[Paleopsych] Gaming the power grid

Werbos, Dr. Paul J. paul.werbos at verizon.net
Wed Aug 18 11:00:43 UTC 2004

At 08:30 AM 8/17/2004 -0700, Steve wrote:
>It may be that regulation dampens
>the signals that would cause a shift,
>but we found to our dismay that in
>California deregulation led to the
>absolute rape of the customer.
>Good regulation would be preferable
>to bad deregulation, and based on
>decades of experience during the
>20th century, I would suggest that
>good regulation is possible.

Certainly screwed up laws created the situation which cost California
so much -- past and future. I don't have good numbers-- but based on
what the EPRI guy said before, it is reasonable to guess that California
is now paying an extra $10 billion/year (through state deficits), perhaps
only as low as $4 billion... in addition to the high electricity prices and the
loss of investment by companies who legitimately consider the possible
future disruptions.

Sometimes the laws get so complex that the words "regulation" and 
start to lose their meaning. For example...
the new proposed improved versions ... "deregulate" by more strongly imposing
federal government standard market designs and more centralized organizations.
And in case of "problems" (whose definition I have not studied)... a central
linear program in Washington is ready to go into action, to create 
mandatory plans
each day of who does what and who pays what. (I hope a "problem" does not mean
an epsilon discrepancy between the plan's price and the ones derived by 
other means.)
I certainly do not claim to know all the details. But I am not sure whether 
anyone really
does, in the scientific dynamic way one would need to to be sure of the net 

Yet what the Brazilian transmission company proposed for California was SO 

But... time to go back to work. No vacation stuff today.

Best of luck to us all,


>Steve Hovland
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org

More information about the paleopsych mailing list