I balk at Federal regulations. Seems like it would 'justify' the brokers' adding overhead, since they would have to 'generate' about a 200,000 ton load of paperwork to battle the utility suppliers in OUR collective names. Capacity wins out over consumption every time. If locals want to sell over-capacity to nonlocals, let 'em upgrade infrastructure to move it where the market is. That seems to be the biggest 'leakage' as it stands, anyway.

If only the Grid could be designed the way the Internet or Ethernet is -- a set of simple local rules that integrate into a homeostatic yet unregulated herd behavior.

A tough issue.
The power grid spans a whole bunch of local political subdivisions and therefore affects the lives and livelihoods of parties in numerous states.
If energy policies are locally generated and one state screws up, several other states' citizens have to pay the price.
ex: Let's say that there are no federal environmental guidelines, that each state makes its own laws.
Louisiana has a policy of no dumping chemicals in the Mississippi River, because they figure pollution from shipping is enough. Missouri, on the other hand, says it's okay to dump toxic waste into the same river where it passes through their state. Toxic chemicals flow downriver, through Louisiana, killing off all those great giant catfish you can catch right out of New Orleans. Whether or not La has legal recourse, the damage is already done.
Dave, let's say you own a new business whose success, in fact survival depends upon your being able to stay open and generate profits every day in order to get the rent paid and meet the invoices for your inventory. Some nearby state has a power grid problem due to policies far antiquated compared to your state's, because they(or their power companies) don't want to spend the money to update. It blacks your state out and you lose two days' desperately needed business. Maybe a couple of old folks you know die because they have electric heat or it's summer and their AC's out.
If potential problems of the magnitude of electrical power affect several states, centralizing the authority might not be a bad idea, or at least putting out federal guidelines that put all states and power companies that share the grids on the same page.
There's no reason why half the people in five states should have to suffer for the screwups of a few people in another state.

Ooops! Sorry.
Where'd I get THAT name?
Cap'n SPIN.

What I fear about a "unified" system is that politically powerful geographical blocs (take New York City or Los Angeles as examples) will use their political clout to put the onus of power generation and the infrastructure needed to deliver it upon the less politically favored regions of the US. Remember when California had the "rolling blackouts?" One of their suggested solutions was for the Feds to require that utilities in other states sell them electricity at a very low rate, in whatever quantity they desired, as I recall.

Seth, Ratbane - Therein lies the dilemma, and it is that. If it would make more sense to FEDERALLY regulate, so be it, with some qualifications - like, assuring that private power makes a reasonable profit, and keeps infrastructure up-to-date. That is MY problem here. I do not deny that there is a mish-mash of regulated and deregulated power suppliers. There obviously has to be an incentive to invest in not only new sources, but keeping the grid viable is just as important. Our deregulated company played the books game, and has invested ZERO in the grid - hence, the only upgrades were done where they could sell to the 'outs' instead of the 'ins'. The consumers in my 'hood have to pay the consequences of their greed. I'm truly not impressed with deregulation.

Cap'n
Things like the power grids and our reservoirs should both be treated seriously as Homeland Security issues.
I'm as capitalistic as the next guy and like nothing better to see generous returns on an investment. In fact, up until our little electrical problem here in Cal a couple or so years back, I would have gotten up and preached the greatness of power company financial instruments. A lot has happened in the last three years that has shown us how wrong I and a lot of other people were- I saw it coming, and was not vulnerable to PG & E's screwups.
While running a utility is a for-profit business, it is not the same kind of capitalism as running a textile firm, an automobile manufacturing corporation or Starbuck's. If Ford raises the price of a twenty five thousand dollar car to fifty thousand dollars, you can say, "Up yours!" and go buy a Saturn(right). If Starbuck's decides to charge $6.75 for a demitasse cup of Nigerian/ Auckland Ladedah medium roast or whatever, you can go to Peet's and get an espresso.
A utility is a different story. You're ostensibly the only game in town and one whose product carries a basic survival tag. By taking over a utility, you're assuming responsibility to deliver your product, 24/7, and to do so at a price that your customers can afford. Kind of like creating and distributing all the breathing air in the community, or all the drinking water. You don't have the luxury of brutally inflating prices, so if you want to make a few more million a year, you gotta trim the budget someplace. So you look for what is called "necessary overhead", that is, items you are required to have that don't produce profits; Like security, or a large enough staff to perform preventive maintenance or safety upgrades; Like expensive new equipment that might prevent spreading blackouts from penetrating your grids. You trim those budgets.

Which is why I think there need to be enforced federal guidelines. I think our grid should be fully upgraded, all across the country, people who need to be trained to deal with problems trained properly and a one time federal subsidy used, under supervision, to rebuild our entire power system. No squawks from the locals, no excuse to raise customer prices and after that, it's up to them to maintain their grids. CEO Joe Shmeckle can endure his paltry 16 million dollar salary for a few more years. If he doesn't like it, he should've gone into plastics or something that's part of the larger, competitive business community.

Ratbane

You can't compare California under its present leadership to anyplace else, nor can you use anything that happens in this state as a case in point in any sane argument. Trust me on this one.

deregulate Everything so the country be looted
completely. Why wait ?? People forget about the
Last fiasco.. That's why..

Y'all seem to be forgetting that the grid was never deregulated to begin with. It is, and has been, a regulated monopoly handled at the state level with fixed rates of return and the like.

The part that was deregulated was generation, allowing the grid operators to purchase power from whoever could provide it the cheapest.

The grid is a natural monopoly. No-one disputes that. The question is, should we have fifty different sets of regulations or one?

VF,

You're being hysterical. California implemented a particularly stupid form of deregulation where they required their utilities to sell their generating capacity and made it illegal to buy futures contracts. The grid operators were forced to by off the day-ahead market (essentially a spot market) but had no recourse futures or their own plants to mitigate their risk. That's why it failed. The system was easily gamed.

If you're going to comment, it would behoove you to make a little sense.

Robert:

I'll go with one, simply because as we've seen[or not seen, after sundown :-) ], one power company's "problem" becomes several power companies' problem, and this affects multiple states.

Seth,

Yeah, now that the grid has become more interconnected and sales across states are much more common -- in fact, some states refuse to build new plants and rely on other states to supply them with power -- it makes no sense to have 50 different sets of rules.

The Problem is trying to transmit too much power over too long a distance in a system not designed to be stable under those conditions.

See more here:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/19/simon.htm

To propose solutions without understanding the technical details of the process is typical human behavior.

It will not help.

Well, as a human, I do understand the issue enough to comment. You're right about transmission over long distances, but there's nothing in my comment regarding it. The distances we're talking about can handle transmission if the investments are made. In any case, jurisdictional disputes need to end and the way to do that is to handle it at a federal level.

Hello, this is a nice site you have

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: