Posted 4/11/2019 10:13 (#7432807 - in reply to #7432715) Subject: RE: Separate production from distribution.
A few years ago when NY was faced with rapidly escalating electricity prices, the state legislature forced the electric companies to separate their production from the distribution. The immediate effect was to cause the electric companies to sell their interests in the nuclear power plants and most coal fired plants. It turned out that the distribution segments were subsidizing the unsustainable nuclear & coal generation. In the end it backfired on the state because the companies owning the nuclear plants threaten to shut them down they couldn't compete in the open market so the state had to give them a multibillion dollar subsidy that got charged back on the rate payers. But as alternative sources, wind, solar, etc become available, at some point, less of this expensive nuclear will be necessary and it will get abandoned.
The point is, for the first time it was obvious what the different sources of power cost.
You could easily do something similar with motor fuel production & distribution. Separate the fuel production from the distribution and then we'd see who had the cheaper better fuel. I bet you'd find out that without the oil companies lock on the distribution system, shale oil might not be all that competitive.
You know, a hundred years ago, one of the ways Rockefeller's Standard Oil controlled the oil business was thru his arrangements with the railroads. His competitors in the oil business could't get favorable freight rates from the railroads. He use that to run them out of business and then he bought them up.
It's the same problem and same principle today.