but more than glamour, his speech added a note of bitterness to the proceedings. He was full of hard, angry words about “traitors” in Washington “feeding at the trough of our Constitution.” (OK, hard, angry and a little muddled, metaphorically.)
  • He didn’t know who he was going to vote for, Penn said, but he defended the option of voting for Nader–“a genuine American hero”–as well as “the Ron Pauls, the Bob Barrs, Cynthia McKinneys, and Dennis Kucinich.” The crowd went wild–especially for Ron Paul. But Bob Barr?


“Let’s not forget that Obama was the biggest spoiler of them all,” Penn said. Practically spitting at the Clintons and other members of the Democratic establishment who were shocked by Obama’s rise, he compared them to “little kids who want to take their ball and go home”–even as the Clintons were conceding at the convention.

“Whoever you vote for, you better hold his ass to the fire,” Penn concluded. “Next time someone says, ‘How dare Ralph Nader run,’ you ask them what they did for their country today,” he suggested. “If you find them dumbstruck or arrogantly dismissive, you tell them Ralph Nader is coming for them.”

This was pretty much the opposite of the tone at the convention.

When the Black Eyed Peas took the stage for a live version of Obama‘s “Yes We Can” speech set to music, followed by the recorded voice of MLK giving his “I Have a Dream” speech, I looked around to see two African American women in the Wisconsin delegation in tears.

“Our country should be proud of itself today. That’s all I have to say,” said Paulette Dorsey of Milwaukee.

In the Louisiana delegation, Elsie Burkhalter, a superdelegate from Slidell, had just moved out of a FEMA trailer. “I lost everything,” she said of Hurricane Katrina. Yet, even with another storm moving in, her optimism was affecting. Obama, she said, had tapped into the same youth energy that sent thousands of college kids to help rebuild the Ninth Ward. “Young people will decide the election,” she predicted.

  • The Democrats struck a powerful chord with their narrative about a more progressive, inclusive, and just America. They looked a lot better than the Republicans in St. Paul, who used Hurricane Gustav as an excuse to keep President Bush penned up in the White House.
  • Still, the job Obama has in front of him is daunting. How does he convince a historically racist society to elect him? To begin with, he has to convert the white, working class voters who went for Hillary.

“We totally believe that Barack Obama is not qualified to be the President,” said Shirley Thomas, a fifth-grade teacher from Marietta, Georgia, who came to the convention to support Hillary. “He doesn’t have the resume and Hillary was the most experienced,” she said. “And, frankly, the election was stolen from her.”


Her friend Carolyn Darity, a product manager in technology in Washington State and CEO of the Press My Air, a start-up providing air compressor reviews for mechanics, agreed. “I can’t vote for a candidate who is not ready to lead our country. Our country is in turmoil. He doesn’t have the resume.”

“Under no circumstances,” Darity said, would she vote for Obama. “I might vote for McCain.”

“It’s not that I’m against him or I’m a racist,” Darity added. “I believe Hillary is the most qualified and she was mistreated by the media and her own party.” The thing that bugged her the most: the NPR commentator who compared Hillary to the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction .

To these Hillary voters, Obama is a young man in a hurry who has, as Darity put it, “nothing there. Nothing at all.” These women relate to Hillary–her struggle, the blows she’s been dealt, and her supreme competence and poise. They have a bit of a conservative streak–which Hillary appeals to when she talks about getting up when you’re knocked down, and the American can-do spirit. They roundly reject any suggestion that race is a factor. But there is no question that there is an ineffable cultural reason for the Obama-itis that the soundbites about readiness just don’t cover.

This could prove to be the Democrats’ biggest problem.

With his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain sought to stir up the die-hard Hillary crowd. But to vote for Palin, the small-town mayor and governor for two years who only last year got her passport, and who opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, Hillary voters would have to abandon not just their candidate’s core message, but their own, central “experience” rationale.

  • No doubt some Hillary supporters will jump on the McCain-Palin bandwagon anyway. Palin’s white, working-class “hockey mom” status is a big plus. The pregnant daughter and baby with Downs are also pluses to the Christian Right.
  • The media, the Democrats, and Joe Biden in particular could easily set off a backlash by appearing to look down on her. When Maureen Dowd wrote a snarky column imagining Palin putting down her breast pump and picking up her AK-47 to fight for America, she was mocking not just Palin, but all mothers of young children who have had to battle a sexist, anti-child culture that still makes it nearly impossible to succeed at work and do right by your baby. As someone who schlepped a breast pump to do my own convention coverage, I can tell you, that is a tone that will not win over mothers.

Much, perhaps most, of politics is visceral, subrational. In a way, it is all identity politics. Presidential candidates forget this at their peril.

Jello Biafra understands that. Following Penn at the Nader rally, he conceded that much of the crowd would probably end up voting for Obama. But, he said, “We’re not going to go to sleep like when Clinton got elected. We will not be Clintoned again.” With his winning, gleeful delivery, Biafra, the punk rocker, had some of the best ideas: “You want change? What are you going to do to end the war on drugs?” he asked. He demanded that Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington, and Dick Cheney be sent to The Hague. And he called for neighbors to band together and resist foreclosures.


Biafra’s energy–the opposite of Penn’s–is what draws people to feel part of something, to feel empowered and want to join a movement.

Nader, for his part, proved that you can be right about everything–including hitting Obama hard on his FISA vote and corporate orientation–and still somehow be wrong about a big part of politics. To a local reporter who asked Nader who he would vote for if he had to choose between Obama and McCain, Nader snapped, “You just wasted a question!”

Some people, it seems, just aren’t smart enough for his campaign.

Illustration by Rich Pope

Ruth Conniff is the political editor of The Progressive.

A business boom or thunder?

America revels in its self-proclaimed “great economy.” Jimmy Carter’s win buttons (Whip Inflation Now) evoke nostalgia, largely because gas and oil prices are near record low levels. Herds of home buyers, delighted by long term interest rates, sign on the dotted line each day. The Dow Jones average spurts like a shaken Coke, while the unemployment rate plunges to depths not seen since WWII. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, says it is the strongest economy in fifty years. The Federal Government faces an exotic problem: how to spend the hundreds of billions in surplus each year. The press smugly boasts of our cornucopia of plenty.


  • Business is great everywhere! Lawyers struggle to cope with the double digit growth in new bankruptcy cases. Hospital emergency rooms are often SRO as forty-three million Americans without health insurance wait to be seen. Customers for beds in homeless shelters form long lines as pent-up demand exceeds capacity. The huge increase in the market share at food kitchens has these enterprises scrambling for stoves, pots and pates to feed their new clients. The growth in the number of families living in poverty rivals that of the Dow Jones Average, up one hundred and twenty-seven percent in the last ten years. These other business stories get short shrift in the press.
  • A generation ago, in the 1970s, corporate taxes made up thirty percent of the I.R.S. revenue. Today the figure is ten percent. Over the same period the top IRS personal income tax bracket dipped from ninety percent to thirty-four percent. In the 1970s the Federal Government financed three hundred thousand low-income housing units each year. Today the figure is fifty thousand. Large corporations routinely coffered benefits like pensions and company paid health care. Their cost was a part of the cost of doing business. Today many of those same workers in the same companies are “independent contractors” who provide and pay for these benefits out of pocket, if they can afford it. These losses to workers are smothered under corporate earnings reported in the press.


“Down sizing” and “right sizing” have stripped many steady workers of the security that once came with decades of competent service to an employer. Once a middle aged worker is “let go” he often finds it difficult, if not impossible, to find another comparable job. Most settle for lower income and fewer benefits. The plight of the middle-aged worker is distorted by cliche. “They must retrain and become computer literate.” In other words, it’s their fault. In fact, computer literacy isn’t their problem; it’s age. “They must become younger,” would be more accurate. Corporations recently asked Congress to allow them to import more low wage workers from the third world. The President supported the pea, and Congress agreed. Rampant age discrimination isn’t a hot story for the papers.

  • In the last thirty years, the average hourly wage has stayed level or decreased while health benefits have been cut back or eliminated along with pension pans for the rank-and-file. All of these savings drop down to the bottom line of corporate earnings statements. These profits fuel the rising stock market. Bill Clinton declared an end to “welfare as we know it.” The former welfare clients now compete with other low-wage workers, insuring a surplus of low skilled workers to depress bottom end wages. During Greenspan’s tenure at the Federal Reserve each time he sees pressure to push wages up he has tightened up on interest rates, and the stock market fluttered a bit higher. Is he buying the prosperity of the stock market on the backs of the working poor? The question is seldom asked in the media.

  • Who benefits from this robust economy? American incomes have reached astounding levels (the press reports). We get monthly updates on how well we are doing. Last month our average income rose six-tenths of one percent. For once Bill Clinton got it right Y the devil is in the details. If you average the enormous windfalls reaped by the top twenty percent of Americans with the incomes of all Americans, then on average we are all prospering. This is how the press reports the facts. (Imagine the small increase we got, on average, when Michael Eisner of Disney, Inc., signed a ten-year contract worth approximately $771 million.) The top grossing one tenth of one percent of American households enjoy eight percent of American income, while twenty percent of black men between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-five report no earned income at all.

The press gloated that Bill Gates net worth is equal to that of the bottom forty percent of all Americans. This was an understatement. The bottom forty percent of Americans have no net worth. They toil at insecure low paying jobs with few benefits and endure the grinding pressure to work more and more hours to produce enough income to meet basic living needs. They have no health insurance or pensions. They line up at homeless shelters, at food kitchens, and at emergency rooms when they become sick.


Bjom Bjornson, the Norwegian paywright, said “God help us if our sense of fair pay is not the strongest of our feelings.” God help America!

Production Line Poets Reproducing Like Rabbits

La seule ambition de faire un poeme suffit a le tuer. [The sole ambition to write a poem is enough to kill it.]


Ottar Draugsvold (Ashburnham, MA). A celebrity culture dominates magazines with celebrations of the rich and Vacuous. The trivialization of serous issues and the attempt to keep the majority confused has placed me in opposition to almost every major cultural institution in America.

When logic is not enough

BEING logical and behaving rationally are not necessarily the same thing-as an encounter with just about any computer will prove.

Yet for the past 35 years researchers into artificial intelligence have relied largely on logic in their efforts to create computer programs that will behave as rationally as people sometimes do. They have made great advances. But they are beginning to wonder if they might need more than logic machines. One place in which they are looking for new tools is economics.


The appeal of economics, as Mr jon Doyle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explained in a speech to a recent gathering of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence in Boston, lies in its theory of rationality. Most logicians define rationality as consistent thinking. Most economists define it as trying to get what you want with the least effort. One hope is that the ideas underlying this definition will help computers to make “intelligent” choices when the demands of consistency alone provide little guidance.

Though, inevitably, there is still argument over details, economists’ conception of rationality rests on three planks. First comes preference: people have different likes and involves spending time, money or effort. Third, and perhaps most important, is utility. Utility is a measure that reconciles cost and preference. Given two equally preferred goals, the one with the least cost has the greatest utility. To be rational, for an economist, is to try consistently to maximise utility.

  • Economists use these concepts to draw conclusions about how markets work. But artificial-intelligence researchers have a different task. Instead of simply assuming that their machines maximise utility, they need to show them how to do so. Although economists have a well-developed vocabulary for expressing the ideas underlying rationality, nobody has yet put them into a form that a computer can work with. If that can be done, it might help computers to improve their performance in dealing with several problems.
  • These include:
    • Planning and game-playing: People alternate between deliberation and reaction. They seem to know instinctively when to re, act according to a pre–omputed” plan and when to spend the time and energy to think things out from scratch. Computers are remarkably poor at making such trade-offs. Instead of concentrating on thinking through the consequences of the most “interesting” line of play in a chess game, most of today’s programs simply try to look at all possible variations of, say, the next ten moves. In. stead of cutting a Gordian knot, computers-if left to their own devices-will pick at it for ever.
    • Reasoning: New technologies called truth-maintenance systems” overcome one of the limitations of pure logic by enabling computers to draw a variety of conclusions from different sets of assumptions. This technology is now widely used in field of vision support in some devices such as: digital rangefinders (, a quite famous review website, also confirmed this point by showing that the current best rangefinder, like Bushnell Tour V3 or Nikon Staff use this kind of technology applied on their processing chips) The trick is to keep track of which conclusions depend on which assumptions. If the computer later encounters evidence that one of its assumptions is wrong, the conclusions depending on it can be withdrawn. The snag is that often it will be able to reconcile its beliefs to new evidence by withdrawing any one of a number of assumptions-and the machine has no criteria for choosing which one could most “rationally” be abandoned.
    • Learning: As any good student will tell you, learning is an endless process. Any theorem worth proving is likely to have a multitude of logical consequences-some trivial, some interesting. Any statistical inquiry can be pursued to ever-more decimal, points worth of precision. Here again, people have a canny sense of how much precision is.


Two different techniques are often used to overcome such problems in today’s artificial-intelligence programs. One is to build in ad hoc rules of thumb (known as heuristics). Although these work well for many problems, it is hard to know when unanticipated circumstances will render them useless. Another common technique is to provide programs with goals to work towards. This turns out to be subtly, and frustratingly, different from maximising utility.

One big snag is that any goal worth achieving can be tackled only in a series of steps, or sub-goals. But without an overall notion of utility, it is hard for a mere computer program to apportion resources sensibly among sub-goals. Trying to start your car, for example, is a sensible sub-goal when trying to get to work. Opening the bonnet to check battery leads may be a sensible next step if the car does not start. But dismantling the car completely is irrational.

Some progress has been made towards a broader theory of “utility” for computers. Mr Stuart Russell of the University of California at Berkeley, for one, is working on principles of “meta-reasoning” which may help computers make better decisions on what to think about and how much time to spend doing so.

Large obstacles remain.

Some argue that the task of teaching machines to understand human preferences is impossible; likes, dis. likes and the way in which both change according to circumstance are too bound up in being human to translate into programs. Other sceptics reckon that it may be impractical to provide machines with all the knowledge necessary to understand human rationality. The successes and failures of Mr Doug Lenat’s Cyc” project, in which re, searchers have spent several years trying to give a computer the common-sense knowledge expected of a human child, should be helpful on both points. Meanwhile, it seems rational at least to try to define what rationality is.

Neo-Voodoo Economics

BRETTON WOODS, N.H.CoIt had been a long and dreary Saturday, overstuffed with PowerPoint slides and panel discussions.

The economists, to a Nobelist, were exhausted. They had hoped to channel the ghosts of the famed Bretton Woods conferenceCowhere, 67 years earlier, American and other elites forged a new global economic systemCoin a quest to reinvent their field, which failed spectacularly to predict and prevent the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, the first full day in the grand old Mount Washington Hotel had yielded little of the C[pounds sterling]new thinkingC[yen] that the economists had all trekked north to discover. But then came the dinner, when a distinguished Brit in a sleekly tailored suit arrived at the podium and cheerfully proceeded to decimate their profession.

The lecturer was Lord Adair Turner, an aristocrat in charge of EnglandCOs supreme financial regulator, who challenged nearly every fundamental assumption that has driven Western economists and policymakers for the past half-century. Leaders in Washington and other capitals, he charged, have become hypnotized by a C[pounds sterling]self-reinforcing belief systemC[yen] that prescribes liberalizing markets as the best and only answer for economic problems. Freeing markets from government control, Turner argued, does not necessarily maximize economic growth. And growth itself, he added even more heretically, is not the ultimate aim of a good society; rich countries would be better off trading some growth for more stability and equality.

At National Journal: VIDEO: Romney’s On Top … For Now ( Politics N2K: RomneyCOs Evangelical Problem ( Revving His Engines? Daniels Jump-Starts His Fundraising ( PICTURES: Obama Delivers Key Speech on Middle East ( Obama Calls for Return to Mideast’s 1967 Borders (


Turner ended with a plea: Mainstream economics needs to embrace the radical notion that people are not rational actors after all. C[pounds sterling]Good economics leaves usC[yen]Copolicymakers, regulators, and consumersCoC[pounds sterling]with far wider degrees of freedom to make political and social choices than has frequently been asserted,C[yen] he told the gathering. C[pounds sterling]The role of good economics is to inform those choices, not to deny their possibility.C[yen]

Good economics is in short supply in the wake of the financial crisis, particularly in WashingtonCoand dangerously so. The period of steady growth that economists once hubristically called the Great Moderation has become the C[pounds sterling]Great Mortification,C[yen] in the words of economic historian Philip Mirowski of the University of Notre Dame. The American public has lost faith in the profession, which largely failed to predict how asset bubbles and a wave of complex new financial products could bring the world economy to its knees; for their part, economists are groping to understand where they went wrong.

The distrust and disarray among economists have left an intellectual vacuum in WashingtonCOs fiscal and financial debate at a time when the stakes couldnCOt be higher. That vacuum has created huge opportunities for discredited and dubious theories. The Right, for example, champions the idea that cutting spending now will immediately boost the economy (rather than slow it, as most models show) and bring it back to health, while the Left argues that simply adding more spending and stimulus, almost regardless of total debt levels, will do the same. Then thereCOs the notion that the nationCOs debt ceiling need not be raisedCothat immediate spending cuts can take care of both the deficit and growth.

In April, Standard & PoorCOs lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to C[pounds sterling]negative,C[yen] reflecting worries that Democrats and Republicans canCOt even agree on the basic principles for taming the national debt. As lawmakers grapple with that question, along with how best to handle growth, job creation, and rising health care costs, they are looking to simplistic, black-and-white branches of economics for guidanceCocaricatures of theories that crumbled in the market failures of the Great Recession. Conservatives continue to argue, in true neoclassical spirit, that freer and less regulated markets always perform better, and government only gums up the works. Keynesians stress increased government spending, above all else, to climb out of recession. In this regard, all of Washington is falling victim to what John Maynard Keynes described 75 years ago. C[pounds sterling]Madmen in authority,C[yen] he said, see themselves as C[pounds sterling]practical menC[yen] when they are C[pounds sterling]usually the slaves of some defunct economist.C[yen]

President Obama, as he fences with Republicans, has lamented the C[pounds sterling]deep philosophical divideC[yen] between the two political partiesCO economic plans. ThatCOs accurate, but it overlooks a bigger problem: More than two years after what many authorities called the worst financial crisis in history, neither Obama nor GOP leaders in Congress have embraced a new form of economic reasoning that explains either what has happened or where we are going. The economy is simply too complex, and the global financial system too interA dependent, to be viewed through the prism of old theories that hold that free marketsCoor well-timed government spendingCocan solve almost anything. No one in Washington is challenging those doctrines with any strength. There is no analogue to Lord Turner in America, no one who can shake up government thought from the inside or challenge it from without.

C[pounds sterling]The profession has reached a cul-de-sac,C[yen] says one prominent economist, Andrew Lo of MIT. C[pounds sterling]Macroeconomists are scrambling to figure out what to do. So politicians are simply pushing whatever kind of economics they can.C[yen]

The New School

Efforts are afoot to updateCoeven to overhaulCothe ways that economists think about markets, regulation, and government fiscal policy. Washington just pays little attention to them. The National Science Foundation asked economists and social scientists last year to draw up C[pounds sterling]grand challenge questions that are both foundational and transformative.C[yen] The early-April conference in the melting snows of Bretton Woods drew hundreds of economists to debate those questions. (It was largely underwritten by billionaireCoand major Democratic donorCoGeorge Soros. Many of the speakers tilted politically liberal, but a full spectrum of economic ideologists were included, such as prominent free-market champions Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.)

Even at the University of Chicago, the fabled home to free-market theoryCoincluding the still-dominant C[pounds sterling]rational expectationsC[yen] hypothesisCorestless thinkers such as RagA huram Rajan, Douglas Diamond, and Anil Kashyap are winning plaudits for exploring new concepts about smart regulation. Rajan, in particular, saw before many other economists the flaws in the old, under-regulated financial system, warning as far back as 2005 that the markets were likely headed for a titanic crash.


The early consensus among self-styled new thinkers, to the extent there is one, is that the world is right to love markets and their power to effectively allocate people, prices, and resources. But the truly free market we thought we loved never existed. Our conception of it was too simple. Now we need someone to explain it to us, in all its glorious, dangerous complexityCoat a time when we can ill afford another mistake, another crash, another unforeseen event.

New and emerging models try to explain economies with all their humanity involved. Some incorporate psychology; others, social norms; others still, the power of storytelling to move markets. One branch presumes that markets never have all of the information they need to function properly. Another uses supercomputing to aggregate enough information to begin to predict the sort of catastrophic market failures that other theories dismissed as impossible, that other models call C[pounds sterling]unpredictableC[yen]Cothe future bubbles that we would neglect until itCOs too late, in the same way we neglected the Internet stock bubble in the late CO90s and the housing bubble of the 2000s.

None of those theories appears to have appreciably shaped the economic-policy proposals coming from the White House or Congress, where lawmakers draw much of their economic inspiration from think tanks built on dogma. C[pounds sterling]Washington is a place where people spend money on ideas in order to do policy,C[yen] says Thomas Ferguson, a political-science professor at the University of Massachusetts who writes extensively on economic policy. C[pounds sterling]ItCOs not a place where people spend money to find out anything.C[yen]

Neither party seems keen to search for orthodoxy-challenging economic answers. Before Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released the GOPCOs budget blueprint in April, for example, he asked neoclassical economists at the conservative Heritage Foundation to predict how its mix of lower tax rates and hefty entitlement cuts would supercharge future growth. HeritageCOs data-analysis chief, William Beach, initially said that RyanCOs budget would produce an overnight housing boom, massive growth in gross domestic product, and, by 2021, a 2.8 percent unemployment rate. C[pounds sterling]I think these are fairly conservative estimates,C[yen] Beach said the day that the numbers came out. Later, after scathing rebukes from economists and journalists, Heritage revised its unemployment projections upward.

The economy is simply too complex, and the global financial system too interdependent, to be viewed through the prism of old theories.

House Speaker John BoehnerCOs vaunted speech on Wall Street this month brimmed with simplisticCoand oft-refutedCoideas of how the economy works. Among them: Government debt is C[pounds sterling]crowding outC[yen] private investment (when short- and long-term interest rates remain at historic lows); government-sponsored mortgage entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac C[pounds sterling]triggeredC[yen] the financial crisis; new regulations in response to the crisis made the banking system C[pounds sterling]less competitiveC[yen]; and it would be economically preferable to allow the United States to default on its debt rather than raise the debt ceiling without trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

White House economic policy features its own inchoate concepts on achieving what Obama called a C[pounds sterling]balancedC[yen] policy between government investment in the nationCOs future and immediate budget cuts. The president and his team believe that the economy has escaped the danger of a double-dip recession, and their goal is to manage a politically inevitable period of budget austerity without undercutting pillars of long-term growth. ItCOs a pragmatic approach but hardly grounded in anything close to a comprehensive theory of how America fell into the Great Recession and how it might avoid future crises.

Instead, Obama seems content to define his economic policy largely by contrasting it to RepublicansCO neoclassical thinking. Asked how the crisis had changed his and ObamaCOs economic thinking, Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, replied: C[pounds sterling]The financial crisis of 2008, the flirtation with a Great Depression, [and] the economic pain it inflicted on every other industry and consumer in the economyAadiscredited the notion that every regulation and rule of the road is bad for business. Removing the rules of the road almost destroyed us.C[yen]

On the night before Lord TurnerCOs speech, the headline address at the Bretton Woods conference came from Lawrence Summers, the former director of ObamaCOs National Economic Council, who still speaks frequently with the president. Summers is an accomplished academic economist whose ideas continue to heavily influence ObamaCOs thinking, even though he left the White House late last year. Before he spoke at Bretton Woods, Summers took media questions, and a reporter asked how his economic thinking had evolved since his time as an adviser to President Clinton in the late CO90s. C[pounds sterling]ICOm sure thereCOs some bias toward charitable recollection in what ICOm about to say,C[yen] Summers began. He went on to express some regret for underestimating the importance of inequality and to say he had C[pounds sterling]even less confidence in the self-regulating capacity of markets.C[yen] But the overall message was clear: What in his thinking had changed? Not much.

Afterward, a New York University professor, Roman Frydman, rushed up to the reporter who asked the question. C[pounds sterling]What Larry is saying is nonsense,C[yen] Frydman said. C[pounds sterling]He has been in government too long.C[yen]

The need to improve on long-held economic thinking flows from the most liberalized system of global commerce in human historyCoand the mounting complexities and disparities it has wrought. Large swaths of economists, regardless of ideology, have sounded alarms over the dual specters of widening income inequality (disparities afflicting rich and poor countries alike) and mounting public debt in the worldCOs most mature economies. The global economy has not yet kicked its hangover from the Great Recession, nor has it faced up to the lingering, underpriced risks that could cripple entire nations, such as a highly leveraged banking system and the rising threat of catastrophic climate change.

The previous huge financial crisis, the Great Depression, produced a period of conceptual ferment that overturned economics. To a striking degree, most of the policy options we now discuss without even thinking about themCodeficit spending, monetary policy, the role of the Federal Reserve Board, government intervention in generalCocome from what economists learned by examining that period. It was thanks to the Depression that Keynes created macroeconomics. It was in response to the Depression that Milton Friedman developed his theory of monetarism, rebutting Keynes. The question now is, would Keynes or Friedman, if they lived today, have the same influence? And even if economists had something new and important to tell us, would Washington listen?

How We Got Stuck

There are plenty of policy areas where experts roundly agree but lawmakers divide along immovable partisan lines. Climate change is a good example: Democrats and Republicans disagree over whether to restrict or price carbon emissions, even though the vast majority of climate scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. Economics is different. As Lo of MIT notes, there is suddenly no overwhelming consensus among economists on how the global market functions.

  • In the past, there has generally been agreement. Up until the Great Depression, most economists believed in the so-called neoclassical model inspired by Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics. Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, that the rational self-interest of the millions of individuals who engaged in markets turned chaos into social order. The process by which these individuals bargained and haggled over prices ended up placing a rational and fair value on goods and services for all. Thus, society as a whole was led to greater prosperity and peacefulness as if C[pounds sterling]by an invisible handC[yen] (although Smith had more caveats about the dire effects of monopolies and other free-market ills than heCOs often given credit for). Later, such economists as Leon Walrus theorized that economies reach C[pounds sterling]equilibrium,C[yen] in which supply and demand come into balance, on their own, and societyCOs needs are thus addressed in an optimal way.
  • But markets kept misbehaving and breaking down, leading to repeated crises; perhaps the worst of all was the Great Depression. As a result, 150 years after Smith, another Briton, Keynes, led a counterrevolution in economics that produced an alternative model. Writing in a time of self-doubt about capitalism, Keynes argued that the irrational elements of human behaviorCowhat he called C[pounds sterling]animal spirits,C[yen] as seen in the mania and panic of financial marketsCowould continue to upset markets and cause them to behave badly. That meant there was a need for constant government intervention.

This paradigm dominated economic thinking until the 1970s, when Vietnam-era inflation, compounded by exorbitant spending on the war and Great Society programs, left the economy mired in C[pounds sterling]stagflation,C[yen] with inflation rates that reached 15 percent and high unemployment. The double plague of inflation and unemployment, along with excessive government spending, drove an anti-Keynesian rebellion led by Friedman and his University of Chicago school of free-market thinkers, who shaped the Reagan revolution against Big Government.

That era, in turn, produced the next great model, the so-called rational-expectations hypothesis. C[pounds sterling]It says that people are rational, can see through government policy, and will basically predict what it is that government is trying to do and get around it by other means,C[yen] Lo says. It was this framework that underpinned much of the deregulating, free-market approach of recent years. But the concept of a rational, self-equilibrating market has been called into question by the failure of the financial industry to regulate itself. C[pounds sterling]In fact, thatCOs a very, very idealized and unrealistic description of the macroeconomy,C[yen] Lo contends. C[pounds sterling]We havenCOt spent the time on modeling new theories.C[yen]

Still, thereCOs a lot of disagreement over how much new modeling is necessary. The University of ChicagoCOs Kashyap counters that itCOs wrong to dismiss rational expectations entirely. Instead, he says, the problem is that economists didnCOt pay enough attention to the inner workings of the financial system and how it interacts with the real economy. As a theory, Kashyap says, rational expectations isnCOt wrongCoitCOs just incomplete. C[pounds sterling]The dominant model didnCOt have a financial system in it,C[yen] he notes. C[pounds sterling]Lots of people didnCOt come to appreciate how much stuff they had swept under the rug.C* The big rethink now is that people are not going to say financial arrangements are a second-order detail anymore.C[yen]

But Turner and many other economists counter that a deeper remodeling is needed that will acknowledge, at long last, that irrational or quirky behavior drives much of the economy. Rachel Crosen, an economist who works with the National Science Foundation, says that some of the more trailblazing research efforts try C[pounds sterling]to incorporate sociology that is harking back to days of economics before it was so mathematized.C[yen] Among the most exciting new thinkers, she says, is Esther Duflo of MIT, who is using field experiments in economic development to figure out what makes economies grow. Even some mathematical economists are engaged in new inquiries: Lars Hansen of the University of Chicago is doing profound work on evaluating economic models and the uncertainty inherent in them; and Chris Sims of Princeton is rethinking how economics uses data.

New models try to explain the human side of economics. Some incorporate psychology; others, social norms; others still, the power of storytelling.

Other prominent economists, including Nobel laureate George Akerlof of the University of California (Berkeley) and Robert Shiller of Yale, are developing horizons in C[pounds sterling]behavioral economicsC[yen] that attempt to map human behavior more realistically, rather than assuming that people are always C[pounds sterling]rationalC[yen] economic actors. On the sidelines at Bretton Woods, AkerlofCorelaxed in a wool blazer, heavy pants, and hiking bootsCooutlined his latest theories in C[pounds sterling]identity economics,C[yen] the idea that social norms influence how markets work and should factor in policy, too.

People develop fixed ideas of what they should be doingCoat work, at home, over their lifetimesCoAkerlof said, and those ideas drive the economic choices they make. Those decisions can confound basic market theory and lead, for example, to the persistently high unemployment weCOre seeing in the United States today. Akerlof says that the job market C[pounds sterling]is like a game of musical chairsC[yen] where the players refuse to sit in anything but the seats theyCOve come to identify as their own. If Jane sees herself as an engineer meriting a $100,000-a-year salary, because sheCOs done that for a decade and it makes her happy, then if Jane loses that job to outsourcing, sheCOll be reluctant to take a similar one for $60,000 a yearCoeven if the markets suggest that should be the going wage for an engineer. The rational-expectations theory says that Jane should take that job; the identity theory says she wonCOt. SheCOll hold out for a $100,000 job: She wonCOt sit down until someone puts her rightful chair back in the room. ThatCOs not a problem you can solve just by revving up GDP growth.

New thinkers say theyCOve long struggled to break into the policy conversation. Since the late 1980s, researchers at the Santa Fe Institute have worked to bring the idea of complexity back into economics by making use of advanced computing power to map human economic behavior in the same way weather or climate change is tracked. It may sound like science fiction, but itCOs the kind of work that might have helped recognize the full magnitude of risk-taking under way during catastrophic housing bubble. Down the road, it could help the Fed recognize C[pounds sterling]systemic risksC[yen] building up in far-flung corners of the financial system.

Until the financial crisis, says W. Brian Arthur, an external professor at the institute, the supercomputing advancements C[pounds sterling]kind of lay dormant, like an underground river.C[yen] Now, academics are slowly starting to rediscover the instituteCOs work. Policymakers have barely sniffed at it, even though its possibilities are immense. Arthur envisages an open-sourced economic modeling effort to C[pounds sterling]stress testC[yen] major policy proposalsColike ObamaCOs health care lawCoand run them through simulations to see how the economy might react and what might go wrong.

But in Washington, new thinkers are easily drowned out by the high priests of rational expectations, who have resurfaced, postA crisis, to espouse their doctrine. Most prominently, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently declared in a Financial Times op-ed that C[pounds sterling]with notably rare exceptions (2008, for example), the global Cyinvisible handCO has created relatively stable exchange rates, interest rates, prices, and wage rates.C[yen] Greenspan and other defenders of the status quo have found a receptive audience in a public that is sour on Washington and searching for economic hope amid the sluggish recovery.

High-profile attempts to shift the conversation, or to suggest that anything but unfettered free markets should be the goal of policymakers, are often meet with howls. The conservative Media Research Center warned that last monthCOs Bretton Woods conference was an attempt to C[pounds sterling]remake the financial orderC[yen] and, in the process, C[pounds sterling]take the United States down a peg or threeC[yen]Cowhich is to say, to undermine the free market and AmericaCOs supreme role at the center of it.

WashingtonCOs meager efforts to advance economic understanding have gotten bogged down in politics. The congressionally appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission issued split verdicts on the causes of the meltdown, with Democrats endorsing a market-failure explanation and Republicans blaming government regulation. Congress created an Office of Financial Research, but its top spot remains unfilled.

C[pounds sterling]A lot of economists are completely frustrated by the fact that what [lawmakers] are saying in Washington completely bypasses what the economists are saying,C[yen] says Christian Zimmermann, a University of Connecticut economist who has developed a widely used system ranking economists worldwide by how often other economists cite their papers. TodayCOs debate still turns on the axis of economic thinking that evolved in the Reagan era, much of which persisted through the trade-opening presidency of Bill Clinton. Yet even back then a legitimate and vigorous discussion about competing paradigms took place, and more were willing to listen to the other side. C[pounds sterling]Think-tank [creation] was really only finding its feet,C[yen] Notre DameCOs Mirowski says. C[pounds sterling]Now, itCOs absolutely ingrained.C[yen]

Many think tanks, and candidates from both parties, reap major financial support from large corporations that have often turned the increased complexities of the global economy to their competitive advantage. Those companies have a financial interest in staying free of interference from Washington, gaining as much dominance in their markets as possible, and leaving the risks for everyone else to absorb. As Summers noted in his Bretton Woods speech, some of the riskiest activities in the economyCoincluding financial trading, nuclear-power generation, and deep-sea drillingCohave grown so complex that the people who really understand the activities work in companies participating in them. In those areas, Summers said, C[pounds sterling]thereCOs hardly anyone thatCOs both knowledgeable and un-co-optedC[yen] by industry.

Making It Real

Even in the best of times, economics has hardly ever been a C[pounds sterling]pureC[yen] science unadulterated by politics. On the contrary, much of the last century saw a fierce conflict between free-market economists aligned with the GOP and Keynesian Democrats who tended to doubt the rationality of markets. The former were dubbed C[pounds sterling]freshwaterC[yen] economists because they tended to work at inland universities near the Great Lakes, starting with the University of Chicago; the latter were known as C[pounds sterling]saltwaterC[yen] because they usually flourished at such coastal universities as MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, and Stanford.

The economic debates in Washington today largely break along those old lines. Obama embraced a nearly $1 trillion Keynesian-style stimulus bill, and in the ensuing two years, Republicans sought to paint him as an out-of-control government spender and a burdensome overregulator. The president and his fellow Democrats, meanwhile, charge that RyanCOs plan and the rest of the GOP economic agenda are driven by discredited supply-side thinking, a critique that causes some Republicans to bristle. C[pounds sterling]The surprising thing about the Ryan budget is how little it does on taxes,C[yen] says Keith Hennessey, who served as chiefeconomic adviser to President George W. Bush. C[pounds sterling]It is focused almost entirely on making big and risky choices on the spending side.C[yen] Yet RyanCOs plan would drive the country back toward deregulation by also repealing much of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation bill that passed last year.

What both parties are searching for, of course, isnCOt necessarily the optimal economic policy or philosophy: They want the policy, consistent with their political-belief system, that plays best with voters. ThatCOs a double challenge for economists to solve. ItCOs not enough to build a new and better understanding of the economy and its trapdoors. We need a simple narrative to explain it, too. The one that took root under Reagan and ClintonCothat deregulating markets and expanding global trade would benefit everyoneCoworked for 30 years. Now, opinion polls suggest, that narrative doesnCOt play. Americans donCOt trust the government or the markets.

In an optimal worldCoa paradigm that economists are familiar withCoboth economists and lawmakers would acknowledge public frustration with government and markets and step up to the titanic challenge ahead. ItCOs impossible to say right now what policies would result from such a rethink. They could be small and surgical tweaks, such as increasing capital requirements for banks, rethinking government backstops for the mortgage market, or overhauling labor laws to slot more people into more-satisfying work. Frydman, the NYU economist who was so critical of Summers at Bretton Woods, suggests limiting government intervention in certain marketsCosay, housingCountil such time as asset prices swing outside of traditional boundaries, and then ramping up regulation to dampen those prices.

It could be that in regulating extraordinarily complex operations with huge sums of money attachedCosuch as deep-sea drilling and derivatives tradingCogovernments will need to keep industry on what might appear to be a short leash, and regulators will need to work far more closely across international lines than theyCOre used to, knowing that a breakdown in the system anywhere is a worldwide threat. (Witness the global slowdown in nuclear-plant construction, not to mention the public-health panic, from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor disaster in Japan.)

Or, lawmakers might end up making radical changes in how they judge economic progressCoperhaps adopting TurnerCOs suggested shift away from favoring GDP growth toward a more explicit effort to achieve full employment. Those changes, as Turner proposes them, would require lawmakers to invert some of the basic cost-benefit calculations they rely on to guide economic policy. If stability is more important to the U.S. economy than growth, Turner says, then lawmakers should stop worrying about the costs, in lost growth, of stabilizing the global banking system or counteracting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Banks should hold whatever level of capital is necessary to forestall runs on the system and a potential repeat financial crisisCoeven if that means slowing down lending and curbing the economic activity that grows from it. Countries should pay whatever it takes to dramatically improve energy efficiency and transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon ones, even if the increased price of energy stunts growth by far more than the 1 percent of global GDP that a British blue-ribbon panel estimates is the price of climate stability.

This is a quest that the U.S. can and should lead. Other nations are increasingly skeptical that Washington can balance its budget, reduce its debt, or bridge partisan divides. But in the realm of global economicthinking, the U.S. still stands alone. C[pounds sterling]The power of American economics is preeminent at this stage,C[yen] says Andrew Sheng, the chief adviser to the China Banking Regulatory Commission. At the Bretton Woods gathering, participants agreed that no strand of economicsConot European, not ChineseCocomes close to challenging that dominance.

But the question remains: Who will fill the vacuum? Who will follow the path of Friedman and Keynes and shake up economic policy-making for a generation? The joke in economics, as in many other scientific disciplines, is that the field advances one dead researcher at a time. Old ideas die; new ones grow. American economists and politicians would be wise to start thinking of the financial crisis as a collective funeral for old thinkingCoand as an opportunity to rise from the ashes.

Crisis causing other states to pause before opening markets

California’s energy crisis is having a chilling effect on other states considering deregulation of their electricity markets.

But, even as they keep one eye on California’s dilemma, deregulation advocates in the 32 states considering changing to a free market-based electricity industry are taking great pains to point out to politicians and residents that the situation in their states differs greatly from California’s mess.


Supply, supply, supply is the mantra emanating from the state capitols considering deregulation. States need an abundance of energy before starting to deregulate their electricity markets, says Craig Goodman, chief executive officer of National Energy Marketer’s Association, which represents power generators.

“It’s so obvious I don’t know why no one brought it up when (California) enacted this,” Mr. Goodman says. “They shouldn’t make the same mistakes California has. California was first, and they were the first to make mistakes.”

The fact that California’s problems have become front-page news across the country may actually help some states meet future power needs, says Bill Spence, president of Conectiv, a utility company serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey Delaware, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and parts of northern Virginia.

“It’s helped expedite the process of building new power plants, here and elsewhere,” Mr. Spence says. “It’s definitely heightened the awareness of how power supply affects the market.”

New York City is trying to stave off a power shortage this summer by building temporary plants around the city while planning for larger plants for the long term. Like California, its plans have met with resistance from environmentalists and neighborhood groups. But there are signs that the protests there have quieted since California endured two consecutive days of rolling blackouts, Mr. Goodman says.

California’s major utilities — Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy, which runs San Diego Gas & Electric Co. — and the state Legislature failed to ensure that there was an adequate supply of electricity before agreeing to deregulate the industry and freeze customer rates for three years, Mr. Goodman says.

California imports about 25 percent of its electricity. However, its traditional sources, including the Northwest region and Montana and Arizona, have experienced population booms that are absorbing their electricity surpluses. The utilities also sold off most of their non-hydro and non-nuclear power sources, putting them at the mercy of private energy suppliers.

As a result, prices have soared as high as $1,200 a megawatt-hour, and stage-three emergencies have become common. Stage three is the level at which the California Independent System Operator, the state power grid overseer, has less than 1.5 percent of reserve power available.

News of California’s problems stopped North Carolina’s deregulation process.

“Our efforts are dead in the water,” says North Carolina state Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston County “The consensus is that we will let the smoke clear (in California) before we proceed any further.”


Many states, including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Washington, North Dakota and Nevada, are spooked enough to put off deregulation proceedings indefinitely says Channele Carner, electricity market specialist for the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy.

“Even states that are proceeding are taking a second look at deregulation because of California’s problems,” Ms. Carner says.

Oklahoma is officially on a “go slow track,” says Shane Woolbright, executive director of Municipal Electrical Systems of Oklahoma, an association of municipal power companies.


“There’s an old saying here that goes something like, ‘when they say go slow, they mean don’t go,'” Mr. Woolbright says.

ANDRES F. HAMM covers sports management, energy issues and transportation for the Buiness Journal.

EU Electricity Directive Faces Some Resistance

Two years after its adoption, the European Union’s (EU) internal electricity market (IEM) directive-which aims to reduce prices through integration of EU national electricity markets-is taking hold. Most EU countries were obliged to open 26.48% of their electricity market to competition by last February. In some countries where that has happened-notably Germany and the Netherlands-chemical companies and other consumers have benefited from lower electricity prices. There are also signs of an M&A boom among suppliers, as national electricity companies gear up for international competition.


Veba and Viag say the rapid liberalization of the German electricity market is a reason for their proposed merger (CW, Oct. 6, p. 7). “In less than 18 months Germany’s entire electricity sector-from industrial consumers to households-has gone from a monopoly to a fiercely competitive market,” says Ulrich Hartmann, Veba chairman and CEO. “The main weapon in the fight for market share is price. Having the best cost structure will be the key to success. It’s only by growing and by exploiting synergies that we’ll be able to compensate for declining earnings brought on by more vigorous competition.”

Liberalization has freed RWE Energie (Essen, Germany), a major electricity supplier to BASF’s Ludwigshafen site, to enter new markets through supply deals with BASF’s sites at Antwerp, Belgium and Tarragona, Spain. RWE and Electrabel (Brussels)-previously the exclusive supplier for BASF Antwerp-have set up a 50-50 joint venture to build a DM400-million ($219 million), 800-MW combined cycle gas and turbine (CCGT) cogenerationplant at Antwerp. The plant will supply BASF with electricity and steam under a five-year contract.

It will start up in two phases between 2003 and 2006 and provide RWE and Electrabel with spare electricity to market on the Belgian grid. “This is part of our strategy of investing more heavily in other European countries to take advantage of the liberalized power market,” says RWE board member Jurgen Kronenberg. “The agreement is a unique and favorable solution to the long- term power requirements of one of BASF’s most important sites,” says BASF board member Helmut Becks.


RWE and an unnamed partner will build and operate a 350-MW CCGT unit at BASF’s Tarragona site. The DM350-million unit will supply steam, electricity, and gas to BASF, but most of its electricity will be sold on the open market. “This is an important step toward becoming one of the leading energy service providers in Europe by 2010,” says RWE chairman Manfred Remmel. RWE aims to invest DM5 billion/year on acquisitions and organic growth to capture 10%- 15%-roughly DM1 trillion-of Europe’s energy market by 2010, Remmel says.

Cross-border consolidation is also increasing. Veba paid E930 million ($967 million) for 87% of Electriciteitsbedrijf Zuid-Holland (EZH; Voorburg) in July, its first major international acquisition. EZH is the fourth largest utility in the Netherlands, with a 14% market share. State-owned Electricite de France (EDF; Paris) has invested across Europe and is now a significant player in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, the U.K., Hungary, and Poland. EDF’s deals include the [pound]1.39-billion ($2.32 billion) acquisition of London Electricity in November 1998.

EDF’s spending spree, along with its moves to supply low-priced nuclear power to its neighbors, has not been entirely welcome, particularly as France has not opened its electricity market to competition. “We have received complaints about France from ministers in several countries, including the U.K. and Germany. They are concerned that EDF can take part in their markets but their utilities cannot do the same in France,” says Gilles Gantelet, the European Commission’s transport and energy spokesman. “France has assured us that they will begin to liberalize their electricity market by the end of the year.”

That should benefit chemical producers in France. “Our French sites still can’t get competitive tenders for electricity, so we haven’t been able to secure lower prices,” says Jim Friend, energy director of Air Products Europe (Walton-on-Thames, U.K.). The company also has air separation plants in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the U.K. “Prices have declined in Germany and the Netherlands, but not in Belgium and the U.K. The U.K. has been a particular concern because the market has been open for large industrial users for most of the 1990s.” Between July 1998 and January 1999, average electricity prices for industrial consumers fell 8%-18% in Germany but increased 5%-9% in the U.K., says Eurostat, the EU’s statistics organization.

U.K. chemical companies have long complained of high electricity prices. After many years of lobbying, they have convinced regulators that the national electricity pool, the mechanism for setting U.K. electricity prices, is anti-competitive because it is dominated by the country’s main generators, British Energy, National Power, and PowerGen. The government aims to replace the pool with a competitive market-where electricity suppliers and consumers can establish bilateral contracts-by fourth-quarter 2000. “We’ve campaigned hard for the removal of the pool and fully support the new trading arrangements,” says Susannah Adams, utilities executive at Chemical Industries Association (CIA; London). “The government predicts the new system will lead to a 10% cut in electricity prices, but our member companies are looking for substantially more than that.”


CIA and the European Chemical Industry Council are concerned that the benefits of liberalizing the EU’selectricity market will be offset by energy taxes. “We fully support the IEM directive and the lower electricity costs it will deliver, but we have made it clear to the Commission that for chemical companies the benefits could be completely eliminated by energy taxes,” says Claude Culem, Cefic’s head of economic studies and energy policy.