3 ms·
> Not quite, prices capped first. Then when that was not enough rolling blackouts where implemented Again, no. The cap was in place before the floor, but was n
by scott00 6y ago
> Not quite, prices capped first. Then when that was not enough rolling blackouts where implemented
Again, no. The cap was in place before the floor, but was never binding: they did blackouts before the price hit the maximum, not after.
> As rolling blackouts where implemented by people paying wholesale rates they obviously have an incentive for excessive blackouts
The decision to do blackouts was made by ERCOT, not by transmission operators or power retailers. (Retailers are the only ones who have an incentive to do blackouts, though transmitters generally also have a retail operation.)
- Retric 6y agoWhat’s the price on an expiring naked short when their isn’t enough of the stock to meet your demand? All your money. As utilizes are required to sell at contracted prices to the general public and must buy from insufficient supply that’s the situation. Actually breaking equipment isn’t needed to demonstrate this. If you’re doing rolling blackouts from insufficient supply then your at price infinity or whatever price limit is setup to protect you. I am using utilities rather than TDU’s as while they are required to provide access to others, enough do both to make the distinction meaningless in this instance. PS: ERCOT making that decision is only relevant if it could have been avoided. So, if you can find someone saying their was sufficient supply to cover demand then I will withdraw my argument.