Episode 77: Joshua Macey
Spring has sprung, dear listeners. Now that this dreadfully cold winter seems to be behind us, our power bills might finally come back down to Earth. Here to explain why your electricity bill is so expensive – and what to do about it – is Joshua Macey, a Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Macey’s research and teaching interests are wide-ranging, from energy and environmental law to bankruptcy and legal theory.
In this episode of the pod, we get into the nitty gritty on energy, utilities, and governance strategies. The episode begins with a discussion of whether, and under what circumstances, centralized government regulation is (and is not) better than competition among private energy providers. We then tackle several big theoretical questions, such as the best methodology for analyzing regulatory policy, whether a carbon tax could be effective, and whether there should be an Abundance agenda for energy. And we also talk practical solutions: Why don’t we create a vast inter-state energy network? Should every state adopt the Texas approach of “surge pricing” during times of increased electricity demand? And more.
The episode concludes with another excellent nomination for the Canon of American Legal Thought (1975-2025).
Referenced Readings
“Behavior of the Firm under Regulatory Constraint”, by Harvey Averch and Leland Johnson
The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, by Frank Easterbrook and Daniel Fischel
“The Corporate Governance of Public Utilities”, by Aneil Kovvali and Joshua Macey
“In Defense of Chapter 11 for Mass Torts”, by Anthony Casey and Joshua Macey
“Inside or Outside the System?”, by Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule
A Running List of Nominations for the Canon of American Legal Thought (1975-2025)
A Matter of Interpretation, by Antonin Scalia [Grove]
“A Neo-Federalist View of Article III”, by Akhil Reed Amar [Grove]
“The Anticanon”, by Jamal Greene [Grove]
The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, by Frank Easterbrook and Daniel Fischel [Macey]
This episode features a discussion of whether a carbon tax could effectively curb climate change. And David has recently called attention to the new property tax revolt. In this spirit, what’s something you think should be taxed, but currently is not?
Sam: In my new book, I argue for a new suite of tax laws that attack the nexus of age and wealth - for example, by incentivizing departure from homes for those who have means to leave and, because they are older, often occupy more square footage than they need.
David: Lots of possibilities – low taxes on different tax bases can be very attractive, as the deadweight loss of taxation gets increasingly worse as a single tax gets higher. A serious answer is congestion. Driving downtown during busy periods creates huge externalities, and once passed, as NYC’s experience shows, congestion charges become popular because they reduce traffic.
A less serious but equally strongly-felt answer: a progressive tax on the length of meetings, particularly Zooms. How happy would the world be if the person who said “one more thing” at the end of meeting faced a stiff penalty! Also, of course, seconds of speeches during faculty meetings!!!
Finally, my wife would also say there should be a tax on exclamation points in emails, as it would encourage people to sound less deranged!!! And by people, she definitely means me :)