TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Power Industry Primarily Faulted in 2003 Blackout

Power Industry Primarily Faulted in 2003 Blackout

Is this really all that surprising? First California, now this.

quote:

Power industry faulted in blackout report Investigators warn of repeat without regulationsThe Associated Press Updated: 5:36 p.m. ET April 05, 2004 WASHINGTON - The power industry�s disregard of its rules intended to ensure the reliable flow of electricity contributed significantly to last summer�s blackout in eight states and Canada, investigators said Monday in their final report. Another major outage could happen unless reliability regulations, with clear penalties for violators, are put in place, according to the report by a joint U.S.-Canadian task force. It also recommended more independence for the private industry-sponsored group that writes voluntary requirements for power grids. �The report makes clear that this blackout could have been prevented and that immediate actions must be taken in both the United States and Canada to ensure that our electric system is more reliable,� Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said. The blackout came on Aug. 14, darkening all or parts of eight states from Michigan to New York and affecting areas of Canada. An interim report in November from the task force outlined many problems, but Congress has failed to address them. The Bush administration and many lawmakers agree on the need to end the industry�s regulation of itself. Attempts to have the government impose reliability standards have gotten tangled up in broader disagreements on Capitol Hill over energy legislation. The report Monday said none of the information received during the past four months �have changed the validity� of its interim findings in November. Those conclusions were that the blackout should have been prevented; that it originated with power line problems in Ohio; and that the outages rapidly cascaded because of communications problems, faulty equipment and inadequate training. The final report, as did the earlier one, leveled much of the blame on Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp., which it said failed to adequate recognize or respond to problems on three of its Ohio lines. Investigators also found inadequate monitoring of events by the regional grid system operator. FirstEnergy has contended that the grid problems were more widespread. But the final report also said investigators found �additional violations of reliability requirements and institutional and performance deficiencies beyond those identified� in November. �First and foremost, compliance with reliability rules must be made mandatory with substantial penalties for noncompliance,� said Abraham and Canadian Natural Resource Minister John Efford, who led the task force. The power industry has an array of voluntary requirements aimed at preventing blackouts. They are administered by the private North American Reliability Council, which lacks the ability to hand down penalties. Many reliability rules were ignored and the council could not do much about it, investigators have found. The task force recommended finding new ways to fund the council and its regional affiliates �to ensure their independence from the parties that they oversee.� � 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4670888/

So how much self-regulation should we give utilities? Where should the line be drawn for government vs. self regulation?

All bullshit...it was the terrorists!!! Actually, in an ironic twist to this whole matter, the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades claimed responsability AS SOON as the black-outs occurred. Of course, that has turned out to be false. Then again, these Brigades have claimed responsability for almost every "terrorist" attack that has happened in the past couple of years, to the point where they now lack credibility in the eyes of even the CIA and the Pentagon
Sorry for hijacking the thread, back to you

Link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/03/18/pf-385898.html

The problem with government regulation is that they choose to regulate certain parts of the business, while leaving other parts open to the free market. This is one of the problems that occurred in California where regulators were heavy-handed in rate determination and restrictive of new plant construction. The result was that in transmission, the power companies were largely unregulated, so they bought a lot of (expensive) cross-border power, and relied on it to make up shortfalls in their own capacity.

If you're going to allow utilities to self-regulate, there also needs to be more leeway in modernization of power plants. The nuclear industry is dead in the United States because regulations make building new plants unprofitable, despite the fact that new designs are eminently safer than even the most recent plants constructed. There are plants all over the country that could be modernized, for both power output and environmental concerns, but the laws require you to modernize the whole plant if you decide to change one part.

So, by all means, let the power companies self-regulate, but at least give them more options when it comes to deciding the best way to distrubute and produce power. It's not really self-regulation if the government gives you no other options.

So you're saying we need to further deregulate the power industry which failed to properly regulate itself that caused the power outage.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow So you're saying we need to further deregulate the power industry which failed to properly regulate itself that caused the power outage.

You can draw your own conclusion on what needs to be done. I was simply making the point that uneven regulation, plus the inability of power producers to get new plants built, means that an overemphasis is being placed on transmission and its regulation or lack thereof. Transmission would be less of an issue if this country had more power to spare.

Electricity is one of the few things on which I'll respect the French. The successive governments from the 1960's-1980's did an ample job of quashing the anti-nuclear movement, and nuclear is how they get 80% of their power today.

The whole issue is basicly every country now adays takes power for granted. It happens here in the UK. In the winter(when we need more power) the additional capacity is only 14% so on any given day if 15% more than expected your(we) are fucked. Ace time to lose power winter by the way you'll have pensioners dying all over the shop. The reson for it is competion. All the power companies are just shutting down the(edit: older) hard and expensive to maintain power plants and what you gonna replace emm with? Especially the nuclear ones over here they have just said they(the goverment) arn't going to build any more trust me they are.... it's either one nuclear power plant, 20 burning stuff(polution... which we can't have if we are gonna stick to Keoto and so on) power plants or the entire nations wind farms(edit again: burn stuff to make them remeber.....) x a million. Thouse green ppl(not litrally you understand ) who hate nuclear power plants I really don't get. You'd need to burn huge amount of stuff to get half the power. If you gonna be anti anything be anti recyling that takes a plie of shite pours in heaps energy to make........ a pile of shite. (save the planet stop recycling!!! just don't use disposable packaging. Buy fuit and veg not micro meals!!! Ohh wait your a green protestor you don't have a job....here have some more tax money that'll tide you over) What we should be driving for is a drop in consumtion. But in reality thats hard to do cos it's industry which uses most of it. Maybe tighter controls on power factor correction would be in order.

I should really check these things I've edited this like 4 times.... editing the bits I've edited.

I don't know Opus, I just read the title of your thread and I'm still not convienced.

I blame Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish it's either one nuclear power plant, 20 burning stuff(polution...

What's really fun is when you tell environmentalists that burning coal actually releases quite a bit of radiation into the environment, and a hell of a lot more than the water vapor exhaust from a nuclear plant, which should theoretically be radiation-free. Coal has trace elements of uranium and thorium in it, but it's still within "healthy" limits.

See here and here:
http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/energy/f.../FS-163-97.html
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview...xt/colmain.html

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok You can draw your own conclusion on what needs to be done. I was simply making the point that uneven regulation, plus the inability of power producers to get new plants built, means that an overemphasis is being placed on transmission and its regulation or lack thereof. Transmission would be less of an issue if this country had more power to spare.

My point was deregulation was the cause of the problem not the solution. Conservatives use deregulation as a fix all solution to every problem. I'd argue the �uneven regulation� was due to the governments tampering with a system that needs to be regulated. The black out wasn't caused by a lack of power, but a lack of standards and coordination that allowed the power drop to cascade through the network. Whether or not we need more power plants is a separate issue from regulation. France's reliance on nuclear power has its pros and cons, which neither supports nor discredits the need for regulation of a public utility that the society depends on to function.

Your preaching to the converted. I've worked in 2 seprate nuclear installations. I've personnaly had my ass litrally on a reactor. Now you don't do that unless your sure it ain't gonna make your "guys" swim in circles. If you know what I'm saying hehehehe

My cousin was working in another plant and they wanted to build a small coal plant(edit: within the nuclear plant or it's boundtries) for some reson I've forgotten but because of the rules for emittions in a nuclear power plant they couldn't because of the amount of radation the coal power plant would give off and it was only a small one. <<<< Now thats either funny or scary I'm not quite sure which hehe

Sorry just noticed the new post. Supose I went a bit off topic. Sorry. But the main thing is if you base the supply of something vital (such as electricty or health care) on business you have to regulate it so that if the bussiness compromises on either quality (both actually power supply quality & integrity of supply) or safety you can do them, as in them the managers... and make them goto jail(when enough people die). I mean there is another route to go down of less reliable power supplys a UPS in every home. I mean that seriously cheaper power overall but you need to protect yourself for when it goes off. In a competative business enviroment they will push to the edge any regulations and exploit any loop hole. One of my lectures called it CAT NAP, Cheapest Available Technolgy Narrowly Avoiding Procecusion and it's true. He was applying it to enviromental engineering but it applys to all engineering really. I mean I could actually tell you the cost of a human life. I've used it in calculations if it would cost over this amount to save someones life that safety measure/ technolgy would not be applied. Thats the kinda thing your talking about with bussiness.

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again ... deregulation is the most efficient solution to the problem. That is of course provided that there are some regulations to correct for market failures and that the progression from regulated markets to deregulated markets is done smoothly such that oligopoly structures do not arise. In as much as there are no doubts that a regulatory agency such as the FAA is needed for the air travel industry, there is a need for some kind of a regulatory industry for the nation's energy grid. The fact that the regulatory body has been poorly implemented should not deter from the overall benefits of a deregulated industry. Personally, I see no indications that a fully regulated energy grid would have fared any better under the same set of circumstances. What, the all-omnipotent government would have forseen such a crises and maintained strict standards in spite of budget shortfalls?

Yeah but if you take a look at the motivations behind it.

Government = Better provide (actually appear to) a good service or we are fucked.

Industy = Better provide a cheap service or we are fucked.

Which ones gonna be higher quality? It's not like you can market or package your electricity if yours is cheapest people buy if yours isn't they don't. And that leads to CAT NAP. Which is exactly what causes lack of investment which causes problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Yeah but if you take a look at the motivations behind it. Government = Better provide (actually appear to) a good service or we are fucked. Industy = Better provide a cheap service or we are fucked. Which ones gonna be higher quality? It's not like you can market or package your electricity if yours is cheapest people buy if yours isn't they don't. And that leads to CAT NAP. Which is exactly what causes lack of investment which causes problems.

Government = Provide the best service provided given government funding with little to no sense of efficient, budget/performance accountability.

Industry = Provide the cheapest service that is in equilibrium with the quality of services demanded by the market. This is, of course, dealing with a relatively Perfect Competition market somewhat analagous to the airline or telephone industry.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow France's reliance on nuclear power has its pros and cons, which neither supports nor discredits the need for regulation of a public utility that the society depends on to function.

first part of post debatably accurate. However, ridiculously painful and torturous regulations are inherent to nuclear power. They are one in the same.

Well I worked for the United Kindom Atomic Energy Authority and trust me I know what your saying about accountablity & efficancy, some people there arn't sure what they do....still turn up everyday and get paid(actually got a mate who one day in pub was pleased because he'd "Found a fucking ace place to sleep". But I'd still say that without regulations as tight as a ducks arse industry will errode the infastructure to the lowest point possible. And with miriad of differnt suppiers and "who owns the line" "who maintains the line" "who rents that line" "who responsible for a lighting strike on this line frying that lines switch gear" or "we don't see this as a profitble area.......not going to supply it" both sides have lack of acountablity just that industry does have mutiple heads and if you have to cut one off another will just sprout up, same company diffenrt name.

So I assume that you're still in the somewhat insecure transition phase whereas half the industry is still somewhat regulated whereas the other half is in some kind of hazy private market? If that's the case than I agree . Effective regulations are needed until the majority of kinks are worked out. But as these industries become more efficient at self-regulation driven by demand, government intervention should decrease in response. Essentially my argument is not that deregulation is the absolute answer to everything, but that careful deregulation will lead to far more efficient industries than a regulated industry could ever hope to accomplish.

without regs, safety is in the lowest bidders hands

Yeah I would agree if regulated prefectly it would be a better industry. Its just a bit of bitch to do. But if done carefully like you say I'm sure it could work. Once all the probeblems have been worked after a few years you'll have a better system possibly. So long term gains, but in the short term there could be issues.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I've said it before and I'll say it again ... deregulation is the most efficient solution to the problem. That is of course provided that there are some regulations to correct for market failures and that the progression from regulated markets to deregulated markets is done smoothly such that oligopoly structures do not arise. In as much as there are no doubts that a regulatory agency such as the FAA is needed for the air travel industry, there is a need for some kind of a regulatory industry for the nation's energy grid. The fact that the regulatory body has been poorly implemented should not deter from the overall benefits of a deregulated industry. Personally, I see no indications that a fully regulated energy grid would have fared any better under the same set of circumstances. What, the all-omnipotent government would have forseen such a crises and maintained strict standards in spite of budget shortfalls?

But what seems to happen in a deregulated market when such tragedies arise is the accountability and the consequences upon that given company who's responsible are pretty much next to nill. It's as if they shrug their shoulders and say, "Oops, my bad," and then hopefully they change their ways. As it's been shown in a number of cases, however, they do not because they can get away with it in the short term.

With governmental regulation, however, they are held accountable and their asses are in a serious sling with hefty fines and probably a good number of firings. They do not have a choice to cut corners.

IOW, I simply do not trust the free markets enough to allow self-regulation, because a number of companies continue to cut corners in order to save money (and hence remain competitive). Whereas with a little bit of outside regulation, they have no choice, and they must adhere to strict standards or else.

Besides, the history of deregulating utilities is pretty slimy, IMO, and I feel that basic necessities like water, gas, and electricity should have never entered into a free market. Of course, the money hungry utility/energy lobbyists with their politicians in their back pockets thought otherwise a coupla decades ago.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Besides, the history of deregulating utilities is pretty slimy, IMO, and I feel that basic necessities like water, gas, and electricity should have never entered into a free market. Of course, the money hungry utility/energy lobbyists with their politicians in their back pockets thought otherwise a coupla decades ago.

Well they most certainly shouldn't be deregulated under the california model. Bill 1890 wasn't deregulation so much as it was a bizarre restructuring of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E that resulted in a "deregulated" market with strict regulatory and prohibitive policies. There are plenty of other industries viewed as "natural monopolies" that successfully deregulated.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well they most certainly shouldn't be deregulated under the california model. Bill 1890 wasn't deregulation so much as it was a bizarre restructuring of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E that resulted in a "deregulated" market with strict regulatory and prohibitive policies. There are plenty of other industries viewed as "natural monopolies" that successfully deregulated.

When I talk about regulations, I mean providing uniform standards for infrastructure, insuring these standards are met, and maintaining a fair price. Is that so awful? I don't support regulations that prevent competition, but these utilities want deregulation without competition. Utilities are monopolies that's not a view that's a fact. Consumers have no choice who they can buy their electricity from that's why utilities are regulated. You want free-market fine, let's take away all the current utility contracts then give the contract to the lowest bidder. These companies would be screaming bloody murder if they actually had to compete.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow When I talk about regulations, I mean providing uniform standards for infrastructure, insuring these standards are met, and maintaining a fair price. Is that so awful? I don't support regulations that prevent competition, but these utilities want deregulation without competition. Utilities are monopolies that's not a view that's a fact. Consumers have no choice who they can buy their electricity from that's why utilities are regulated. You want free-market fine, let's take away all the current utility contracts then give the contract to the lowest bidder. These companies would be screaming bloody murder if they actually had to compete.

Well when I talk about deregulation and free markets, I don't mean a total vacuum of regulation . In as much as there are regulatory bodies for the airline industry, trucking industry, etc., there should be a regulatory body for the energy industry. What happened in california however, was simply ludicrous and it wasn't the fault of the local californian energy industry, so much as it was the deregulatory policies laid out for the industry in bill 1890 in combination with external factors such as supply and demand. The Californian energy crisis is a poor argument against deregulation because the incident wasn't a good example of a deregulated industry.

Interesting how the source of this "report" is not named.

Personally, and speaking strictly from an electrical engineering perspective, I call bullshit. This has nothing to do with regulations or the industry's disregard for it. On the Canadian side at least, the problem is that it has been government-owned since the beginning (was only recently partially deregulated), and the distribution and transmission equipment hasn't been updated in 20 years. It simply wasn't designed to handle the amount of power being drawn from it, and it DEFINITELY wasn't designed for the kind of "sharing" that goes on.

Engineers here begged for more money for the government for the longest time because they were already so far in debt but the equipment was old and dying. The Province of Ontario poured as much money as it could spare into hydro and nuclear plants but the federal government refused to give them a dime (their pensions were more important I guess). Desperate for money, they set up the whole ridiculous "share" with U.S. states.

Privatization IS the answer but it also needs to be done carefully. "Deregulation" implies exactly the opposite of what we want - it should be privatized but also very tightly regulated in order to prevent another Enron.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What happened in california however, was simply ludicrous and it wasn't the fault of the local californian energy industry, so much as it was the deregulatory policies laid out for the industry in bill 1890 in combination with external factors such as supply and demand. The Californian energy crisis is a poor argument against deregulation because the incident wasn't a good example of a deregulated industry.

I really don't know anything about the cali situation, my comments and the topic of the thread were based on the report of the blackout in the North East. Each region has it own history and set of problems concerning energy. One thing we probably could all agree on electricity is essential for modern life and that we all take it for granted until something goes wrong.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.