In a 28-page paper delivered to an industry audience in Auckland, Dr Layton argued current arrangements were working well but could be better.
Returning to a central planning approach, as advocated by Labour and Green parties, would lead to higher prices and more likelihood of power shortages, he said.
''Conclusions based on inadequate research are not a basis for sound economic policy,'' he said in a direct attack on Victoria University of Policy Studies economist Geoff Bertram, who Dr Layton accused of producing graphs that overstated the extent of household power price increases relative to other countries, BusinessDesk reported.
Also in Dr Layton's sights were long-time energy campaigner Molly Melhuish, and a one-time New Zealand Electricity Department planner and energy industry consultant, Bryan Leyland.
Dr Layton also said he would not implement the Labour-Green NZ Power proposal as it would contravene the requirements of the regulator's legislation ''to promote competition in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of the electricity industry for the long-term benefit of consumers''.
Asked whether he would be able to serve on the Electricity Authority if a Labour-Green government was elected, Dr Layton said: '' I personally wouldn't.''
Dr Norman said it was out of step for a state servant to engage in political debate.
''Normally, political appointees leave their colours at the door. Dr Layton's comment that he would not work for a Greens-Labour government shows a lack of political neutrality that is unfitting of a state servant.''
The authority had failed to control the ''unjustifiable'' rises in electricity prices and had crossed a line by entering into political debate to cover for its failure, Dr Norman said.
Under the NZ Power plan, the economic ''rents'' that owners of low-cost hydro dams currently made by selling their electricity at many times its cost of production would be eliminated, saving $700 million a year for families and businesses.
The saving of $300 per year per household was comparable to the rise in the average household power bill under the National-led Government. The authority would be folded into NZ Power under the reforms, he said.
Labour finance spokesman David Parker issued a point-by-point rebuttal of Dr Layton's paper and said he had crafted arguments about some implicit undefined regulatory bargain when the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) was set up.
''This is grasping at straws. I am not surprised that Dr Layton holds a different view from Labour. He has been one of those intimately involved in the current market for over a decade.''
The comments from Dr Norman and Mr Parker appear to have opened a divide about which party owns the NZ Power policy. Dr Norman called it the Green and Labour Party NZ Power Plan.
But Mr Parker said that under ''Labour's'' [sic] NZ Power policy, power bills would come down between $230 and $330 a year for the average household, by between 5% and 7% for industry and future increases would be more moderate and predictable.
Dr Layton was coy under questioning about whether his paper was a direct rebuttal of the NZ Power central buyer policy.
On central buyer proposals, he said similar policies had been examined four times in the past 25 years and ''found wanting'' in terms of what would be of long-term benefit to consumers.
Consumers could expect reductions of about $200 in their annual power bills if current approaches to encouraging retail market competition were pursued, he said.
Dr Layton rejected use of a 2009 study for the Commerce Commission by US electricity academic Prof Frank Wolak which said electricity industry ''super profits'' of about $650 million a year had been amassed by electricity generators using market power to jack up wholesale electricity prices.
- Additional reporting BusinessDesk
