Slashdot Mirror


How the Free Market Rocked the Grid

sean_nestor sends in a story at IEEE Spectrum that begins: "Most of us take for granted that the lights will work when we flip them on, without worrying too much about the staggeringly complex things needed to make that happen. Thank the engineers who designed and built the power grids for that — but don't thank them too much. Their main goal was reliability; keeping the cost of electricity down was less of a concern. That's in part why so many people in the United States complain about high electricity prices. Some armchair economists (and a quite a few real ones) have long argued that the solution is deregulation. After all, many other US industries have been deregulated — take, for instance, oil, natural gas, or trucking — and greater competition in those sectors swiftly brought prices down. Why not electricity?"

31 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. No More Deregulation by DarkVader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, the solution is MORE regulation, not less.

    The rates need to be regulated, and the private companies need to be taken over by nonprofit public organizations.

    Every time deregulation is tried, consumers get shafted.

    1. Re:No More Deregulation by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the real free market solution (a.k.a. the ones politicians would never propose) is that you get a whole bunch of power companies competing on the same grid, attempting to be a lower cost than one another, and give consumers a choice of who to pay for their power. You don't regulate the price directly, or directly control the companies providing the power; that's a recipe for disaster. Granting a monopoly, whether government or private, is going to cause bloat and high prices, then eventual failure of the system.

    2. Re:No More Deregulation by bit+trollent · · Score: 4, Informative

      The system you describe is exactly what we have in Texas. The only thing we got out of deregulation is a bunch of sleazy 'energy companies' that don't do anything more than tack on sleazy and underhanded fees to our electric bill.

      Thanks to this scheme Texans pay higher prices for our electricity than surrounding states. Fortunately for our corrupt politicians like Rick Perry, most Texans are too dumb to notice that we've been taken advantage of.

      When you consider that Governor Perry still managed to get re-elected after skipping the only debate against Democrat Bill White, its clear that Texas is the perfect state to let the 'free market' raise costs for everyone while the ignorant masses cheer them on.

    3. Re:No More Deregulation by frisket · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. In every country I have been in where it has been deregulated, the result has been higher prices and lower service. Somehow we must nail this myth that deregulation means competition: it doesn't, it means cartels, and it means the ownership of the productive capacity passes into the hands of ignorant investors and greedy bankers instead of the producers, so you end up with energy companies being owned by anonymous, uninterested, and incompetent asset-strippers.

    4. Re:No More Deregulation by diegocg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The regulation vs deregulation discussion is stupid. There are things that need to be regulated (banks shouldn't be allowed to play casino with my money) and there are things that need to be deregulated. Good politics is about choosing wisely between them. Dumb politicians who claim that regulating/deregulating everything will solve all problems only mess everything up.

    5. Re:No More Deregulation by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're describing is a well regulated market. Definitely not a free market. Adam Smith was quite clear that a free market will lead to the sorts of behaviors that the GP was complaining about unless somebody steps in and puts in place regulations which prevent it.

    6. Re:No More Deregulation by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

      I sent this in to Slashdot yesterday and it was, of course, not used.

      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-t-stand-free-markets-veronique-de-rugy.html

      It's a great article in Bloomberg businessweek about how so many companies DON'T want a free market and all the hypocrisy going around about the term...

    7. Re:No More Deregulation by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 5, Informative

      We tried this crap in California 10 years ago. All the utility companies did was shut down their plants to cause demand and high prices. Remember that company....Enron? PG&E bankruptcy? It ends up being collusion and not competition.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    8. Re:No More Deregulation by Keybase · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Alberta, Canada we have deregulation. Production, transmission and sales are 3 separate entities. You buy from whoever you want. Transmission and consumption are charged as separate items on the bill. Both charges have a fixed rate and a variable rate based on usage. The power bills have more than doubled. The sales people tell customers we can lock you in for 3 - 5 years because rates are going way up. The lock in ends up being higher than the regulated rate (This was kept for those who didn't sign up).

      We could buy power and gas from a British company that didn't have any gas wells, pipelines, generators, or wires in Canada.

      --
      Do what is right. You will please some and astonish the rest. --Mark Twain
    9. Re:No More Deregulation by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did not the state of California try this with tragic consequences? Rolling blackouts to keep prices artificially high.

      No. California basically setup a system that was guaranteed to fail. They split generation from distribution, capped prices to customers but allowed the generators to charge market rates to distribution companies, mandated service for all, prevent companies from entering long term supply contracts; and then sat back and disavowed involvement when things went to hell.

      CA is essentially two islands when it comes to power - once he inter-ties were fully loaded no more power could be imported and prices(to the distributors) rose as higher price units went online. When they couldn't pass on the costs, and as a result end users weren't driven to cut consumption which would lower demand and prices, bankruptcies ensued. Politicians screamed. Babies cried.

      Couple that with companies such as Enron doing roundtrips to drive up prices and things went south quickly.

      There were people who said that would happen - but they were largely ignored. Oh well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re:No More Deregulation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're using a different definition of "free market" from the one referred to by GP, and the people replying to your post also disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, the term itself is ambiguous. To quote Wikipedia:

      The meaning of "free" market has varied over time and between economists, the ambiguous term "free" facilitating reuse. To illustrate the ambiguity: classical economists such as Adam Smith believed that an economy should be free of monopoly rents, while proponents of laissez faire believe that people should be free to form monopolies. In this article "free market" is largely identified with laissez faire, though alternative senses are discussed in this section and in criticism. The identification of the "free market" with "laissez faire" was notably used in the 1962 Capitalism and Freedom, by economist Milton Friedman, which is credited with popularizing this usage.

      In the classical economics of such figures as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, "free markets" meant "free of unnecessary charges" and a "market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests". A "free market" particularly meant one free of foreign debt; as discussed in The Wealth of Nations. Alternatively, stated, it was a market freed from Feudalism and serfdom, or more formally, one free of economic rent, in the formulation by David Ricardo of the Law of Rent.

      As rightly noted, though, in contemporary usage the term usually means "laissez-faire".

    11. Re:No More Deregulation by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And what you'll end up with is cartels lining up to see who can ass rape the consumer the most. See California's energy deregulation for an example. There is NO way to get a truly "free" free market because it is simply too easy and profitable to collude. See DRAM prices, LCD prices, for examples.

      Do you REALLY want cheap electricity? You do? Well the answer is simple: Tell the NIMBYs to STFU and approve the building of plenty of new nuclear reactors, as well as breeder reactors to reprocess the waste, which will take care of most of the long term storage problems. Tada! You ALL get cheap electricty, with plenty for electric cars or anything else. I live in north AR and thanks to AR Nuke 1&2 electricity is cheap enough around here many apts throw it in for free. We have plenty of uranium, nuke plants don't belch out carbon or other crap like the coal plants (which should be shut down BTW, clean coal my ass) and can crank out the juice for decades at VERY cheap prices per KWH. We just need to tell the NIMBYs to STFU and get to building, that's all. All deregulation will do is give us rolling blackouts, crazy prices which in a dead economy would be economic suicide, just ask the people of California how deregulation is working out for 'em.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:No More Deregulation by gtbritishskull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You free market nuts are just like the communists. You claim that your system is the best but there are tons of examples where it has failed but none of where it has succeeded. I would ask you why you expect that it would work differently this time, but I know what your answer would be. You would point out in all the failures how it didn't follow your "perfect" free market system. Communists do the same thing (Russia did not follow the ideal communist model). The fact is that if your system does not correct itself, then it is a bad system.

      Here is a metaphor for you... You can balance a ball on top of an upside down bowl, but if you push it just a little bit off of its "perfect" position then it will tumble off of the bowl. While the ball can stay balance at the top of the bowl forever, it will only stay balanced if it is in its "perfect" position. On the other hand, if you turn the bowl the other way around and put the ball exactly in the center of the bowl, it will stay there. But, if you give it a small shove, it will move back towards the center of the bowl. If your system cannot deal with imperfections in implementation, then it is useless. It has to be able to deal with corrupt politicians/businessmen, crashes in the stock market, and just people being stupid. Show me where your system has succeeded and I might give your argument some credence. But the only argument that you have is to have "faith" in your ideology. I prefer science.

    13. Re:No More Deregulation by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

      East Texas is still regulated. We pay AEP/SWEPCO less then 10 cents per KW/h during the summer and less than 9 cents per KW/h during the winter. Tyler Texas has portions that are in the regulated area and portions that are in the unregulated area. The regulated are has much more growth than the nonregulated area IIRC.

    14. Re:No More Deregulation by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've got the same scheme in Texas. Electric bills changed from being a simple "Your used X KWH last month, pay us X * 0.10 dollars" to being like cell phone contracts with opaque pricing models, multitudinous fees, taxes, and surcharges, two-year commitments (with early termination fees), etc. Unsurprisingly, we now pay more on average than people in surrounding states where electricity is provided by a monopoly public utility...

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  2. There are no free markets by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are no free markets. There are only markets controlled by governments and markets controlled by customers. The markets controlled by customers work out pretty well for customers. The markets controlled by governments work out pretty well for governments and the politicians that run them and the lobbyists who fund them and the corporations who make money because the politicians control the markets in their favor.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:There are no free markets by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A free market is one controlled by customers.

      Just because the authoritarians have redefined "free market" to mean "laws to benefit corporations with government help" doesn't mean that the original concept no longer exists.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:There are no free markets by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are also markets controlled by cartels. That's what happens when barriers to entry are high and government regulation is lax.

  3. Re:Airplane tickets. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Airplane tickets are fantastically cheap relative to 30 years ago when the deregulation started. You could pay $1,000 to fly coast to coast in 1980 dollars. Now, the last time I flew it was $450 in 2010 dollars.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  4. I'm from California, ask me... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    About deregulation and about how my butt still hurts from the Enron assrape. I'm normally a free-market kind of guy, but I learned a lesson on this one.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  5. Capitalism 102 by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 5, Informative

    <sarcasm>I am always surprised of how easily these "neocons" forget the most basic economic concepts of the system they worship... They forget things basic concepts like ROI, entry barriers and so on, as long as forgetting them favours their dogmas.</sarcasm>

    In short, in Capitalism 101 we saw that, in a pure free market, if sector A has profits better than sector B, then inversions will flow from sector B to sector A, increasing supply until price drops, and profits in both sectors are the same.

    In Capitalism 102, we saw that, in real life, maybe building a new enterprise in sector A is not just as easy... it may require huge inversions, a big risk (if by entering the market they lower collective profits, maybe the ROI won't be positive), and outright collusions (for example, all enterprises in sector A join and tell you "if you enter into our sector, we will presure our suppliers so nobody does provide you with the materials you need if they want to do bussiness with us").

    In Campitalism 103, we all saw what happened to Enron.

    In my country, the former monopoly of telcos (Telefónica, now Movistar) still is the only supplier when you need some services in some geographical areas (not by law, but the other telcos do have wanted to get the infrastructure). Sometimes when they have lost a contract with us, they have blocked providing the service through the winner to the maximum that the law allowed them (and at least we have some law forcing them to provide the service in a limit time).

    Of course, some illuminated people will only repeat Capitalism 101 lessons while covering the ears to avoid realising what they are really saying...

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  6. Re:Airplane tickets. by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we went back to airlines handling security, the market would handle any rogue airline that required the security people to make people choose between groping and naked scanners. That's for sure.

    By taking away the choice, we have all lost freedom.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. Bad call. Trust me. by 6Yankee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a couple of years, I worked in the UK electricity industry, which was at least partially deregulated in 1998. People look at me funny when I say I've got candles and tinned food stashed away, but I expect every winter to be the one where it all comes crashing down.

    A big part of the problem, at least for us poor schlubs charged with getting the billing right, was that all these deregulated entities keep getting bought and sold. And every time they do that, there's a data migration, which almost invariably gets screwed up. Bad data piles on bad data on bad data, with fixes promised but never delivered in time for the next buyout. One region in particular had one standard evening/weekend meter set-up and no fewer than four different versions of that reality in their database. The net effect was to flip their predicted e/w usage pattern upside down. That usage pattern is what gets fed into the National Grid computers for demand forecasting. See where this is going?

    I'm told that the larger "half-hourly" stuff is in somewhat better shape, which is probably why the whole thing's held together so far. But if what I saw was what you can expect from a deregulated energy industry, I'd say there's good reason to be afraid...

  8. Re:Suicide! by makomk · · Score: 4, Informative

    You may be too young to know, but you used to not be allowed to own your own phone. You had to rent one from the government monopoly. It was a crime to hook an unapproved device to your telephone line. Deregulation allowed people to do evil unapproved things like run BBSs in their houses and hook modems up to their phone lines.

    If you're talking about the US, that's exactly backwards. It was a breach of your contract with the telephone company - which was allowed to become a monopoly by the US government - but not a crime, and it was actually government regulation that forced the phone companies to allow you to connect phones and other devices not rented from the company.

  9. Re:Deregulating a bad idea for essential services by Rising+Ape · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nobody said those things should be free. But developed countries have measures to ensure that people can obtain them even if they couldn't afford them in a pure free market - precisely because they are essential. But that's unrelated.

    Infrastructure is a prime candidate for regulation, because of its "natural monopoly" character - in the absence of regulation, it's very easy for a dominant company to squeeze everyone else out and then exploit their monopoly. Telephone and internet connections got a lot cheaper and faster here (UK) when the dominant phone company were required to let other providers use their network.

  10. Deregulation? Let's ask Enron! by gethoht · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just look at all the "innovation" that companies like Enron brought to a deregulated energy market! Let's ask California how well that worked out for the average consumer. While we're at it we can look at deregulatory laws like the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of Glass-Steagal that enabled such "innovation". The "free market" for oil is now run by speculators who can buy and sell contracts for millions of barrels of oil but never have to take delivery, creating false demand and squeezing millions of dollars a day from average americans as they have to pay over $3.00/gal to fuel their vehicles. What else has deregulation done? How about all those nasty little unregulated derivatives such as MBS(mortgage backed securities) that imploded the world economy? That's financial "innovation" like the world had never seen before. All thanks to deregulation, yay!

    --
    All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and n
  11. No such thing as a free market by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the same reason "life isn't fair"

    As long as 1% of the total population controls 90% of the wealth, there is no such thing as competition or free market capitalism.

    I like competition and I dislike government intrusion but there is a reason FOR government and that is to protect it's citizens, that includes protection from economic crimes as well as physical ones.

    The middle class is shrinking regardless of which ideology is popular that month. People are losing their homes left and right, jobs are going over seas and yet still so many people are ignorant to the real issues.

    Deregulating natural monopolies doesn't solve the problem. It just hands a blank check to a corporation chosen by the government to fuck it's customers however it chooses.

    Free market is an oxymoron to anyone that actually understands what the two words mean.

  12. Re:Uhh... by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Such arguments were compelling enough to convince two dozen or so U.S. states to deregulate their electric industries. Most began in the mid-1990s, and problems emerged soon after, most famously in the rolling blackouts that Californians suffered through in the summer of 2000 and the months that followed. At the root of these troubles is the fact that free markets can be messy and volatile, something few took into account when deregulation began. But the consequences have since proved so chaotic that a quarter of these states have now suspended plans to revamp the way they manage their electric utilities, and few (if any) additional states are rushing to jump on the deregulation bandwagon.

    Yeah, so, how about not continuing this experiment with our critical infrastructure?

    Not to mention that a business which a) has extremely high barriers to entry and b) is inherently a monopoly was never going to have much of a "free market" to begin with. Of course trying to force it to act contrary to its nature, by fiat, is only going to create problems.

    As far as wisdom and foresight go, this is bottom-of-the-class material here.

    It's amazing that there is so much debate about this. If you take a hard look at this debate, it's the same old story every time. It just gets rehashed every now and then as though it were a new issue, as though this "debate" were covering new ground. The truth is it never moves forward. It moves in circles. Really, how hard is it to understand that natural monopolies are not fertile ground for free-market principles?

    I'm all for free markets. I want them to succeed. This one can't. The reason electrical service has higher prices, lower service, outages, and other problems when you try to treat them like free markets is because they are not free markets. You will never have an electrical free market until it becomes cheap, reliable, and cost-effective for each home to be "off the grid" and generate its own electricity. Until we come up with that kind of technology, we're going to need local monopolies to deliver electricity to us. Because monopolies are inherently abusive, they need reasonable regulation and close scrutiny.

    Please can we stop presenting this as a new and interesting issue? It's neither. It's more like an algorithm that produces the same results each time it iterates.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  13. Insane Deregulation Amnesia by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Informative

    After all, many other US industries have been deregulated — take, for instance, oil, natural gas, or trucking — and greater competition in those sectors swiftly brought prices down.

    Seth Blumsack, the author of that offensive lie, should be forced to read aloud the live data feed of the oil and gas market prices. For the rest of his life. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed without regulations protecting us from speculators, supply side manipulation, and every other kind of abuse the market manipulators cook up. Trucking is a random example of an industry never properly regulated enough that is also not actually deregulated.

    But right there under lying Blumsack's byline is a cluster of pictures of Enron creating a faked energy crisis in California, because deregulation allowed it. Of course, that crisis also required Bush and his lying "free marketeers" to be running the Federal government, which is obligated to protect one state from interstate commerce abuses that damage it - which is what Texas deregulation allowed by keeping Enron's practices and books secret, even though California's deregulation required opening them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  14. It worked so well in California... by Gription · · Score: 5, Informative

    Deregulation in California is what drove the sometimes 2000% increase in electricity costs that peaked in 2003. It brought us Enron and the recall of Governor Gray Davis.

    Blindly recommending deregulation on a commodity that is bought and sold in an a marketplace that promotes investing and speculation instead of direct production, distribution, and consumption creates a situation that will blow up unless it is regulated in some fashion.

    (Of course the SEC has shown it can really keep a handle on this type of thing... hmmm... uhhh, urrrk...

    1. Re:It worked so well in California... by Technician · · Score: 4, Informative

      What was the worst thing about California, it was regulation that brought about the shortages that caused the price spike. Retail prices were fixed. Fuel costs went up. Unprofitable generation went offline for for repairs, maintenance, or upgrades, or simply shut down.

      This was followed by a mild heat wave. The result was rolling blackouts as the cheap efficient sources were inadequate. New generation and transmission was not built due to lack of profit.

      This lead to buying power on the spot market. Due to the price caps on the retail level and no caps on the wholesale level, and mandatory supply contracts, local governments were required to buy energy at the spike in the spot market and sell at fixed retail. This is where the meltdown started.

      To make matters worse, the delivery was choked by an undersized transmission line in a corridor. This path 66 limited the amount of lower cost power that could be purchased from neighboring states. This made the local spot prices even more volatile.

      This reliability report lists the issues of the two corridors for power into the Southern California area.
      http://www.electripedia.info/reliability.asp

      --
      The truth shall set you free!