3 ms·
> ”No advantage to customers to optimize load to the grid unless customers pay less.” Well, of course you pay less. There’s a lot of value to distribution netw
by Reason077 5y ago
> ”No advantage to customers to optimize load to the grid unless customers pay less.”
Well, of course you pay less. There’s a lot of value to distribution networks in being able to flatten peak loads, so they will be paying/reimbursing you in some way for that capability.
> ”the backlash (in social media and mainstream media) against real-time electricity prices was fierce.”
Grid electricity by nature is scarce at times and abundant at others. So not offering real-time pricing is a market distortion and may not produce the best economic or environmental outcomes.
That said, unpredictable bills can be a hardship for consumers that can’t store electricity or shift their demand. The correct approach is to let customers choose if they want real-time billing or a fixed rate.
- jfk13 5y ago> The correct approach is to let customers choose if they want real-time billing or a fixed rate. Wasn't that the situation that led to a mess in Texas?
- Reason077 5y agoThe mess in Texas was caused by not having enough reserve capacity to cover a period of exceptional demand, technical failures at power plants caused by extreme weather and under-investment, and not having sufficient interconnections with the rest of the North American grid which would have allowed more power to be imported. These problems are independent of whether you're operating a market model or a monopoly model. The market model is common throughout Europe, but widespread power shortages don't really happen because there are many interconnections between countries, and mechanisms (such as payments made to reserve generators based on their availability) which prevent market failure.