Ehr... Bacle's argument was that "States will no longer need to match up to the syne wave of the national grid" if states run their own grids and you don't have a central authority commanding them, whereas my response is that it's insane for states not do what's practical and work together even if they are not all centralised under one authority.
My point isn't "you shouldn't co-operate", my point is "co-operation among different parties is better than lumping it all together under one central authority". My point is about avoiding single points of failure.
You both fail to grasp that, and are both way too busy obsessing over a false dichotomy ("centralism" OR "total chaos") to see that this is not actually the point that is being made. Just to clarify, again: I'm not against agreements between states (or other entities) to keep things running smoothly; I'm against centralising power structures, because centralised systems are inherently too vulnerable to all-encompassing failure. Compartmentalising is an essential feature when it comes to preventing real disasters.
(P.S. The mechanism by which the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany work together to allow interaction between their power grids is a treaty separate from the EU, which predates the Maastricht Treaty. In fact, it was originally a treaty involving the country of West Germany. In other words: no, you don't need a centralised political authority to do such things. Nice try though!)
--------------
You're by-passing my actual point. In fact, I think you're "falling into the American trap" of having had a large union for so long that you fail to see that countries much smaller than most US states can run things competently, by their lonesome, without such a union. This fact proves that US states do not inherently need the Federal government to do all sorts of stuff for them.
Literally. Reality itself demonstrates that I'm right about this. The dangers you imagine are really just that: imagined.
By your logic, Britain has doomed itself to nuclear holocaust by voting for Brexit, because they now lack the EU to ensure that their nuclear reactors are safe. Except, wait... the EU had very little to say about that anyway! European countries handle this themselves. British, Dutch, German, Belgian, and French standards are all handled nationally. Yet they all have nuclear power (well, Germany had it, effectively). And all handle it safely. In fact, I stress again... the only big nuclear disaster in Europe was caused by the highly centralised USSR.
Europe has many problems, compared to America. But at least in Europe, many people realise what a dumb idea the EU's wish for centralisation really is. In America, you've lived with this Federal crutch for so long, many of you no longer grasp that you can walk without it.
Again: stop imagining disasters. If the Dutch and the English can run nuclear power stations without having Brussels handle it all for them, then the good people of Virginia and Texas can surely manage the same without Washington breathing down their necks. You don't need those centralist busy-bodies. They just made you believe that you do. The dependency is entirely imagined.