Re: [SLUG-POL] It's Quiet in here

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 00:08:01 EST


On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:28:36PM +0000, Steven Johnson wrote:

>
> ----Original Message Follows----
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:26:06AM +0000, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Just a follow up note to bring everybody up to date. Since last summer,
> >>afew material facts presented themselves:
> >>
> >>1. California had plenty of capacity.
>
> >Untrue.
>
> >Rough calculations made over figures from California Energy Commission
> >show that California's actual generated power versus demand was between
> >7% and 8% over for the period 1990 to 2000.
>
> I really only need to address this one point, since the rest of your points
> fall apart rather neatly after this. It appears as if you derived your
> numbers from an electric commodities interest group, and we all know how
> reliable companies like Enron are (read: and, I quote "What a lot of
> drivel!") or you are using last years numbers based on flawed data.
>

The California Energy Commission is an "electric commodities interest
group"?

> "The Summer Adequacy Report" (After-the-fact report) showed a margin above
> 15 percent of loads over resources.
>
> Emergencies were declared by Independent System Operators (ISO) when the
> offers of capacity (read: electric commodities brokers such as Enron) were
> insufficient to meet its reliability criteria. Next day real-time sellers
> were there to avert these emergencies, but at exorbitant market-clearing
> prices. (read: chicken and egg)
>
> There was a 10% reserve margin across all hours during which emergencies
> were declared by the ISO. The actual reserve margin averaged over 20
> percent.
>
> > 2. The capacity planning turned out to be an allocation problem.
>
> >>See above and CEC's figures.
>
> See above, and *current* CEC figures. Also see Robert McCullough's
> statistical analysis, titled "Price Spike Tsunami: How Market Power Soaked
> California." which can be found in the Jan. 1, 2001, issue of
> _Public_Utilities_Fortnightly_,
>
> >>3. These allocation problems came about largely due to energy resellers
> >>like Enron manipulating the distribution of energy.
>
> >As above.
>
> As above.
>
> >Can't speak to this. However, by 1999, a dozen or so more power plants
> >were under construction in California, which would likely be online by
> >now.
>
> OK, then we can attack your earlier myth that environmentalist impeded the
> production of plants. The California Public Utilties Commission could not
> "find any significant environmental constraints" in issuing permits for new
> power plants. According to the California Energy Commission, no electric
> power plant in California has been rejected over air pollution issues.
>
> In fact, it was regulatory uncertainty and economic decisions by utilities
> and private generating companies that halted the construction of new plants.
>
> Even the energy companies themselves concede this point. Houston-based
> Reliant Energy, which operates four Southern California plants, told The Los
> Angeles Times that assertions that environmental regulations were holding
> back power production were "absolutely false."
>

Again, I suspect at base this is still incorrect. I don't have time to
check morgues and cull the internet for specific quotes, and public
proceedings for each power plant application filed. But I do know that
California and the Pacific Northwest is crawling with environmentalists.
And I know how much trouble they cause in connection with things like
power plants. It seems reasonable that they would hinder plant openings
in California. You may be correct, but I won't take your word for it
when my instincts indicate otherwise.

>
> >Part of your contention appears to be that Enron and others like them
> >caused all this shortage business. Investigations were called for in
> >California at the time, and to my knowledge, none turned up any
> >misconduct on the part of power generators and wholesalers.
>
> Ahem, actually quite a few are in the works or have already been published.
> By the CEC, the CPUC, and others.
>

I've seen no mention of them. Where are the results? If they're taking
this long to get and publish facts, then I suspect nothing substantive
is in the offing.

> >I think the figures alone speak to the fact that the
> >energy crisis was predictable, regardless of anything Enron and others
> >did.
>
> The *latest* figures speak to the opposite fact. And, with the collapse of
> Enron as more information becomes available, even more figures heretofor
> unknown will bolster my argument.
>

We're not talking about the latest figures. From my perspective,
everything from the point of rolling blackouts on is irrelevant, if you
want to see what caused all this.

Obviously you've been following this issue closely. What's your
interest? Do you work in the industry?

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:07:54 EDT