What's really needed is for groups like Accenture with access to all the decisionmakers to figure out a fix in the market designs to alleviate this one problem, then convince those decisionmakers.

With the advent of the efficient, rapidly built and low-cost combined-cycle plants, I believe there is considerable flexibility and latitude, particularly with relatively abundant supplies of natural gas.

In other words, there is no need to panic.

The question comes down to whethr the market structure can genereate a sustainable investment price signal - as currently structured, the answer for US electricity markts is no. Viable structures have been proposed but discarded as untenable.

One sure result - easy solutions will end up costing more than the are worth.

Here in Sweden the industry people listened to ignorant academics say that deregulation will solve their problems. What electric deregulation did was to rob households such as mine. Industry people are now inclined to say that deregulation was crazy, and should be rescinded, but the dumb government is too dumb to figure out how to do that in an efficient way.

And Mr Lord, for Sweden an easy solution involving domestic assets is absolutely the optimal solution. What it will mean for e.g. Denmark and Germany who have or will have a crazy energy policy is something else, but please believe that I care absolutely nothing at all about their problems.

We have a situation where Icelandic hydroelectric and geothermal power may be cheaper than some forms of domestically generated power in the UK and other nearby European markets. Hence the interest in installing an undersea power cable between Iceland and Scotland. There are advances occurring in buried cable and submerged cable HVDC power transmission, technologies that appear to be immune to solar flare activity.

With regard to regulation-free electric power, this may occur in isolated regions where low-cost local electric power may be possible, involving technologies such as small hydro, ocean current or ocean wave conversion Customers would be free to install solar panels and.or wind technologies on their properties.

As far as I can determine, all states have regulations governing power production, transmission and distribution. Some may have more extensive regulations than others, but none are actually "de-regulated".

In all cases, the states are attempting to emulate a "free market" through various regulatory contrivances.

Considering the inherent monopolistic nature of electric utilities (which is completely unlike telecommunications), seems to me it is disingenuous to toss around the term "de-regulation" as that is simply not possible until such time as power can be provided to a user through any number of sources, with the user free to make a selection as they see fit. The restraint of only one set of incoming wires is difficult to overcome.

http://www.prosefights.org/ilwaco2012/ilwaco2012.htm#iran

Senior citizen, exactly 30 days younger than Saddam Hussin, finally realizes tjhat energypuluse accepts html.

:)

Perhaps when Tam Hunt and the lads get renewable energy down to a competitive price (and I suspect that will happen), then we can jettison the regulated structure that now exists. Until that happens, the monopolistic nature of private utilities needs to be reined-in.

Requires very smart metering / pre-bidding contract computer system in order for the ISO to manage the grid. Each customer, one day in advance, purchases "options" to consume the energy they expect to need each 15 min interval following day for 50% of contracted delivery price from one or more specific suppliers. If consume exact amount of options (not expected), then pays other 50%. If consumes less, pays other 50% on only amount consumed, no rebate on unconsumed options. If consumes more, pays "top market price for that period" to ISO, who was required to organize additional supply to cover.

Resulting incentive is for customers to predict their consumption accurately in advance, and take whatever steps necessary to match actual consumption with predictions. All option bidding etc. is done automatically for each customer by a computer program embedded in their meter, which also has control of sheddable loads within the customer's premissis.

It works.

Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Preliminary Business Case

Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Part 2 - Market Operation

You advocate passing along outlandish wholesale prices created within a contrived market, with little or no relation between actual cost of generation and price charged the consumer. The utility has virtually no risk, which is my point. In a real marketplace, the consumer has many options, with the seller facing the possibility of losses as well as profit.

Again, deregulation is a complete misnomer and a cruel hoax being foisted on the consumer by consultants (and utilities) making money on the whole dishonest scam.

The whole purpose of this market is to allow ALL customers to purchase directly from suppliers, eliminating usless retailers and costly regulation, with large teams of lawyers spending years and millions on each rate case application.

Can traders buy and sell power in ISO markets. Sure. But that requires a lot of skill as well as time and those are commodities that consumers simply do not have. To be blunt, the idea of the consumer entering this complicated market is completely unrealistic.

"De-regulation" is a myth so stop trying to foist various pseudo free-market contrivances on the hapless power users. Regulate the utilities (or use municipal power where the users at least have some measure of influence).

PS I do not need to read your references - I have first-hand experience in the power business, including buying/selling/generating power.

As far as the regulatory process, the lawyers deliberately make it complicated (so they can make lots of money), with politicians mucking things up (to buy votes) while the utilities attempt to further strengthen their monopoly (to make more money). The hapless consumer is effectively the "odd-man-out" in the generally Kafkaesque theatrics.

The process does not, however, need to be particularly complicated if a Solomon-like approach is used. By that I mean, regulated utilities are not subject to much risk, so their returns on their invested capital would be market value (a few percent currently); fair-and-reasonable costs would be apportioned to all users, with those who use more paying more. Cost would be trued-up periodically.

However, and most fundamental, the assumption that the modeling can properly emulate a free and unfettered is incorrect. The supply of energy and delivery of the power is deeply constrained by all manner of impediments that severely limit the consumers options. That is why the whole "deregulation" effort is inherently grossly unfair to the end user.

Regarding ``The average consumer simply does not have the time or capacity to deal with what you propose``, the basic smart meter will be provided with an included market interaction program which will be able to get for any customer an average market price with absolutely no interaction which will be no worse than the prices they woulod pay under full regulation. Then if a customer wishes to learn to interact, or to pay a service provider to do so for them, or to invest in smart appliances which can load shed at market peaks etc., then the added benefits of their interactions will be available to them individually for doing so, rather than just being averaged across all customers as under full regulation, a system which fails to reward properly the smart customers and therefore fails to get any of the many available efficiencies.

I agree that any deregulation model which has been tried so far has been ``inherintly grossly unfair``, because it does not properly reward those customers who try to take steps to benefit the grid system, such as offering emergency load shedding, peak load shaving, load shifing etc. etc. This model addresses those issues, as well as the freeloader problem.

However, these folks should reap what they sew and not heist energy from neighboring states whose citizens are willing to take actions to insure the use of low-cost energy created in their own states.

At least those in private industry when someone isn't doing the job, you can let them go. That is not the case with Federal employees.

What's going on here? While the state of the economy along with the seasonal climate are obvious factors relating to electric demand, other factors are clearly involved as well. It would seem that energy efficiency is slowly having an impact. All of those millions of CFLs installed, along with the steady turnover of major appliances (washer, driers, heat pumps, etc.) to newer higher efficiency models seem to be having an effect. Behind-the-meter generation and/or net metering also contributes. NJ currently has over 850 MW of installed solar PV capacity. Demand Response programs are also weighing in, having increased dramatically in recent years. These programs in particular are having an impact on peak loads. The all-time record of from August 2006 would have toppled in July 2011 if not for the reduction of some 2,500 MW of Demand Response. As a result that day, which saw 108° in Newark NJ, came in as the 4th highest peak load.

As far as energy efficiency is concerned, that makes good sense from a financial standpoint (emissions as well). The dopes in New Jersey would have been better off using the solar/renewable subsidies for simple things like more insulation in folks house, programmable thermostats, more efficient lighting and more efficient HVAC equipment (as the old stuff wears out), etc.

There is no way in hell the federal government will ever be efficient. They use other people's money, are heavily unionized and have virtually no skin in the game other than to expand the bureaucracy. That is why government needs to be restrained and provide only the essentials prescribed by the constitution.

Canada v.s. US Maternal mortality rate:

12 deaths/100,000 live births v.s. 21 deaths/100,000

Infant mortality rate:

4.85 deaths/1,000 live births v.s. 5.98 deaths/1,000 live births

Life expectancy at birth:

81.48 years v.s. 78.49 years

Education? No doubt that explains the abysmal state of government provided education in the US. the absence of competition has doomed tens of thousands of inner city kids.

The US military is the best in the world because our enemies are trying to kill us, not because of the innate skills of bureaucrats in Washington D.C. Ever stop to consider who actually designs and build the weapon systems? It is not the bureaucrats.

As I pointed out earlier, the US Constitution defines government's role. That is what the politicians and bureaucrats should follow. Further, all powers not explicitly enumerated in the constitution as the responsibility of the Federal government belong to people, state and local governments.

It is the absence of education funding in the US inner cities which has doomed generations of unfortunate inner city kids to having no opportunity in society. In Canada the public education system works quite well, without the usless and WASTEFULL overheads of private business. (determining and enforcing rights of access, bidding for contracts, persuading customers, etc, etc,)

The US constitution, though an admirable document for its time, is over 200 years out of date, and has included some dismally failed amendments since. If Washington, Franklin, Jefferson lived today, they would clearly not write the same document.

The inner city schools generally spend much more money per student than their suburban counterparts, yet achieve inferior results. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. What is lacking is competition and the ability of parents to get their kids out of schools who fail their only mission in life (educate the children). The unions are a major cause of the problems, in large part because it is essentially impossible to get rid of the incompetent.

As far as the republic's founding fathers are concerned, you are in no position know what they would or would not do. Their philosophy, however, is well known and written down: the U.S. Constitution. The people of this country (not foreigners) will collectively decide how the document is to be amended from time-to-time.

The only reason I have these discussions with you guys is because your financial elites insist on exporting that broken philosophy worldwide, including attempts here. Keep it there, I`ll say no more.

You are clearly not open to any persuasion. I`m out.