|
Power Industry Primarily Faulted in 2003 Blackout
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
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? |
|
|
| Epicurus |
All bull...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 :p
Link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/03/18/pf-385898.html |
|
|
| imokruok |
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. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| So you're saying we need to further deregulate the power industry which failed to properly regulate itself that caused the power outage. :conf: |
|
|
| imokruok |
| 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. :conf: |
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. |
|
|
| Dervish |
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 ed. 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 :tongue3) 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 e pours in heaps energy to make........ a pile of e. (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. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I don't know Opus, I just read the title of your thread and I'm still not convienced.
I blame Canada.:whip: |
|
|
| imokruok |
| 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 |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dervish |
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 :stongue:
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 |
|
|
| Dervish |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
|
|
