Outage traced to dim bulb

[goldinem@SONGS.SCE.COM]

I may be a bit behind in this discussion (I read the digest version, hence

delayed) but here's my 2 cents.  Ruth wrote:



"Transmission lines are not regulated, are owned by utilities and there is

no way to mandate reliability standards, according to the Electric

Reliability Council (I think that is its name), which is a private industry

group."



Regulation, in the traditional sense, applies to the financial arrangements

whereby a company (utility) was given essentially a monopoly in exchange

for providing a service; a service for which the company is obligated to

provide electricity to the customer, rates being set by the "government"

(public utility commission).



I can't speak to the reliability standards but as far as regulation,

traditionally, electricity was a "vertically integrated" system - the

utilities generated, transmitted (high voltage from the plants to the

substation), distributed (lower voltage from substations to neighborhoods)

and metered (measured usage at the end user).  Deregulation was intended,

in California, to "unbundle" the generation, only one component of the pie.

Generating plants were sold by the utilities such that other entities own

and operate the plants (except nuclear and hydro), a competitive scenario

that was intended to drive generation costs down.  Clearly, transmission

and distribution (T&D) was to be retained in the regulated environment

where the utility invests in the T&D system and receives a return on that

investment according to the whims of the state public utility commission.

Operating costs are "passed through."



If a state PUC wants to keep customer rates as low as possible, they reject

plans for adding capacity to the T&D lines. Moreover, if local activists

fight mightily against new transmission lines because they're either ugly

or cause brain cancer ;-) then the utility (now a "wires company") has to

make do with what exists.  I don't know any better than anyone else, but

suspect that many of the regional "grids" do not have the capacity that the

utilities would like to see to handle the ever increasing loads due simply

to more people and economic growth (reportedly one big factor in

California's problems was the inadequate capacity to move electricity up

and down the state due to constricted high power transmission lines).  Note

that in the traditional system, and this still applies to most if not all

utilities, the company makes money only as the PUC decides during rate case

proceedings.  There are obviously a ton of laws and rules associated with

utility financing and I'm convinced that the stories I've heard in recent

years in California are true - that utility financing is one of the most

complex types of business affairs in the US.



Bottom line, I'd guess that much of the blame for the blackout probably

should go to some version of state or regional energy commissions for not

requiring new T&D investment and to state PUCs for not approving such

investment. The utilities, of course, should share some blame if they

failed to adequately identify the need.  But since added T&D usually means

more income for a utility, I doubt if they fought hard against improving

the grid.



Of course, there are many other factors such as which plants must operate

in various locations to keep the grid stable, etc.  That's why reliable,

large nuclear units strategically located around the grid are important

(see, I can still relate this to a Radsafe issue).



Eric M. Goldin, CHP

goldinem@songs.sce.com





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/