4 ms·

Why wouldn't the governor solicit bids for energy, and let the companies that actually build and run generation capacity decide the cheapest way to do that? Hav

Why wouldn't the governor solicit bids for energy, and let the companies that actually build and run generation capacity decide the cheapest way to do that? Having the governor choose seems weird to me.

coldpie 1y ago
The market is famously terrible at pricing in externalities and accounting for long-term needs. I think if you used the government to force bidders to account for those, you'd just end up in the same place.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  You might, or you might not. You might end up with tidal or wave, or wind+batteries, or something else. Tying yourself to something that's going to take decades and almost certainly include big cost overruns seems like a terrible idea.
cool_dude85 1y ago
Not an unreasonable choice if externalities such as carbon (and mining, etc. in the case of nuclear) are taken into account. And suppose you price carbon in, how do you actually produce a real carbon sink at the assumed cost and scale if nat gas wins the bid?
LeafItAlone 1y ago
Are you suggesting letting private companies whose entire purpose is to make the most amount of profit for their shareholders to be the ones that decide what is best for the people of the state?
Workaccount2 1y ago
Because it would be natural gas.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  I keep hearing that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new energy. Why would it be natural gas? And for that matter, if you are worried about CO2 emissions, you could make that be part of the requirements.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Solar and wind are cheapest when installed in ideal locations with ideal parts. Gas is a bit more expensive than the ideal green model, but cheaper on average. It also can be built anywhere on a comparatively small land parcel, and can provide easily scalable energy 24/7/365.
belorn 1y ago
Technology neutrality is fairly important. The role of the government should be in controlling the requirements which has a collective/social cost, like emissions, grid stability and price variability (as those are things that voters will demand from the government, as has been demonstrated in EU during the energy crisis). As long any company is willing to provide similar services under similar requirements, what technology they choose to use may be better determined by market forces rather than political choices. What they should not do however is to simply look at potential generation capacity and have that be the only important criteria. Voters has clearly demonstrated that they will vote for politicians that can promise stable grid and stable pricing, rather than having those being controlled by the market.
zamadatix 1y ago
NYPA does build and run generation capacity, it's just the state owned utility. Besides, this is a policy and strategy push instead of a lowest-bidder ask.

coldpie 1y ago

The market is famously terrible at pricing in externalities and accounting for long-term needs. I think if you used the government to force bidders to account for those, you'd just end up in the same place.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
You might, or you might not. You might end up with tidal or wave, or wind+batteries, or something else. Tying yourself to something that's going to take decades and almost certainly include big cost overruns seems like a terrible idea.

cool_dude85 1y ago

Not an unreasonable choice if externalities such as carbon (and mining, etc. in the case of nuclear) are taken into account. And suppose you price carbon in, how do you actually produce a real carbon sink at the assumed cost and scale if nat gas wins the bid?

LeafItAlone 1y ago

Are you suggesting letting private companies whose entire purpose is to make the most amount of profit for their shareholders to be the ones that decide what is best for the people of the state?

Workaccount2 1y ago

Because it would be natural gas.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
I keep hearing that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new energy. Why would it be natural gas? And for that matter, if you are worried about CO2 emissions, you could make that be part of the requirements.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Solar and wind are cheapest when installed in ideal locations with ideal parts. Gas is a bit more expensive than the ideal green model, but cheaper on average. It also can be built anywhere on a comparatively small land parcel, and can provide easily scalable energy 24/7/365.

belorn 1y ago

Technology neutrality is fairly important. The role of the government should be in controlling the requirements which has a collective/social cost, like emissions, grid stability and price variability (as those are things that voters will demand from the government, as has been demonstrated in EU during the energy crisis). As long any company is willing to provide similar services under similar requirements, what technology they choose to use may be better determined by market forces rather than political choices. What they should not do however is to simply look at potential generation capacity and have that be the only important criteria. Voters has clearly demonstrated that they will vote for politicians that can promise stable grid and stable pricing, rather than having those being controlled by the market.

zamadatix 1y ago

NYPA does build and run generation capacity, it's just the state owned utility. Besides, this is a policy and strategy push instead of a lowest-bidder ask.