|
<< Attack by Right on Union Neutrality Agreements | Main | Why This "Recovery" is So Unstable >> August 16, 2003Blackouts: I Told You SoAs my power was finally restored late last night, I could take small spiteful comfort in feeling like a prophet confirmed. Like the price ripoffs out in California, I basically predicted back in 1998 that this kind of blackout was almost inevitable due to national energy deregulation. With none of the utilities taking real responsibility for maintenance of the grid, neglect was bound to lead to a catastriphoic meltdown. From my 1998 Dissertation version (the 2002 book version had some updated analysis): Under market competition, power producers treat their own plant capacity as fixed moment-to-moment (since all prices will be based on marginal costs, not on longer-term rates of return as with the utilities) while prices will fluctuate across the country as demand adjusts to prices changes. Regulation is required because marginal cost decisions will not include calculations relating to maintaining the system as a whole, forcing new regulations at each point in the distribution system in order to bring those market transactions in line with the need for stable service, reliability, access and long-term investments in the transmission grid. It is the shift from a few key macro regulations to a proliferation of micro regulations.While the exact cause of this year's blackouts are not established yet, it's clear that neglected infrastructure lay at the heart of the problem. "electricity demand has shot up by 25 percent since 1990, [while] construction of transmission systems has declined by 30 percent." People will point to why this regulation or that regulation was not in place, but the reality is that deregulation gave the key energy players self-interested incentives not to waste their own funds on maintenance. Posted by Nathan at August 16, 2003 08:01 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI posted something about this over at my blog. I link to a couple of op-ed pieces that make the same argument you did. I've added a link here. Posted by: Kerim Friedman at August 17, 2003 08:04 AM And now Bush's prosecutors are saying they probably don't have a case against Ken Lay. Shouldn't that be a political issue for Democrats? Posted by: Steve Cohen at August 17, 2003 10:46 AM What about electricity demand? In today's Wall Street Journal, Vernon Smith and Lynne Kiesling suggest that demand prioritization could solve the problem without throwing tens of billions at new infrastructure. Posted by: Arnold Kling at August 20, 2003 07:31 AM Some power companies are already taking a pretty absurd tack to defend themselves-- environmentalists are responsible for preventing their upgrading the grid. Sad. Given the current climate of extreme ignorance in America, no doubt this will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by the populace. Energy Secretary SPencer Abraham now states that consumers will have to foot the $50 billion cost of upgrading the grid, because, of course, power companies have no responsibility to maintain and upgrade their own facilities. That would mean less money flowing into the pockets of execs and shareholders. Posted by: Alan Katz at August 20, 2003 11:50 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|