AWK-If that is your definition of free market then we really have very, very few goods and services that are free market driven. Virtually every good or service has some standards setting entity. And most of them are a result of a few bad actors wiling to sacrifice an unaware clientele for their personal gain. bad medicine, bad doctors, bad autos, bad roofs, bad lawyers, bad stockbrokers etc. Each of these arenas required standards to be set because there were a minority that would lie, steal and cheat to make more money.
If a standard is in the best interest of the country (and by that I mean the people of the country, not just the GDP of the country) then it should be adopted. IMO a more appropriate analogy is OSHA standards. When these were 'mandated' industry cried that they would cost too much and they would kill business. It didn't. Business (and America) adapted and it became part of the cost structure. And many people were protected because of it.
We don't need to impose draconian measures but we do need to encourage a transition to Alt Energy sources. The problem with most subsidies is that government is terrible at picking winners. The subsidy just needs to come in the form of substantive tiering on electrical pricing. If you are under the average you get a really cheap rate, if you're at the avg, you pay quite a bit higher, if you're above the avg, you pay through the nose. Then people will choose their form of saving energy. Be more frugal or find alternatives that work for them.
IMO you're mostly right. Free markets do allow the best solution to shake out, but most of the time free markets don't do a great job of working for the common good of all the people and can sometimes be inadequate to deal with large problems that involve some sacrifice.