3 ms·

> The boom of construction of these alternative energy sources has definitely been lagged by the transmission utility corporations, which don't move as fast as

> The boom of construction of these alternative energy sources has definitely been lagged by the transmission utility corporations, which don't move as fast as their deregulated counterparts. There's definitely plans to expand and improve those lines, but those changes often move slower due to the entrenched utility interests. I'm a bit confused about what you mean by 'regulation'. Are you speaking specifically of renewables as 'non-regulated' because anyone can build a solar station, but only a regulated utility can build a transmission line? To my understanding, the regulation that most people refer to regarding Texas power utilities is pricing, not infrastructure. See: > Another difference between ERCOT and other grid operators, is that the Texas grid operator does not run a capacity market, meaning there is no mandatory capacity mechanism, but instead incentivizes units to remain online for extra capacity through scarcity pricing.[0] Can you explain what you mean by regulation in the context of new power generation and the transmission of that power? [0] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/congress-texas-should-rethink-ercots-go-it-alone-approach-ferc-chair/595335/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/congress-texas-should-rethi...

vel0city 3y ago
> but only a regulated utility can build a transmission line? Yes. Transmission and delivery are still run by highly regulated utilities that still largely operate like traditional utilities. They require approvals to increase prices and generally require more paperwork to do anything, massively limiting their ability to move quickly. If their budgets for the next few years are already set in stone it's hard to convince them to spend another few billion expanding. Pricing for delivery is highly regulated. Prices for energy to consumers is up to the Retail Electric Providers (REPs) which has much looser regulation. Those REPs can devise lots of different pricing strategies. Those are then separate from power producers which bid on production on day ahead and spot markets.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Are you saying you think it would be a good idea to deregulate the infrastructure surrounding utilities? As in, you believe it would be beneficial to let private parties setup their own high-voltage transmission lines and power networks and allow them to interface with the larger grid system, without strong oversight?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Generally I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. It's hard for there to be real competition in transmission markets, so trying to apply free market principles to an inherently monopolistic market is probably not going to yield good results. Maybe for a narrow part like connecting HVDC lines between the hubs, but traditional transmission lines and actual lines to consumers should definitely be well regulated utilities. There aren't multiple sewer lines or multiple water lines running to my house, and it doesn't make sense for there to be multiple power lines to my house. Plus, those transmission companies are probably going to have a lot of eminient domain which I'm not a huge fan of the government using eminent domain to benefit a small slice of private corporations which theoretically operate in a "free market" and less refulated. I'm overall more accepting of eminent domain for a regulated utility compared to a far less regulated free market corporation. I'm just acknowledging that such organizations tend to move a lot slower, and it's those slow movements that are leading to the bottlenecks of attachments. But theoretically one could push those utilities to be faster at doing so and allowing them to better position themselves financially to respond to these market forces faster. But if they're going to have to come up with billions today that they have not already budgeted for, it's hard to convince them to expand rapidly when their payoff is in decades.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying your position. I think I am a bit more informed now after having read it. Though I may not agree with the broad notion that Texas has of 'deregulation' (having lived in California through the Enron debacle), especially as that term is used dogmatically, I can't honestly say that I am knowledgeable enough about the specifics to make more than a broad critique. Unfortunately your politicians are doing you no favors amongst the critics with their rhetoric.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        It's definitely a complicated system that the vast majority of people don't really interface with or understand. I don't completely blame people for not immediately understanding it, but I do get frustrated with the massive amount of misinformation which gets spread by journalists which spread FUD about it (see: TFA). I do agree about the politicians. I'm no fan of a lot of those clowns. I'm pretty happy to see Ken Paxton finally having his crimes tried. Not everyone in Texas is a nutcase, 44% voted for an anti-gun candidate against Abbot. Imagine if the D's ran someone who never directly said they'd take away guns, they might actually win some at large state elections. And yeah, as someone who understands what Enron did they really did California dirty. Deregulation doesn't have to look like that. Free market principles can do good things, when you actually have safe and efficient free markets. Watts are Watts, if we do it right they can be pretty dang fungible.

vel0city 3y ago

> but only a regulated utility can build a transmission line? Yes. Transmission and delivery are still run by highly regulated utilities that still largely operate like traditional utilities. They require approvals to increase prices and generally require more paperwork to do anything, massively limiting their ability to move quickly. If their budgets for the next few years are already set in stone it's hard to convince them to spend another few billion expanding. Pricing for delivery is highly regulated. Prices for energy to consumers is up to the Retail Electric Providers (REPs) which has much looser regulation. Those REPs can devise lots of different pricing strategies. Those are then separate from power producers which bid on production on day ahead and spot markets.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Are you saying you think it would be a good idea to deregulate the infrastructure surrounding utilities? As in, you believe it would be beneficial to let private parties setup their own high-voltage transmission lines and power networks and allow them to interface with the larger grid system, without strong oversight?
- vel0city 3y ago
  Generally I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. It's hard for there to be real competition in transmission markets, so trying to apply free market principles to an inherently monopolistic market is probably not going to yield good results. Maybe for a narrow part like connecting HVDC lines between the hubs, but traditional transmission lines and actual lines to consumers should definitely be well regulated utilities. There aren't multiple sewer lines or multiple water lines running to my house, and it doesn't make sense for there to be multiple power lines to my house. Plus, those transmission companies are probably going to have a lot of eminient domain which I'm not a huge fan of the government using eminent domain to benefit a small slice of private corporations which theoretically operate in a "free market" and less refulated. I'm overall more accepting of eminent domain for a regulated utility compared to a far less regulated free market corporation. I'm just acknowledging that such organizations tend to move a lot slower, and it's those slow movements that are leading to the bottlenecks of attachments. But theoretically one could push those utilities to be faster at doing so and allowing them to better position themselves financially to respond to these market forces faster. But if they're going to have to come up with billions today that they have not already budgeted for, it's hard to convince them to expand rapidly when their payoff is in decades.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Thanks for clarifying your position. I think I am a bit more informed now after having read it. Though I may not agree with the broad notion that Texas has of 'deregulation' (having lived in California through the Enron debacle), especially as that term is used dogmatically, I can't honestly say that I am knowledgeable enough about the specifics to make more than a broad critique. Unfortunately your politicians are doing you no favors amongst the critics with their rhetoric.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      It's definitely a complicated system that the vast majority of people don't really interface with or understand. I don't completely blame people for not immediately understanding it, but I do get frustrated with the massive amount of misinformation which gets spread by journalists which spread FUD about it (see: TFA). I do agree about the politicians. I'm no fan of a lot of those clowns. I'm pretty happy to see Ken Paxton finally having his crimes tried. Not everyone in Texas is a nutcase, 44% voted for an anti-gun candidate against Abbot. Imagine if the D's ran someone who never directly said they'd take away guns, they might actually win some at large state elections. And yeah, as someone who understands what Enron did they really did California dirty. Deregulation doesn't have to look like that. Free market principles can do good things, when you actually have safe and efficient free markets. Watts are Watts, if we do it right they can be pretty dang fungible.