Implementing power liberalization during an electricity supply crisis strengthens monopolies rather than competition.
Unstable renewable energy sources should never be expanded during emergencies.
Pushing such reforms amid crisis invites accusations of shock doctrine and opportunistic exploitation.

2016-03-24
The following is a continuation of the previous section.
The people of Japan and the Japanese nation must clearly re-recognize who it was that engaged in the looting described by the commentator.
Anyone among the Japanese people who possesses a sound mind should be able to understand this simply by feeding back their own memories.
The faces of those who can only be described as traitors or enemies of the nation should immediately come to mind.
In short, if electricity liberalization is carried out during a period of supply tightness such as Japan currently faces, it will instead result in an even stronger monopoly structure than before, and it is difficult to believe that transmission fees would become favorable to renewable energy.
With nuclear power plants shut down and the country plunged into an unprecedented shortage of electricity supply, Japan is not in a normal, peacetime situation.
I cannot understand the mentality that would propose a dramatic expansion of renewable energy, the separation of power generation and transmission, or even smart grids during such an emergency.
Couldn’t such trivial schemes for national restructuring be debated during more tranquil times?
It is precisely because these changes are pushed all at once during an emergency that they are labeled shock doctrine and crisis looting.
In conclusion, under the current circumstances in which nuclear power plants are shut down and electricity supply is strained by high crude oil prices, the two things that must absolutely not be done are the large-scale introduction of unstable renewable energy sources and the separation of power generation and transmission, which overwhelmingly favors power producers.