今回の北米大停電の原因はまだ完全には解明されていないようですが、この事件の影響は、早くも世界的に（アジアの開発途上国を含め）広がっているようです。カリフォルニアやニューヨーク界隈でこういう停電が起こるのは、米国で電力市場の規制緩和があまりにも進みすぎているからで、例えばマレーシアのマハティール首相あたりは、だから電力の自由化は良くない、規制緩和を遅らすべきだといっているようです。日本の場合は、さてどういうことになるのでしょうか？　全くの「対岸の火事」なのでしょうか？　ＥＥＥ会議でも大いに議論していただきたいと思います。ただし、原子力村民の「我田引水」的議論はこの際かえって逆効果でしょうから、その点は十分注意して。

Although I agree with most of Ed Lincoln's comments, some
background information might be useful to this discussion. Despite
popular opinion, the United States is not as deregulated as many
parts of the world like Germany (100%), the UK (100%), or some of
the Nordic states. In fact, even the Japanese are likely to be more
advanced on the deregulatory front over the next few years, but the
media never seems to metnion this.

Only roughly 42% of America's 50 states are currently liberalised.
After the California crisis, six states including Texas (today,
arguably the most successful example of electricity deregulation in
the world) suspended retail access with another eleven states
(mostly Southern states like New Mexico, Florida, and Alabama)
trying to delay further liberalisation efforts altogether. They weren't
too successful on that front and, as far as I know, things have
proceeded along nicely since then.

If anything, the California crisis had a greater impact on continental
Asia then it did in continental Europe, Latin America, Australia or
even Japan. Deregulation has been progressing slowly in Asia for
most of the 1990s, but some extreme cases popped up. After the
crisis, for example, Mahatir's Malaysia reviewed and suspended its
planned deregulation timetable indefinitely, preferring to revert to the
status quo of its existing market structure until a review in 2006 at
the earliest.

A reassessment of strategies was also undertaken in China and
Korea, delaying progress for some months, although both countries
appear to be persevering with their intentions to fully liberalise their
respective generation and distribution markets.

Then there's Japan. The incumbent utilities have played the saviest
public relations campaign against electricity deregulation from day
one, arguing that "stable electricity supply is more important than
lower prices." Denki Shimbun (Electricity newspaper) and the
Yomiuri Shimbun occassionally featured articles dissecting
deregulation from every angle and yet as a percentage of the total
market liberalised, it's already surpassed the total liberalized portion
of the United States -- even though competition doesn't really exist
yet.

The "tokuteikibojuyou", or contestable market, is limited to extra
large-lot users like department stores or hospitals, some 30% of
total nationwide capacity. That will increase to roughly 60% by
2005/6 incorporating the remaining large-lot and commercial users.
By 2007 -- assuming the current nuclear reassessment goes
without a hitch -- the remaining retail (residential) portion of the
market will finally be liberalised.

I regularly attend all of these meetings at the METI on further
electricity deregulation and am surprised on how the panel is
consistently confusing "America" with "California" or "New York", as
if America is a single block with uniform regulatory models
nationwide. And yet, I recently toured the North East before the
blackout and met with Pat Wood, Chariman of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington, D.C., and two
Chairmans for regional state regulatory bodies, to get a feel for
deregulation in America. All three regulators told me that the
Japanese had taken a greater interest in what was happening in
their regions then some of the companies they regulate. I found that
to be funny, if not strangely typical. In Japan, "confirmation bias" is
the norm.

Paul J. Scalise

注：　このメールの冒頭に出てくるEd Lincolnというのは、米国の有名な外交評議会（CFR）の主席研究員で、以前在日米国大使館の経済担当公使で、最近までワシントンのブルッキングズ研究所の経済担当研究部長もやっていた人物で、日本通ということになっています。ただし、民主党系で、日本に厳しいとの定評あり。　--KK