|
Power Industry Primarily Faulted in 2003 Blackout (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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 ed.
Industy = Better provide a cheap service or we are ed.
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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 ed.
Industy = Better provide a cheap service or we are ed.
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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| without regs, safety is in the lowest bidders hands |
|
|
| Dervish |
| 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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Interesting how the source of this "report" is not named.
Personally, and speaking strictly from an electrical engineering perspective, I call bull. 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. |
|
|
|
|
