It draws no direct benefit from either higher prices or lower prices. The theme of our testimony and comments has been consistently to support true market competition. The debate that has taken place over the years regarding electricity deregulation or restructuring has been largely one between supporters of government intrusion to induce prescribed results and the supporters of unmolested competition. It is the Exchange's belief that California missed the opportunity in the mid 1990's to foster the creation of a truly competitive electricity marketplace. To answer each of these questions, the most relevant factor is to what degree was direct access , the actual competition between sellers of electricity to directly serve end-users, supported.
Direct access is key because it represents the core of what is meant by market competition.
This is how competitive free markets operate for virtually every product and service. It is no accident that where electricity markets have been structured to rely more heavily on this type of artifice, the development of direct access has been more inhibited and the level of real market competition has been muted. As a case in point, California was expressly designed to frustrate the development of direct access . The consequence of this action was eventual disintegration of competition, higher prices, and virtually no customization to better serve customers. In some venues, it has been accorded serious consideration, but even in these circumstances, the major focus has been on developing competition in generation.