Because if Electricity is out, it means there's a shortage of it. If there's a shortage, it creates scarcity. With scarcity comes a rise in price due to increased demand.
You're hungry. I have food. I have what you need. And I know you need it. I'm going to charge you more for it because you NEED IT.
Not exactly. The feds used emergency powers to shut off the flow over potential concerns that didn’t exist. Part of that situation is raising the cost of MWH to astronomical levels to limit usage to prevent a failure to the power grid. In this case, $1500 per megawatt hour and more was enacted as part of the federal powers act.
It was not supply and demand. There was plenty of supply and ability to disseminate. The excuse given was “expected” usage would exceed federal emissions limits. They killed people under the guise of environmental concerns.
Hold on, where can I read more on this. So are you saying that in Texas there was additional plants that could have been brought online to cope with the demand, but the only reason they didn't is because they would "pollute too much"?
Called supply and demand. The more something is in demand, as limited power during the Texas outage, rates skyrocket. It's called "price gouging" and is illegal. This has used before involving gasoline prices during shortages.
No, it was part of the requirements of the federal powers act to limit usage under an emergency which might harm the power grid.
There was no supply problem and the cost of energy was not related to gouging. The excuse given was environmental concerns based on “expected” usage that would exceed federal emissions limits.
Electricity is bought and sold in most regions of the US at interchange hubs that work pretty much like other commodities markets. Power plants that are available to generate offer their kilowatt hours for sale and regions that need power bid on the generation that is available. If there isn't enough generation, the bids go higher as regions compete to outbid each other and the price goes up. Supply side factors can come into play as well. If the price of fuel goes up, the price that power plants are willing to sell their power for also goes up. Most power plants have long term fuel contracts to stabilize short term fluctuations.
So in short, when there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. When there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If the cost to make power goes up, the price goes up and goes down in the opposite case.
Industrial power users will often have long term power contacts that fix the price to stabilize the price they pay and many regions have a governmental Public Utilities Commissions that approves and denies rate changes request by the utility companies. The PUC should have the individual rate payers interest in mind but some PUCs are good and some, not so much. There are also utilities that just pass the spot price for power directly onto their customers so if you have a contract with them and you have power during a crisis, you can end up with a monster bill.
I don't know what power ERCOT used or from where, but we literally just had the DOE tell them that if they have to ramp up production, only after exhausting all alternatives, that they can only sell that additional power at $1500 per Mwh, roughly 6000% of its normal price.
Regardless if they went this route or not, we just saw government mandated price gouging. We should never have to choose between bankruptcy and freezing to death.
Not this time. It was all related to the federal powers act and not supply and demand. Once they enacted the the emergency, the MWH costs went to levels designed to reduce usage in an effort to protect the system from damage.
There was no threat to the power grid, however. The letter from the DoE cites federal limits on emissions as the reasoning for the emergency.
Public utilities is one of the few places where i think government intervention to subsidize costs for its citizens is totally fine. Using tax dollars to help tax payers, would be ideal. However, usually subsidies are bad for reasons I don't care to get into now.
Here's another question... Why would we have rolling blackouts in the South because of power concerns, when we run more power in the hot, summer months, running our air conditioners full blast?
A lot of homes in the South run on gas heat, not power. However, A/C is power. Lots of it. Also, there are rolling blackouts in other parts of the south that do not run windmills/solar.
A lot of people in Texas ride the wholesale utility market. Griddy is a company that sells wholesale electricity to end users. Last summer or the summer before there was a spike in wholesale prices and people were getting outrageous bills. There was a lot of outrage about that, but as usual, people forgot and didn’t lock in contracted rates and will get smoked again in the coming weeks.
The correct answer is explained in the 4 page letter sent by the DOE. They used the federal powers act to shut off the flow of gas and electric by claiming an emergency existed based on “expectations” that usage would exceed federal limits on emissions. Once the emergency was enacted, it gave the DOE the leverage to raise the minimum costs of megawatt hours to over $1500 each. This is designed to limit usage when there is a threat to the system by making the cost extremely high.
The difference is, there was no threat to the system and the limits were put in place over the potential of environmental concerns, not power grid capacities. This was a manufactured crisis and their explanation is total bullshit.
democrats.
Because if Electricity is out, it means there's a shortage of it. If there's a shortage, it creates scarcity. With scarcity comes a rise in price due to increased demand.
You're hungry. I have food. I have what you need. And I know you need it. I'm going to charge you more for it because you NEED IT.
Supply/Demand Sellers Market.
Not exactly. The feds used emergency powers to shut off the flow over potential concerns that didn’t exist. Part of that situation is raising the cost of MWH to astronomical levels to limit usage to prevent a failure to the power grid. In this case, $1500 per megawatt hour and more was enacted as part of the federal powers act.
It was not supply and demand. There was plenty of supply and ability to disseminate. The excuse given was “expected” usage would exceed federal emissions limits. They killed people under the guise of environmental concerns.
Hold on, where can I read more on this. So are you saying that in Texas there was additional plants that could have been brought online to cope with the demand, but the only reason they didn't is because they would "pollute too much"?
Order No. 202-21-1 From the DOE to Texas.
I just went ahead and found that order, and holy shit I can't believe that this is a thing.
Of course there's always more to the story. I had just assumed this was a supply issue like everyone else.
Called supply and demand. The more something is in demand, as limited power during the Texas outage, rates skyrocket. It's called "price gouging" and is illegal. This has used before involving gasoline prices during shortages.
No, it was part of the requirements of the federal powers act to limit usage under an emergency which might harm the power grid.
There was no supply problem and the cost of energy was not related to gouging. The excuse given was environmental concerns based on “expected” usage that would exceed federal emissions limits.
Our (P)resident in charge is on the CCP dime. That's why. Anything and everything to bring us down.
Because biden is president.
Electricity is bought and sold in most regions of the US at interchange hubs that work pretty much like other commodities markets. Power plants that are available to generate offer their kilowatt hours for sale and regions that need power bid on the generation that is available. If there isn't enough generation, the bids go higher as regions compete to outbid each other and the price goes up. Supply side factors can come into play as well. If the price of fuel goes up, the price that power plants are willing to sell their power for also goes up. Most power plants have long term fuel contracts to stabilize short term fluctuations.
So in short, when there is more demand than supply, the price goes up. When there is more supply than demand, the price goes down. If the cost to make power goes up, the price goes up and goes down in the opposite case.
Industrial power users will often have long term power contacts that fix the price to stabilize the price they pay and many regions have a governmental Public Utilities Commissions that approves and denies rate changes request by the utility companies. The PUC should have the individual rate payers interest in mind but some PUCs are good and some, not so much. There are also utilities that just pass the spot price for power directly onto their customers so if you have a contract with them and you have power during a crisis, you can end up with a monster bill.
I don't know what power ERCOT used or from where, but we literally just had the DOE tell them that if they have to ramp up production, only after exhausting all alternatives, that they can only sell that additional power at $1500 per Mwh, roughly 6000% of its normal price.
Regardless if they went this route or not, we just saw government mandated price gouging. We should never have to choose between bankruptcy and freezing to death.
Not this time. It was all related to the federal powers act and not supply and demand. Once they enacted the the emergency, the MWH costs went to levels designed to reduce usage in an effort to protect the system from damage.
There was no threat to the power grid, however. The letter from the DoE cites federal limits on emissions as the reasoning for the emergency.
Public utilities is one of the few places where i think government intervention to subsidize costs for its citizens is totally fine. Using tax dollars to help tax payers, would be ideal. However, usually subsidies are bad for reasons I don't care to get into now.
Here's another question... Why would we have rolling blackouts in the South because of power concerns, when we run more power in the hot, summer months, running our air conditioners full blast?
Because the solar panels aren't covered in snow and the windmills are working?
A lot of homes in the South run on gas heat, not power. However, A/C is power. Lots of it. Also, there are rolling blackouts in other parts of the south that do not run windmills/solar.
https://patriots.win/p/12hRZiAhc4/emperor-jau-xidens-america--texa/c/
Holy fuck that is an extremely terrible policy
.... almost like it's intentionally put in place to kill people
A lot of people in Texas ride the wholesale utility market. Griddy is a company that sells wholesale electricity to end users. Last summer or the summer before there was a spike in wholesale prices and people were getting outrageous bills. There was a lot of outrage about that, but as usual, people forgot and didn’t lock in contracted rates and will get smoked again in the coming weeks.
gouging
The correct answer is explained in the 4 page letter sent by the DOE. They used the federal powers act to shut off the flow of gas and electric by claiming an emergency existed based on “expectations” that usage would exceed federal limits on emissions. Once the emergency was enacted, it gave the DOE the leverage to raise the minimum costs of megawatt hours to over $1500 each. This is designed to limit usage when there is a threat to the system by making the cost extremely high.
The difference is, there was no threat to the system and the limits were put in place over the potential of environmental concerns, not power grid capacities. This was a manufactured crisis and their explanation is total bullshit.