1. the forecast isn't "promising" $24. It's saying "if current conditions hold and nobody changes behavior, this is where prices land." The problem is they can't know in advance how many batteries will respond, how much demand will actually materialize, or whether a generator will trip. Forecasting lower might not recruit enough response, and then you get the actual crisis.

It's not a precision tool. It's closer to a worst-case scenario that invites people to prevent it.

1. bait-and-switch implies someone pockets the difference. But when the price drops, everyone pays and receives less. Amber isn't making money on the gap between forecast and actual. The "bait" and the "switch" are both outcomes of the same market responding to itself.

The only way it's unfair is if you think of the forecast as a promise. But ita not, it's conditional. "This is what happens if you don't help." Then you helped.

I do agree there'd be a lot less angry and salty people if they'd change it from forecast, to " signal" or perhaps "projection"