The question is 'who should give something up to deal with [X]'. It is likely that the situation will become unresolvably partisan in any democracy.
If the conversation were about clean air and making energy efficient decisions then it would not be a partisan issue. However, I've had conversations with people who seriously proposing 'solutions' like deindustrialising civilisation. I don't want that sort of people to be in charge of anything.
It is a partisan issue because the choices presented are 'take actions that do not impact our standard of living' and 'take actions that reduce our standard of living'.
With that being said, we're starting to see coal being retired at a very fast pace Nationwide and no new ones are really expected to be built. Change is happening every day in this industry which has traditionally moved at a glacial pace. Please do keep up the interest and spirit.
One of the key industry drivers here are the production tax credits (wind and now solar + storage) that come from government and make wind so crazy economical right now to where they can have extremely negative offers (think corn and ethanol). This is why it is painful to me to hear about politicians being bought out (ok, I'm sure some have fallen to for lobbyists) as the production tax credits have done so much for clean energy. Public opinion is also important in this space as many utilities are making green investments because it is good for PR.
In such markets, uneconomical units tend to be shut down fairly quickly. Which in the absence of a some type of price on carbon (be it a carbon tax, cap and trade, clean portfolio standards or whatever) unfortunately can mean replacing clean energy with dirtier but cheaper.
The other parts of the US participate in either ERCOT, CAISO, MISO, SPP, ISO-NE, PJM, or NYISO which all do commitment and dispatch. ERCOT is a little unusual as they don't co-optimize reserves in their real-time 5-minute market. Each of these markets has an independent market monitor that looks for participant gaming and other market anomalies. FERC mandated this after some heavy abuse in the north east from a utility where the fine was divided up and went to funding the market monitoring groups. Either this group or sometimes the market software itself looks for instances of market power being demonstrated. For example, if you're unit is sitting right on top of a congested area and your offer jumps up a certain percent, the software pushes you back to the approved offer that the market monitor verified is your true marginal cost. So the market is deregulated, but there is still plenty of regulation of a sort.
In a perfect market, yes you would have uneconomical units shut down quickly, but this isn't the stock market and there are many reasons why this doesn't happen all the time. Maybe you need it for capacity reasons (markets have rules on how much you need to reliably serve load or they even have capacity markets) as wind and solar aren't as reliable as thermal generation.
> ERCOT is a little unusual as they don't co-optimize reserves in their real-time 5-minute market.
ERCOT has their ORDC which IIUC they are happy with.
We also disagree about the redistributive underbelly of “climate” policy.