Faulty Logic in the Offshore Drilling Debate

The off-shore drilling debate is heating up here in Virginia and it’s generating a good deal of posturing and over-heated rhetoric.

The posturing comes from General Assembly Republicans, who introduced a bill during the special transportation session that would have allocated a share of the state’s royalties to help pay for new transportation projects. Wow, that’ll be a big help… 12 years from now! The regulatory hurdles to exploration and drilling will delay exploitation of oil and gas reserves off the Virginia coast for years, and energy companies are more likely to chase more lucrative opportunities before investigating the Virginia coast.

The Washington Post quotes Stewart Glickman, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor’s: “There would probably be far more interested in the eastern Gulf of Mexico than they would be in the mid-Atlantic. [But] it is a possibility at some point.”

The over-heated rhetoric comes from the environmentalist camp. Some environmentalists oppose drilling under any circumstances, citing concerns about leaky pipelines, on-shore refineries, platform lights cluttering a pristine night sky and large-scale oil spills. Burning oil and gas, they add, contributes to climate change which could help raise sea levels and swamp much of Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore.

No one wants oil spills, and with oil likely to sell above $100 per barrel more or less forever, oil companies could afford to deploy whatever safeguards are needed to reduce the potential for oil spills to near zero. Someone ought to take a visit to the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and ask how much oil spilled during Hurricane Katrina… or ask how much oil spills ever. If the safeguards aren’t sufficient to protect Virginia’s pristine coast, then I agree, let’s wait until we can guarantee that the waters will remain clean. But rather than assuming that offshore oil wells pose a big risk, let’s ascertain the facts.

One argument against drilling seems especially disingenuous: Getting a few hundred thousand barrels per day from Atlantic Coast oil wells won’t make a dent on oil prices. We can’t extract enough oil, the argument goes, to impact global supply and demand. Well, that’s true… but it’s irrelevant. Pumping 25,000 barrels a day (to pick a number) from Virginia’s continental shelf would allow us to avoid buying 25,000 barrels a day of someone else’s oil. At $100 per barrel, that’s $2.5 million a day that’s being circulated in the United States economy, much of it in Virginia, not shipped overseas to support foreign despots. That would be a good thing.

None of this logic obviates the need for a restructuring of transportation systems and human settlement patterns into more energy-efficient forms. Exploiting off-shore oil and gas can pump some money into the state’s economy but it won’t come close to meeting our long-term energy needs.

(Photo credit of California oil rig: Solar Cola.)


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Jim, I believe exploring to gain a complete inventory of natural gas reserves is an important part of ensuring security, independence and ecomonic stability.

    Natural gas will become a vital part in solving our big energy problems. Gas is and will be used more and more to replace other dirtier capacity in peaking generation. Also, gas will have a very large roll in the future as it will be utilized to backup renewable resources, which will have a greater tendenancy of intermittency on the east coast.

    Like oil, excess natural gas capacity will be soaked up in the world markets as the world turn away from other dirtier fossil and more towards renewables. This increased demand has already begun in natural gas markets. Unlike oil, we have an opportunity to thrawrt the price inflation plaguing crude, and we run a great risk if the same hits the natural gas market.

    It is important, I believe, to keep all options available to the next president. While we may know how bad the storm could get, we stand a great chance of being ill-prepared.

  2. charlie Avatar

    I strongly suspect that drilling off Virginia is a waste of time.

    On your point, Jim, there is a way to amplify that. Half our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico, countries that are in the dollar-zone. Another big chuck comes from Venezuela, which again is part of the dollar-zone although the current government is not friendly. The other big exporters are Angola, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.

    Short end of the stick: increased domestic production is a drop in the global bucket, but it can wean America off Middle Eastern oil for a long time.

    There is also the middle distillate argument; recent price increases are not due to gasoline demand but rather kerosene and diesel demand. Refineries everywhere are moving more product in the middle distillates rather than producing gasoline. Domestic production would help stop that as we don’t have a strong demand for the middle distillate.

    In either case, off shore drilling off the Atlantic is a straw man. California, Alaksa and Florida is where the real money is.

  3. Edmund Avatar

    The two big talking points on this debate say this:

    Rs tend to say: open up park land and shoreline for the eventual help (even 15 years out).

    D’s tend to say: the oil industry is not exploring or drilling in the areas that are currently open, so why open more of it until they explore what is available now?

    Is the second point true?

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    It’s not the quick answer, the whole answer or the best answer, but it is part of the forward progress to a solution.

    Encourage forward motion. Promptly.

  5. bruce roemmelt Avatar
    bruce roemmelt

    Jim,

    I agree with about 95% of your post with the exception of the environmental damage post Katrina. There was some and could have been a lot more had the winds not been blowing away from the coast.

    http://blog.progressivedem.com/2008/06/20/mcliar-new-lie-neither-hurricane-katrina-or-rita-caused-significant-oil-spills.aspx

    Though I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I can remember the EPA air quality reports post 9/11 at ground zero in NYC. This is the same government reporting results.

    http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/WhitmanProsecuted091306.html

    Regardless I am intrigued by T.Boone Pickens’ initiative. Now if we can just get some sanity with regard to sustainable growth…

    b

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Edmund, I profess no expertise on the subject and will willingly defer to those who know more. That said, I have heard that the reason the oil companies are drilling so little is that they have to clear so many environmental regulations. They can’t drill… not legally. It takes years to get the permits.

    Bruce, I won’t disagree with you about Katrina. My position is that we should *find out* how much oil was spilled during the hurricane. Right now, the debate in Virginia is quite impoverished all the way around. Virginians need to begin acquainting themselves with the facts.

    Which takes us back to Edmund’s point… It would be nice to know the facts instead of relying upon sound bites of dubious credibility.

  7. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    @ Edmund, I saw a CNBC segment from CEO of Anadarko, and for what its worth, he says the problem with the existing leases is that there still have limitations on them as to where they can drill. While others who have leases, can’t get permits issued on them because of regulatory hurdles.

    Moreover, bigger production fields would require more land. The CEO stated moreorless that while technology has improved, its not a sure thing when drilling. Big operations, need big leases. When a developer comes to town and builds a town retail center or a large housing community, etc., they secure the entire huge parcel of land before they break ground. Same is true with big oil. They are not going to attempt drilling on smaller leases no different then a builder of a skyscraper, will want to build one corner of the structure on one leased plot, and wait for the adjacent plots to be avaiable for purchase.

    I haven’t heard or read anything to counter those points yet. It would be nice if someone here knows of some.

  8. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    let me clarify my first point…

    “there still have limitations on them as to where they can drill.”

    should be…they still have limitations on the lease as to where they can drill. Some parts you can drill others you can. Why, see the next point.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually the entire debate has an air of absurdity. As has been mentioned, it would take years to be able to begin drilling – and that’s only if any oil rigs are available for lease; I believe it has been reported recently that every rig in the world is leased for the next ten years, with a waiting list. So, if the debate is about something that can’t take place for at least ten to fifteen years, how is it germane to solving the energy and economic issues confronting us now?

    There’s also the pesky little point that drilling won’t make the price of gas go down. There’s not a supply & demand issue – the market is being driven by speculation, and that can’t be controlled. However, even if supply and demand were the issue – who is going to increase our nation’s refining capacity, still outdated by about 30 years? Just like with the roads in Virginia, everyone is waiting for the other guy to pay for it.

  10. Bruce Roemmelt Avatar
    Bruce Roemmelt

    Jim,

    In the spirit of ‘finding out’ how much damage and oil spills there were from Katrina/Rita I went to the US Department of Interior web site and looked up the report below. 113 platforms destroyed. and…

    “MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater. No shoreline or wildlife impacts were noted from these spills.”

    from: Departemtn Of Interior Minerals Management Services web site
    http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm

    I think a barrel is 55 gallons so this is conisderable damage. Ok a quarter of a million gallons IS signifigant!

    http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf

    The total spilled was product in piplines from rigs to land that was not purged. Not one downhole safety valve that was shut off failed, but what are the odds? If one had failed????

    And I totally agree with you that facts are important. And just for grins I looked up the Exxon Valdez spill for comparison. Spilled there was 10.8 million gallons, with the wind and current blowing/flowing towards land.

    About 7% of the Alaska disaster. But the Katrina/Rita oil was blown toward Mexico…

    b

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m a bit amused over how we in the US view this and other issues from a US-centric view.

    It’s understandable… but with respect to oil and oil drilling, what are we to make of Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, India, China, etc,etc – the “rest” of the world?

    Should we be convinced that of all the rest of the places in the world – it is the US and the US alone that – that is at the heart of a world-wide shortage of oil?

    Are we to believe that the rest of the world has been “oiled out” and that the last remaining oil – in the world – lies offshore of Virginia (and other US locales) ?

    does this pass a basic ‘smell’ test?

    I profess mostly ignorance and am probably being bombarded with the debate as much as anyone .. but I still can’t get over the basic premise that …”peak” oil in the world – lies at the feet of US offshore oil restrictions –

    If this is true – wouldn’t it make more sense for the offshore oil in the US to be treated as an in situ strategic reserve rather than the last speed bump in “peak oil”?

  12. Richard G. Williams, Jr. Avatar
    Richard G. Williams, Jr.

    “Wow, that’ll be a big help… 12 years from now!”

    Where will we be in 12 years if we don’t drill? I find it a little difficult to believe that we could set a goal in the early 60’s to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade but we can’t tap an oil well in less than 12 years?! I don’t buy it, especially coming from the eco-freaks.

    With that logic, why try anything? If Clinton had not vetoed the energy bill in 1996, we’d be getting oil from ANWR today and paying less for gasoline. This has become a national security issue. I don’t care if you have to drill a well through the groin of a polar bear – DRILL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Rodger Provo Avatar
    Rodger Provo

    The US Navy uses waters off of
    Virginia for combat training for
    the fleet and aircraft based in
    Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

    It has expressed objections during
    the past week relative to the idea
    of drilling taking place in this area that would be in conflict with this activity.

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    How much oil is off the coast of Virginia?

    Nobody knows.

    Oil companies have been looking for oil in Iran forever. In May, they found two new fields.

    Brazil is a modern country. In the last year a potentially huge oil field was found there.

    Even recently about 12 Gb of oil (proven and probable) is discovered each year. So, each year 12 billion new barrels of oil are discovered. Lately, about 5/12 has been onshore and 7/12 has been offshore.

    Let’s guess. Let’s guess that exploration off the coast of Virginia yields 1% of new offshore oil discoveries over the next three years. That’s about 25M barrels of oil. At $200/barrel that’s $5.0B worth of oil. Let’s say Virginia could tax the oil at $50/barrel. That’s $1.25B in revenue. Even if all the taxes were paid in one year, that’s about 12 days of the Virginia state budget.

    I think Virginia should engage in offshore oil exploration. However, the idea of newly discovered oil making a difference to US demand or the state budget is improbable.

    Note: These examples are hypothetical. Data such as the rate of new oil discoveries offshore is legit. However, the tax rate / barrel is just a guess. If I have serious flaws in these guesstimates – please let me know. I am trying to get a better handle on this issue so I can be better informed as a voter.

  15. Richard G. Williams, Jr. Avatar
    Richard G. Williams, Jr.

    Rodger:

    Tell the US Navy to train somewhere else.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “..let’s wait until we can guarantee that the waters will remain clean.”

    How clean? When environmentalists can asnwer that, we may be able to determine the cost.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Gas is and will be used more and more to replace other dirtier capacity in peaking generation. “

    How dirty? Last I knew one, C geneates one CO2 whether the C comes form gas, wood, coal, or cows.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In either case, off shore drilling off the Atlantic is a straw man. “

    Maybe. But youprobably cold get more energy by building devices to capture wave energy than by drilling.

    Build the drill platforms so they can also capture wave energy.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There was some and could have been a lot more had the winds not been blowing away from the coast.”

    HOWZAT?

    Hurricanes are rotating storms, the wind blows in all directions at different places in the storm. The storm istelf is moving onshore so the NET wind dierction is toward the shore.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think a barrel is 55 gallons so this is conisderable damage.

    A normal barrel is a fifty five gallon drum in the U. S. but I think a barrel of oil is counted as 40 gallons, for some reason. It is still considerable damage the question as always is: how considerable. We can save a lot of pointless arguing when we can answer such questions.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Light, sweet crude – the “best” oil – peaked production in 2000 and has declined every year since.

    What this means is that every year from now on, the oil being pumped out of the ground is steadily decreasing in quality, on average. It’s harder to refine, and the usable yield is less per gallon of crude.

    Even with increasing proven reserves, we can expect higher gas prices.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was wrong, it is 42 gallons per barrel. This is a hangover from the old 42 gallon wine barrel. The imperial measure is 55 gallons which strangely is the common barrel size even in the U.S. but was never adopted in the oil businesss.

  23. policy person Avatar
    policy person

    I am blown away that the so called proponents of the New Economy want to bring an exploitative industry that historically devastates communities. The Eastern Shore will become a disgusting boon town flush with quick and dirty money blown by high school drop outs in their time on shore. One of the best parts about living in Virginia is that it not West Virginia or Mississippi.

    Sure the $billions in tax revenue could help us build a couple miles of new roads and repair some of the old ones in 15 years, but without fundamental restructuring of our settlement patterns and view of economic productivity we are just putting a band-aid on the problem.

    I don’t like the idea of a growing part of my paycheck going to Saudi Arabia, but at least I can drive (or even better use public transportation) to the beach and not worry about being covered with a black film when I get out of the water.

    Exploration for oil off of our coast is a terrible idea that will bring nothing but things with it.

  24. policy person Avatar
    policy person

    *bad* things with it.

  25. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    @ RH

    Comparing GHG emissions b/n natural gas, oil and coal:

    Fossil Fuel Emission Levels – Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input

    Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal

    Carbon Dioxide, 117,000 164,000 208,000
    Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
    Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457
    Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
    Particulates 7 84 2,744
    Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016

    “The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal.” From the EIA

    @ Jim Bacon: Without natural gas expansion, what will securely backup all the renewables generation planned after say 2020, where on the east coast especially, such resources have the tendenancy of increased intermittency?

    Narrowing capacities b/n excess production and demand is occuring today, because the world is turning to natural gas to compliment renewables as it turns away from coal and oil. If expansion in natural gas markets does not occur, natural gas will follow the price of crude.

    If the high cost of crude leads to more efficient vehicles and less driving, what will the high cost of natural gas lead to?

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One C + one O2 yields one CO2 and one unit of energy output. Per unit of energy output, or per pound of carbon burned CO2 emissions are the same regardless of source.

    If you are telling me that coal produces more CO2 and more CO then it must produce more heat output per million BTU input.

    Nitrogen oxides are a byproduct that comes from superheating air (plus whatever nitrogen is in the souce fuel). If you’re telling me that coal also produces more nitrogen oxides, then that is confirmation that it produces higher temperatures, consistent with more heat output per million BTU input.

    As for the sulfur dioxide, particulates, and mercury, I concede your point, but sulfur dioxide and particulates are readly and inexpensively controlled.

    CO2 cannot be controlled as long as you have combustion, although there are (so far exotic) plans to capture that, too, as if it was particulates.

    The question you need to ask is which SYSTEM is cheaper in total, from locating the source, guarding the source, obtaining the fuel, transporting the fuel, using the fuel, and cleaning up after, and also including the costs of damages from pollution due to cleanup that you cannot afford or don’t know how to do.

    Simply pointing out that coal produces more CO2 or particulates doesn’t mean squat by itself.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh yeah, when you consider the whole system you also need to consider the value of the energy produced. If for example you have to put coal plants in wesern Virgina and transmit electricity with all its losses, then it MIGHT be better to burn natural gas in a plant in your back yard. It’s hard to imagine coal powered vehicles today because the location where the fuel needs to be used changes.

    Judging from the fight that was thrown up over a gas fired plant in Fauquier recently, I doubt if many adjacent landowners will beleive that, at least not until you fix the property rights problem.

    But the point remans the same: you cannot say anything about the costs until you ocnsider ALL the costs, including losses to property owners and fuel users.

    Otherwise, the kind of partiall arguments youthrow up are misleading at best, and most probably wrong as well.

    RH

  28. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    “ALL the costs, including losses to property owners and fuel users.

    Otherwise, the kind of partiall arguments youthrow up are misleading at best, and most probably wrong as well.”

    You mean all costs like rail transportation cost, T&D connection cost, environmental reclaimation costs, the cost for GHGs, the cost of relying on decommissioning plants in generation load centers, then importing new power from a far, the cost that creates transmission congestion, the cost that leads to spikes in peak demand, the cost associated with buying the most expensive power, peak power, the cost generated thru poor consumption habits and the cost due to inefficienies in the existing grid, as well as in end-users demand, the cost incurred from the decreased reliance on a broad range of energy resources, and last but not least, the cost incurred because of delayed implementation of improvements because of the resistance to energy change.

    Yep, I agree with your conclusion. Without them they are “most probably wrong as well”.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are putting words in my mouth. You assume I am the enemy. I am not, but I do have very high standards of proof.

    Rail transportation is cheaper under some circumstances. I maintain only that we should clearly understand what those circumstances are, instead of blindly promoting “more transit”.

    Sometimes it makes sense to do an environmentla reclamation and sometimes the best thing to do is leave it alone.

    Greenhouse gases are a problem. Certainly we can reduce that problem by creating less greenhouse gas, but that means we will make do with less energy. Less energy means we haveless wealth, and having less wealth creates problems of its own. I do not believe anyone knows what the trade offs are in this battle. Worse still, no one really wants to find out: they just want “their side” to win.

    You don;t have to import energy from afar if you allw the decommissioning plants to be rebuilt. Why complain about a problem you create? Exporting the pollution for your energy is a proprty rights issue: go deal with that, and then talk to me about costs.

    Transmission congestion is relieved by a)not having all your load requirements in one place b)more transmission capacity c) more generating capcity where you need it, and, oh yeah, d)smart grid technology. The right answer most probably involves all of the above.

    The most expensive peak power is also the most valuable. You propose to remove the cost without considering the value. You thnk that by discounting the value to others, you can get something for nothing. It is a perfect example of what Groveton described as a moral hazard in assymetric regulation.

    “the cost generated thru poor consumption habits ” This is a value judgement. What exactly is the cost, and what constitutes poor habits? If I leave the lights on for safety reasons, is that a poor habit?

    “the cost incurred from the decreased reliance on a broad range of energy resources”

    Where did you get that one from? I believe we should have a broad range of energy sources including wind, wave, solar, coal and nukes.

    The one thing I’m opposed to is fuzzy thinking that most probably leads to wrong answers and even more waste: especially when it is ostensibly in the name of environmentalism.

    If we are going to be environmentalists, then lets do it right, not just assume we are right. If we are nothing but a one-trick special interest, then we are no better than the developers and speculators.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When youput cal in a firebox it tends to stay there until it burns. When you pump gas and air into a combustion chamber, it leaves faster than it comes in, due to additional pressure from the combustion products. As a result, some of the gas leaves unburned, which accounts for some of the lower CO2 production.

    In some gas engines and turbines this is done intentionally to cool the engine, hence the emission of “unburned hydrocarbons”.

    RH

  31. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    RH said“You are putting words in my mouth…You assume I am the enemy…You don;t have to import energy from afar if you allow the decommissioning plants to be rebuilt. Why complain about a problem you create?”

    You really are a hoot.

    Regarding transmission congestion, you left off one thing – reduced consumption. As I have stated to you plenty of times, increased need for new peak capacity is driven by a/c usage b/n the hours of 2-6pm, 6 to 10 times a summer. Its that simple.

    “If we are going to be environmentalists, then lets do it right, not just assume we are right. If we are nothing but a one-trick special interest, then we are no better than the developers and speculators.”

    You are a deaf man. Who cares about being an environmentalist. Understanding the entire problem is the prerequisite.

    My belief is centered around a policy which requires everything, today. We will not succeed to resolve our energy problems which involve (in no particular ranking) climate, energy independence, energy security, and economic sustainability, without everything on the table at our disposal, whether we need it now or not. An energy revolution is needed, increased funding needs to be set aside, and it requires the obvious recognition, a transition period from fossil to clean involves the entire spectrum of resources we have.

    We need affordable oil if we want the economy to sustain itself in order to afford this energy revolution – increase our oil’s capacity.

    We need natural gas to make renewables work effectively reach market profitability – increase gas capacity.

    We need coal if we want to keep the lights on – 50% of our current electricity comes form coal; it isn’t going anywhere. Get CCS & IGCC to the market and increase power plant efficiencies.

    We need cogeneration & nuclear to reduce GHG – thorium power can not be weaponized or meltdown; produces 1/3rd the waste as uranium, and can reduce old plutonium stockpile while reducing its waste by 80%.

    We need EEC maximized thru a more intelligent grid, to serve more greater demand within existing capacity – reduce energy grid consumption thru digital energy management, combined with distributed generation & storage, and thru T&D, building and appliance upgrades. Build state and federal funds now to be granted when the smart grid arrives.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Regarding transmission congestion, you left off one thing – reduced consumption. As I have stated to you plenty of times, increased need for new peak capacity is driven by a/c usage b/n the hours of 2-6pm, 6 to 10 times a summer.”

    I was only responding to the part of increased transmission caused by decommissioning plants, according to your comment. Why change the subject except to avoid the truth?

    I agree with what you say about increased peak capacity. But, the fact still remains that your plan increases prices in order to decrease usage. And at the same time you plan to sell the energy saved to others, so there is no net energy savings.

    Fundamentally you plan to charge “bad” people more and “good” people less, make more money, and pay for $600 million dollars worth of stuff.

    In other words charge more and get less.

    “…a transition period from fossil to clean involves the entire spectrum of resources we have.”

    And you can’t see the circular logic in this?

    “We will not succeed to resolve our energy problems which involve (in no particular ranking) climate, energy independence, energy security, and economic sustainability, without everything on the table at our disposal,….”

    Including Coal and Nukes. Even you think coal is here to stay, but you think my thinking is confused?

    If you really feel that passionate about it, go downstairs and yank out the breaker on your AC.

    I pretty much like everything on your list, but you lft out fixing the eminent domain problem. If you fix that it will give the energy comapanies a HUGE incentive to do everything else on your list.

    But here is where we part company. You say that your belief is centered around a policy which requires everything, today. As I hear that it says you think these things are infinitely valuable. Have to have them TODAY implies a virtually infinite price.

    After that, I stop listening because here is someone unwilling to deal with reality.

    It isn’t that I’m deaf, I’m just not hearing anything I can believe.
    What I hear is circular logic, infinite costs, perpetual motion stuff that I don’t believe for a second.

    If you just come out and say that you want to tax energy more so people will use less and you want to give the money to industry to promote better technology, then you would have a believable story.
    Maybe someday we will see the results of that investment and maybe we won’t.

    But the claptrap you are peddling is like selling mortgage backed investments as a sure thing. All of these idea are good, and they all have drawbacks. I want to see both, not just one side.

    My basic assumption is that if someone shows me only one side, then he is either stupid, deceptive, or half blind.

    At that point I stop listening.

    RH

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I found this to be interesting:

    http://www.theenergydetective.com/what/overview.html

    just by itself – stand-alone – if nothing else, it ought to let consumers get a better idea of how to better understand their own usage.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree with your last 5 “We needs”. My farm needs a lot of things it can’t afford, too. The way I hear it your “we needs” mean the farm will have even less to work with.

    When I see “we need” balanced with “we can afford”, then you have my ear. But if your argument is that we cannot afford a train wreck, thenn you have gone off on the infinite costs siding again, and that siding is a dead end.

    Weneed this, weneed that, weneed everything today. Babies talk like that.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jeez, 139.95 for an in house electric meter? That thing ought to cost no more than $20 bucks, and most of that would be for shipping.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Let’s see. If that thing actually bugs me enough to save me 5% on my electric bill it will take 2.5 years to pay for itself.

    That’s actually not too bad, if it saves me that much. It would be a lot better at $20.

    Maybe some environmental group will gou put and raise a bunchof donations, and then they can subsidize these things to give to all those who are so stupid they don’t know how much electricity they use.

    RH

  37. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    “And you can’t see the circular logic in this?”

    Oh yeah, I see the problem, sure.

    If Dominion spends $5000 to builds a 5000MW power plant, and Dominion sells and delivers 5000MW worth of electric at the cost of $1/MW.

    If people conserve some of this usage, say an extra 1000MW, you Dominion will then sell that extra 1000/MW and gain more money while everyone else saves then gets less.

    Do I have it right?

    How about making one post when you reply, not say…15. Can you do that?

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Let the Luddite nightmare begin:

    the future has arrived – like it or not

    “Pilot program aims to help D.C. residents save on power bills”

    “Starting Monday, a select group of D.C. residents will test advanced metering technology and potentially reduce electricity costs by shifting their energy use away from high-priced periods.

    The pilot program, called PowerCentsDC, is being touted as the first in the electric utility industry to test customers’ responses to three different pricing options under one program.

    The two-year pilot project, funded by $2 million from Pepco through a settlement agreement, will include about 1,200 randomly selected District residents representing all eight city wards.

    A “smart meter” will be installed at each participant’s residence to measure electricity use at hourly intervals and transmit usage data to Pepco each day through a wireless communications network.

    Participating Pepco customers will be notified of forthcoming high prices on the previous day.

    “By examining how participating customers respond to different kinds of price signals, we hope to create new opportunities for all D.C. residents to save money on their electricity bills.”

    Findings will be shared with policymakers for use in future decision-making regarding innovative electricity pricing and demand response in D.C.”

    http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/07/14/daily25.html

    I see huge potential here for the folks opposed to congestion tolls forming a partnership with the folks opposed to peak-hour electricity pricing.

    their motto will be:

    “it’s unfair to charge us more for using more – we are ENTITLED to consume as much as we want for one low price”.

    their first meeting.. I understand will be held at an “all you can eat for one low price” buffet….

  39. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    Larry, good news. MD also started one earlier in the year. Because of re-regulation last year, Dominion started a similar pilot & the SCC did its own comprehensive study and issued a very pro-EEC recommendation to the GA in Nov 07.

    The net result was $600M investment by Dominion for the years 2009-14

    Here are some excerpts from the summary of conclusion from this SCC sponsored study which was approved by the SCC and forwarded to the GA. The study was comprised of industry, regulators, public advocacy groups, environmentalists, and public citizens.

    As Required by the Third Enactment Clause of SB 1416, November 16, 2007

    Summary of Findings and Conclusions

    The importance of reducing peak demand has long been recognized by the Virginia General Assembly and the State Corporation Commission (SCC). However, State policymakers have failed to initiate comprehensive policies to address this challenge even though they recognized the important benefits to ratepayers more than 30 years ago. The time has come to address this problem.

    However, the need for action is more pressing now than ever. The multiple challenges of rapidly escalating fuel and electricity prices, global climate change, deteriorating electric reliability in the mid-Atlantic region, and energy security risks provide a clarion call for prompt action.

    Moreover, new opportunities are now available to harness the potential for reductions in peak demand. These new opportunities are the result of: (1) development of new policies in the PJM90
    market requiring the treatment of demand response on a par with supply-side options; (2) advances in telecommunications that allow for real-time communication among
    wholesale electric suppliers, retail suppliers, and customers; and (3) improvements in the affordability and functionality of demand response technology.

    It is essential for the SCC to take advantage of new legislative authority granted in 2007

    Virginia ratepayers and the State’s economy and environment will suffer if this opportunity is squandered.

    Of course RH will have his doubts. Warning: prepare for a 15 post assault.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Uh, one of my comments on circular logic had to do with claiming we need to use ALL our resources in order to transition AWAY from fossil fuels. All of our resources will include judicious use of fossil fuels, in my opinion.

    ————————-

    “If people conserve some of this usage, say an extra 1000MW, you Dominion will then sell that extra 1000/MW and gain more money while everyone else saves then gets less.”

    Almost. Presumably, the people that save energy will be the ones charged more for using energy at peak periods. They are not saving, theyare just trying to avoid paying still more. And they probably cannot succeed entirely, and they willpay for smart grid, too.

    Whatever is saved will be sold to additional or new users who, like everyone else use most of their power off peak. And they will pay for smart grid, too.

    After all, the reason we have peak power, just like rush hour on the highways, is because that is when a lot of people need it. Basically, you are creating an additional charge for human nature.

    IF, (and that’s a big if, in my opinion) the smart grid savings all operate the way you describe with the AC’s and hot water heaters so that there is no noticeable difference to the end user then I’ll admit I’m wrong. To that extent, you would have a real savings, after you pay off the $600 million in capital expenses. I have a problem swallowing that rosy picture.

    Now, say you are Larry Gross, you are retired, and you can afford to run your personal schedule to minimize your expenses according to Dominion’s variable rate sheet. The argument going in is that such people are getting screwed because they pay a standard rate that includes peak power. Preventing that screw job is ostensibly worth whatever it costs, even $600 or $800 million.

    The going in argument thenn is NOT about saving energy, it is about charging appropriately. A side beenfit is that when you charge people more, they will use less. So the result will be that most people get chraged more and get less electricity, and less electricity when they want it most.

    When Dominions adds the cost of the smart grid to the Larry’s rate their rate will go up by that amount, and down by the amount Dominion saves by not generating peak power. Presumably, he comes out ahead on that deal. That’s a pretty hard way to save a little money for a few in the ame of “fairness”

    Everyone else pays for smart grid and still act like human beings, so they still use more electricity during peak hours, and not all of it is controlled by smart switches.
    They are going to pay extra for the smart grid and still pay extra for peak usage.

    Somewhere along the line there will be new users who buy whatever energy was “saved”, and they pay for smart grid, too.

    The bottom line is that Dominion is “investing” $600 million of OUR money, because they are adding the cost to the rates. And they are not doing that unless they think they will make money off the deal.

    So, what we get is higher prices for power when we want it most, and higher prices the rest of the time to pay for the smart grid. IF the smart grid works as advertized we will avoid SOME of that cost from controlling our air conditioners and hot water heaters. But whatever energy is saved will still get sold. There is no net energy savings, only a partial shift to baseload plants – that run on coal.

    As far as circular logic goes, this whole thing is a giant triple helix.

    Most people are going to pay more and get less of what they want, and people like Larry will be fat dumb and, presumably, happy, for a change.

    I actually believe you could save some power an some money doing this, but I think saving as much as 14% is a stretch, especially when you claim peak demand is only a few hot days in the summer. But I also think you make a mistake in claiming that thee is “NO COST” to the people that avoid peak pricing by moving their energy use.

    The question is will the users actually see any of the savings, or does it just go to Dominion’s bottom line. I don’t think we know the answer yet because the “negotiations are on-going”.

    EEC is probably fine. It is probably part of what we need to do. I just think it is terribly, terribly oversold. When people don’t see a savings, they will be disappointed, and the next time some greenie tries to sell them something, they will remember.

    I think such things are bad PR for the cause, in the long run. We are pursuing short term profits, as we like to say.

    —————————–

    Pepco is offering their plan as part of a settlement agreement. That leads me to think someone sued to force them to spend $2million for this pilot project.

    Who do you suppose that was?

    “it’s unfair to charge us more for using more – we are ENTITLED to consume as much as we want for one low price”

    Maybe, maybe not. If the vast majority of people use power at peak periods and the vast majority average their bills by having the power company charge a fixed price, then how is that unfair? It is exactly what some people do with their gas, oil, or electric bills to level out the payments.

    Maybe there is a tiny minority, Like Larry who never go anywhere during rush hour and only use electricity when no one else wants it. Is it unfair to spend $200 million of our money to save a handful of them a few cents? Larry does believe in majority rule, but not when it is to his (perceived and probably wrong) disadvantage. Then he claims that what the majority does is “unfair” and he places an infinite value on that unfairness in order to justify spending $600 million of other people’s money.

    THAT, he thinks is fair.

    I think there is something wrong and assymetric when a handful of people claim that what the vast majority do is unfair to them, and the result is a $600 million dollar expenditure – in their favor. It might be cheaper to just let anyone who wants to record their own usage, and if it meets certain parameters, then they can apply for a rebate.

    ———————————

    Notice the wording: “… we hope to create new opportunities for all D.C. residents to save money on their electricity bills.”

    Creating new opportunities to save money on their bills is NOT the same as actually saving money. If the “opportunity” turns out to be a royal pain in the butt, like saving a billion Captain Crunch coins, then that means you have to do work to “save” that money. In that case you are not saving money or power. What you are doing is working for the power company. that’s OK as long as the power company is paying you for that work. I have a problem with it if it means more work wand more aggravation for me AND more money for the power company.

    It is a simple mattter of property rights.

    And like saving Cap’n Crunch coins, you have to buy their product to get the savings: if you have already ordered your power from some green wind generator somewhere, then what do you get from smart grid other than the costs of building it?

    What happens if Al Gore gets is way and we go to 100% renewables? In order to make that happen we will need a huge oversupply in order to meet base load reliably, and if that happens we will already have peak load covered. How do you charge for all that “energy supply security” if it also gives you peak load for free, more or less? What happens to the unfair to us argument then when all these new additonal costs costs are averaged over everyone?

    Or are we only going to charge the newcomers for all this expense, through proffers and outrageous hook-up fees?

    ——————————–

    Finally there is one other issue lurking in the background. Duiring the recent new powerline crisis one of the MAJOR arguments put forward by PEC and others was the Dominion had not done enough to promote conservation.

    By having ratepayers cough up for $600 million in conservation efforts like EEC, Dominion is effectively having those that demand EEC make the downpayment on their next power line.

    When that thing rears its ugly head, in another five or ten years, what will be the conservation argument against it then?

    Dominion is going to be able to say “Hey we already spent $600 million on conservation, what more do you want from us? We squeezed out all we could.”

    And here comes the power line, fully backed and paid for with eminent domain.

    THAT IS THE PROBLEM YOU NEED TO FIX. THEN USERS WILL BE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

    Sharing the costs of having peak power available when most people want it might possibly be unfair to a few, by a little bit, but I seriously doubt that injustice justifies spending $600 million dollars to alleviate, when the whoe reason we need peek power is because so many use it.

    Larry’s argument is dumb, not cost effective, undemocratic and self serving, in my opinion. It is also probably correct as far as it goes, it just doesn’t go very far.

    But, when it comes to eminent domain, now you could have a few people losing literally millions, just so millions can save a few pennies.

    I maintain that is a different order of injustice, and if what Larry is complaining about is worth $600 or $800 million then fixing eminent domain is worth several times that.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “new policies in the PJM90
    market requiring the treatment of demand response on a par with supply-side options”

    “It is essential for the SCC to take advantage of new legislative authority granted in 2007”

    Suddenly we are going to save a lot of money and energy because policy says so, and the SCC wants to take advantage.

    Who are they going to take advantage of, ratepayers or Dominion?

    Yes we also have new technology in communications and switch technology that makes it possible. But just because it is possible and the technology is there doesn’t mean it is cost effective, and since it isn’t, we need policy requirements to ram this down our throats. And after all what moron other than RH could be opposed to such requirements since they obviously hold the high moral ground? They must be worth any price so we will simply legislate action.

    I’m sorry gents, it still smells to high heaven to me.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If they are not going to drill there anyway, and if they do they won’t find any oil, then what’s the problem?

    Sell the leases.

  43. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    15 post attacked whittled down to 3 great big posts.

    This is where you lose me. I would understand if the price ratio of generation to consumption was 1-to-1 but it isn’t.

    Dominion builds a 5000MW generator, delivers and sells 50% of it, AT BEST. The remaining 2500MW is purchased by customers, who essentially bought the entire price tag of what 5000MW of power yields.

    If the pricetag to build 5000MW was $1/MW, the cost consumed per MW is $2/MW. All customers pay for the electricity that is wasted.

    Then you base your argument against differing concepts in EEC, as though they are the same. They are not.

    Demand response is voluntary. Participants during a price signal, save by consuming less, and get a credit applied on their bill for doing so. That’s two (2) financial gains. Use less, gain money. Anyone else who doesn’t participate, still benefits and saves because less of the most expensive power is purchased by the utility as a whole.

    A/c load mgmt is totally different means to save. Its simply energy management. All things equal, if Larry’s a/c operates 75% during a :30 minute cycle w/o management, and mine operates 75% during the same :30 minute cycle, am I receiving less and paying more?

    The a/c load mgmt concept doesn’t not allow for different operating usages, because it wouldn’t work. Larry still saves, given that the utility has to purchase less peak power; and me, I get nothing more or nothing less than Larry. Both Larry and I share the cost of my smart switch the utility installed for me, and those cost are not greater than the savings. And if they were, we wouldn’t be having this argument now would we? And Dominion would not have plopped down $600M. The more volunteers in a/c load mgmt, like demand response, the more savings to be had by everyone. W/o any participation, everyone price per kWh increases.

    RH google Dynamic Pricing white pages by Edison Electric Institute and under Galvin Electric Institute. Do the same under the Gridwise newsletter at their website.

    The dynamaic pricing model wouldn’t encompass 100% of one’s bill. I would imagine if implemented, we would see your typical flat rates on bulk first, second and/or third level kwh usage based on the end-user type.

  44. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It ..IS… a pilot program.

    It’s possible that the initial results won’t justify further actions (but I doubt it).

    but RH is all over the map on this.

    He gripes about powerlines and the basic unfairness of ED – both of which would end up with a reduced need for.

    One could think of the size and scope of powerlines as being similar to 16-lanes of urban interstate at 2 a.m.

    Paying for the equipment needed for peak hour verses baseload is not unique to electricity nor roads.

    Cell phones and Airlines are two of the more obvious examples where extra cell-towers and extra-airplanes sitting unused 80% of the time add significantly to everyone’s costs so cell-phone companies and airlines price peak-our usage higher.

    Using RH’s logic, the people who want to call at peak hour or fly at peak hour are being “damaged” by the use of higher rates – that really are the result of having to have more cell towers and more airplanes just to serve peak hour – a cost that really does belong to the people who want peak hour service.

    So.. it’s very difficult to understand RH’s logic, in part, because it consumes so many words – a blizzard that makes it difficult to get the essence of the “con” argument.

    When we start off with a discussion about peak-hour pricing of a commodity.. and we end up with one of the root causes as property rights… it’s hard to follow the logic .. at least for me.

    I simply do not believe that any of us has a “right” to peak-hour service for the same price as non-peak hour service.

    I’m so used to seeing so many products and services use demand pricing that it seems logical and I like the ability to choose lower cost -when it is important to me and to pick the higher cost when the service or product that I want is worth the extra money – on a per transaction basis.

    As for driving in congestion – no matter whether one is retired or not – you still have those choices.

    When on vacation, we explicitly time our arrival in urban areas according to rush-hour…

    we divert – using a GPS to decide how much diverting will “cost” compared to not diverting …or waiting an hour or two… etc…

    as far as home usage is concerned – retirement is costlier for us because when we are not here – our thermostat gets set to the margins.

    In the winter.. 50 degrees.. in the summer 90 degrees…

    and you know what… what I would REALLY like to know is exactly how much money we save when we go away for a week and the thermostat IS set to the margins…

    Is it $5 or $10 ..or $15… ??

    I have no clue and I suspect that many others do not either… and I’d like to know.. like to have the option… of saving money and saving energy… and I think others also would too.

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If the pricetag to build 5000MW was $1/MW, the cost consumed per MW is $2/MW. All customers pay for the electricity that is wasted.”

    It doesn’t matter what the power company’s problems are. My customers don’t care what I have to do to make hay: they just want it there when their horses are hungry. If I offer them a lower price in spring and summer, it does them no good at all: they don’t need it then.

    The consumer pays for what he gets. Right now we pay an average price that incudes for each of us some use of peak power. The whole point of charging variable rates is so that we can charge people more, and presumably they will use less.

    Right off the bat, they are paying more and getting less. Even if they change their habits (buy their hay in spring and summer) in order to pay the same on average, they still get less because they have to change their habits.

    And, they get the cost of smart grid added to their bill to make this possible.

    If Dominion can alterate sending power to my AC and my neighbors, that’s great for dominion because they get to avearge the load. But y AC is still running during peak period, and now I’m gong to get charged more for the same electricity as before.

    If you are telling me that Dominion is going to share their savings with me, then why am I being charged MORE at peak hours? Supposedly, I will be charged less during off peak, and if I change my habits, I could save money. How do I move the use of that AC to off hours without getting less AC when I need it, even if I am now sharing the peak load with my neighbor??????

    You pay more, you get less. No matter what Dominion’s problems are. If they want to put in smart grid, just to balance their load, and to postpone some construction, fine, knock yourself out.

    Where does the money come from? If it comes from investors,then the investors should see the benefit in their dvidends. But if it is going to be billed out to customers as part of the rates, then they should see the savings it produces in their rates as well.

    Just don’t try to tell me that we are going to save energy usage by charging more for it so people will use less, and then we are going to sell the energy we we save to lower the rates!

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Demand response is voluntary.

    Right now. What happens when it is universal? That is the point of having a smart GRID isn't it? This is the camel's nose under the tent. Pretty soon controls your AC, then they control your right to have AC. Like driving, having AC is no longer a right, it is a privilege, granted by Dominion.

    I save by consuming less. Whoopee, I can do that now. But under your plan I can save more by using less just when I need it most. Whoopee, again. I don't see any real savings here, what I see is more savings for more inconvenience.

    I don't see that as two transactions: use less, gain money. How is that any different from now? Are you telling me that the price premium for peak power will be 20%, but if I agree not to use it when I need it most then I get a credit for 30% of what I would have used? In that case I won't use any and claim that I would have used a lot more. How does the smart grid know how much LESS I used????

    And now you are going to tell me that anyone who doesn't participate still saves, even though they have to subsidize my smart meter. If we are all going to save by not paricipating, why participate? We can ALL get something for nothing, right? And if Larry saves for not participating and I get back 10% MORE than I use from not saving, and if we sell what I saved to somebody else (who also saves, whether he participates or not) then how is this NOT a perpetual motion machine where we ALL get something for nothing?

    I just can't believe that story.

    "am I receiving less and paying more? " If you run during peak periods you pay more for the same power, right? You don't get less but you pay more.

    If you have a smart meter, you pay for that and you still pay for off peak power. That sounds like you pay more and get less, because now you either don't get peak power, or you get peak power and pay more. And you still pay for the smart meter.

    If you are telling me I will save more than the smart meter costs, then the power company can pay for the smart meter, and take the difference off my bill.

    "And Dominion would not have plopped down $600M." You just said Larry and I shared the cost of my smart switch: Dominion didn't plop down $600 million – we did.

    And Larry says he can't understand how property rights got in this discussion. It is ALL about property rights. Larry thinks he has a property right that says he should not have to pay an avarage rate so that I can use peak power. dominion is going toget a property right that says they control my AC.

    That's what this is all about. Who pays for what, and what do they get in return. It is ALL property rights and how they are defined and traded.

    Good god man, Edison Electric Institute is a mouthpiece for the industry. I can't expect a true story from them.

    I am the mouthpiece for me, and for the life of me I can't see how this wors for me. If this makes substantial cuts in Dominion's expenses and SCC passes those savings back to me, well, that's different. But that isn;t the story I'm hearing. It is also unlikely. I don't trust that system. Like I said, show me the money.

    Even floodguy says more electricity use is inevitable. That means more power lines, and more power plants (of whatever kind). And Dominon is going to get what it needs through eminent domain.

    That is where the real problem lies, and wher ti will remain until PEC & Co. wakes up to the facts of life: you cannot be an environmental advocate without being a consumer advocate, and a property rights advocate, too.

    "both of which would end up with a reduced need for."

    OK, MAYBE the need is reduced with EEC, but the damage to those damaged certainly isn't reduced. Focus, man, focus.

    "I simply do not believe that any of us has a "right" to peak-hour service for the same price as non-peak hour service." So you claim the right to demand variable price service: a property right you did not have before.

    RH

  47. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I would like the option of changing my behavior in exchange for money saved – whether it be net money from current prices or savings from anticipated rated increases.

    Either way, I’d like to have than option.

    If other’s don’t want that option, then I am fine with their choices – as long as they deal with the consequences of their choices.

    If there is going to be a rate increase – and they don’t want to participate in rate plans that could reduce their rates in exchange for changes in habits – then, again, I really don’t care..

    but I want the choice.

    now what you’re saying is that me having that choice that somehow this “damages” others who do not want the choice.

    this is a bit bizarre.

    it’s sorta like saying that I can’t get a fuel efficient car to save money because in doing so.. I “damage” those that want to continue to drive their SUVs…

    or if I want a cell phone plan that rewards me for not using peak minutes that in choosing this option.. I “damage” those that want unlimited peak minutes.

    ?????

    In other words, if I don’t want to subsidize others wanton waste of resources.. then I am “damaging” them.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – when you are purchasing services like airline seats, or cell phone minutes or car insurance – or whatever -you are not “entitled” to property rights.

    the only right you have is to purchase the services that are offered.

    If customers ask for -and the company agrees to offer new/different rate plans – you have no existing “rights”.

    you are not “entitled” to the previous rate plans as a “right”.

    you are not “entitled” to any price for any service or product as a “right”…

    no one. no company owes you anything.

    If they want to raise the price of two liter cokes or choose to no longer sell two liter cokes but only 1.5 liter cokes – for the same price as 2 liter cokes – they can do it.

    I know this comes as a big shock to you but they can actually changes their prices.. and change their offerings.. without your permission.

    and just because they are a monopoly does not mean that they cannot do the same.

    they do this all the time…

    if the electric company wants to charge for peak hour usage and provide different rate plans to pay for peak-hour usage – they can do this.

    and hold on to your hat.. they dont’ need your permission either…

    nor does the Honda dealer need your permission to offer different options and changes his prices either.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Honda dealer has competition. If I don’t like his rate struture, I can buy from someone else.

    It is different with Dominion and VDOT. How hard s that to get?

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    me having that choice that somehow this “damages” others who do not want the choice.

    It damages them if you insist that they pay for the (expensive) infrastructure that gives you the choice, and gives them – nothing.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    when you are purchasing services like airline seats, or cell phone minutes or car insurance – or whatever -you are not “entitled” to property rights.

    Of course I am. I paid my property for services, and I expect to get them. Otherwise I have been robbed.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the only right you have is to purchase the services that are offered.

    I also have the right to go someplace else, or even to start my own service to compete with them. Try that with Dominion or VDOT.

    It is not true that my only right is to purchase the services offered. I can, and do, offer a different price.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and just because they are a monopoly does not mean that they cannot do the same.”

    Actually it does. We allow or confer a monopoly for certain reasons of public benefit. As a monopoly an organization gets special license in return for an expectation of higher standards of accountability.

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they dont’ need your permission either…but they need the permission of the SCC, which ostensibly works for me. I have the right to comment on any SCC ruling, not that it makes much difference. The SCC has an obligation to set rate structures that are fair to all citizens, not just the ones that complain most bitterly.

    RH

  55. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Indeed.. and I’d like to see opponents to peak-power rates present the argument that they are “entitled” to the same price for peak power as paid for non-peak power.

    You forget RH….many of the 80% who use peak power – would be in favor of higher charges if given the opportunity to avoid them – as opposed to having a rate increase – without options – everyone pays more.

    and that’s the way this will play out in the future.

    Dominion will ask for a rate increase and at that time will proposed a lower rate for those who enroll in the smart meter program and agree – as a condition of enrollment to pay higher rates for peak power.

    The other customers will still have the “flat rate” option but of course they’ll also have the same rate increase.

    so the folks with the smart meters will willingly enroll with the idea that they WILL be willing to change their consumption behavior as to way to avoid the rate increase in part or fully.

    As long as Dominion offers the original plan along with the new plan – what would be the basis of your complaint?

    I have a hard time understanding how a ‘property right” prevents Dominion from offering additional rate plans.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I’d like to see opponents to peak-power rates present the argument that they are “entitled” to the same price for peak power as paid for non-peak power.”

    I think all you would have to do is show that the transaction costs are higher than the savings.

    In this case NEITHER side has a claim to prior entitlement. Nothing was ever written down regarding entitlements. The only entitlement I know of is that Dominion can apply to SCC for whatever they want. But SCC has an obligation to listen to all sides.

    If I was an SCC judge and you came to me with an argument that you are entitled to avoid ANY excess cost caused by rate averaging, my response would be “No, you are not.” Such a claim would mean that if you save two cents due to the rate change, it is worth it no matter what the cost. It would mean that you are “entitled” to your two cents, no matter what. It would mean that I would have to value your two cents as being worth more than anything else, more than $600 million and more than the other 20% of those who use peak power and are opposed to a rate change.

    You are entitled to a fair shake and no more. At present, and for the last 30 years we have decided that a reasonable proxy for a fair shake is to allow anyone wo wants peak power to have it, and to average the cost among everyone who uss peak power, whichis most aeveryone anyway.

    “many of the 80% who use peak power – would be in favor of higher charges if given the opportunity to avoid them”

    Show me the referendum that says that. Anyway, what kind of opportunity are you talking about? Is it one that 1% of the population can reasonably avail themselves, or is it an opportunity that pretty much guarantees that anyone who makes the slightest effort will save SOMETHING?

    “without options – everyone pays more”

    So far, that is an opinion. We don;t have a real rae schedule and cost estimate for smart grid that shows us whtehr this is true or not.

    You could just as well say that without options, everyone pays the same, and everyone has the option of access at any time. Whether you use power or not, you are paying for the option.

    “so the folks with the smart meters will willingly enroll with the idea that they WILL be willing to change their consumption behavior as to way to avoid the rate increase “

    This truly makes me want to vomit. This is inthe same category as the beaings will continue until morale improves.

    If you don’t sign up for our plan you get a rate increase. If you don’t continue to farm for us we will raise your taxes so much you can’t stand it. If you don’t confess I’m going to tighten the rack.

    I’d suggest there is something seriously wrong with that kind of thinking.

    ——————————-

    The scenario you propose is different from what floodguy said the deal was. He said smart grid would lead to lower costs for everyone, which I objected to as a physical impossibility.

    What you are suggesting is that some people will pay more and some people will buy the opportunity to pay less. At least that is an honest assesment of what is going to happen, and I seriously doubt that very many actually wind up paying less.

    Those that do pay less won’t really save anything, because they give up service at the most valuable time.

    I can see a black market in storage devices springing up. Big Savings Invention! Compress air in the daytime to run you AC at night!! Call this number now and get two huge bombs to put in your basement.

    Off hand, I don’t see a property rights argument that prevents Dominion from offering additional rate plans.

    But I do see a property rights argument that says you don’t have the right to claim you are entitled to be offered such a rate. Or to claim that others are not entitled to the existing rates.

    And what happened here was, if I undertand floodguy correctly, is that Dominion was ordered to consider demand reduction as an equal to production increases. So you also can’t claim that Dominion is voluntarly offering this plan as if it is something people would voluntarily sign up for.

    So – back to the torture rack.

    Nice try though.

    When Dominion comes to me and says here is your free smart switch, paid for out of our profits. We are so sure you are going to love this that it is yours, free. And it is our experiwnce that 70% of the people who use it get a 10% reduction in their power bill with no noticable change in service level, then I’ll sign up.

    I’ll even be an advocate. So far, all I’m earing is claptrap and unsubstantiated claims about what might happen someday.

    RH

  57. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    RH, I’m not so sure you really don’t know what your talking about.

    You don’t know how the smart grid will work, because you didn’t hear about it until it was raised in here.

    You haven’t even heard about a/c load mgmt before, if it wasn’t for my posts, yet you know it can’t somehow save and therefore work.

    You have called me an environmentalists 3 times. You’re such a hoot. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being an environmentalist, and I should actually say thanks, but what kind of environmentalist owns stock fossil fuel producing companies?

    You didn’t even realize that everyone pays the utility company for the wasted energy it can’t deliver and sell. And your reply was that you didn’t care what the utilities problems are.

    You don’t understand that the unfettered use of peak capacity, is closing in on its ceiling. Like with crude oil, peak demand for electricity is rising faster than the industry’s ability to keep up with it. The gap of excess capacity is shrinking and the industry is facing headwinds from four directions, as it attempts to add peak capacity.

    You clearly had no idea how transmission congestion is a part of all this if it wasn’t for my posts.

    You don’t understand EEC, DSM, DR, or DG, and how it will work w/i smartgrid.

    “Even floodguy says more electricity use is inevitable. That means more power lines, and more power plants (of whatever kind). And Dominon is going to get what it needs through eminent domain.”

    Here is a fine example of what I’m talking about. This statement, and the very basic fundamental understanding of how a major state’s utility operates, is where it all starts wrong with you.

    Prove me wrong RH, and re-state it correctly.

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “but what kind of environmentalist owns stock fossil fuel producing companies? “

    Well, I do, and I’m a certified environmental scientist. Fossil fuel producing stocks have been some of my best producers, allong with builders, and banks that loan to them.

    As a scientist, I don’t let ideology get in the way of facts, unlike yourself. I also hedge my bets with stocks like wind energy stocks and private corrections institutes. My holdings in alternate energy are consisten with their growth patterns.

    —————————

    “Prove me wrong…”

    Did you, or did you not, say that growth in electricity production was inevitable?

    Is Dominion currently involved with the SCC in activities that may result in takings under eminet domain?

    ————————–

    I’ll concede that what happens in the future is conecture, but if PEC had been making the right arguments this time around, we might not have to make them agian next time.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You don’t know how the smart grid will work, because you didn’t hear about it until it was raised in here. “

    Actually, I have followed smart grid developments for years. So far thay are just as dumb as smart growth developments, al though both might eventually work out, it won’t have anythingto do with the wild claims made for them today.

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You don’t know how the smart grid will work, because you didn’t hear about it until it was raised in here.

    You haven’t even heard about a/c load mgmt before,”

    You should stick to making comments that you might know something about. Making wild and unknowable statements about my former state of knowledge does nothing for your credibility, and aruments ad hominem are a sure sign of distress.

    RH

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You didn’t even realize that everyone pays the utility company for the wasted energy it can’t deliver and sell.”

    You think I’m a moron?

    EVERY company charges its customers for waste. The good companies stay in business. But no business stays in businees by NOT delivering and selling: even monoploies like Dominion.

    You should keep you ropinion as to my prior knowledge to yourself. On the other hand, I’m willing to learn as soon as you have something remotely believable to sell.

    RH

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You don’t understand that the unfettered use of peak capacity, is closing in on its ceiling.”

    You don’t understand that the requirement for peak capacity will grow, fettered or not. It might be slower, but the end result is the same.

    If you really want to eliminate use of peak capacity, go kill some people, because that is what it will come down to eventually. Some say it already has.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I figure the more frantic and upset people get, the closer I am to the truth.

    Floodguy makes me think I’ve hit the mother lode.

    RH

  64. floodguy Avatar
    floodguy

    “Well, I do, and I’m a certified environmental scientist”

    Oh brother, you were trying to label me, I wasn’t raising it about you. I not concerned about what “type” you are.

    “Did you, or did you not, say that growth in electricity production was inevitable?”

    I sure did in regards to both peaking and baseline. And I have also stated that EEC via smart grid will make a big dent into the existing and growth of peak demand. Addressing the reduction of current and future growth in peak demand is one way to considerably forestall utility investments in grid expansion.

    Is Dominion currently involved with the SCC in activities that may result in takings under eminet domain?”

    Yes, but that doesn’t have the same sounding implications as your statement (which I cited) now does it?

    “Making wild and unknowable statements” well if they are so wild and unknowable, how come you haven’t made a shred of sense out of a/c load mgmt then? “You think I’m a moron?”

    If you’re not, then why are you having such a hard time understanding that capturing some of that waste, would be cheaper and therefore better than building new generation or transmission to meet increases in peak demand? Haven’t you learned anything from Fauquier’s peaking plant or Loudoun’s transmission proposal?

    “You don’t understand that the requirement for peak capacity will grow, fettered or not. It might be slower, but the end result is the same.”

    Oh so you mean the end result will lead to less frequent new peak generation proposals, and that’s something you fundamentally disagree with?

    “I figure the more frantic and upset people get, the closer I am to the truth. Floodguy makes me think I’ve hit the mother lode.”

    Sorry, neither frantic or upset, just realizing how irrelevant your opinion is for the future.

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Addressing the reduction of current and future growth in peak demand is one way to considerably forestall utility investments in grid expansion.”

    We really only disagree in what amounts to “considerably”. I don’t think it makes a trifle compared to the other problems we face. EEC is just kicking the can down the road.

    Larry is terribly concerned that some tiny minority of people who apparently never use peak power are having their property rights affected because they might pay a slight premium to support out current methodof paying for (and supplying) peak power when we need it.

    I’m more concerned that some other minority will suffer nearly total economic ruin when their property rights are trampled because of we presently handle eminent domain takings. I’ve seen it happen. To those people it isn;t a matter of “implications”.

    I don’t have a problem with EEC as far as it goes, but in my opinion it is irrelevant in the long run.

    What I learned from Fauquier’s Peaking plant is that Domion will buy environmental favors and give them away to get what they want.

    Yhy are you having such a hard time understanding that capturing some of that waste, would be cheaper and therefore better FOR WHOM? This proposal is primarily to raise prices in an attempt to curb service. It may very well be better overall but it fails one critical test: it won’t lower anyopnes bill. It fails the Coasian equality test.

    If it is really better then We should get the same service at a lower price, and there should still be money left over so Dominion can get a cut.

    Alternatively we might accept lesser service at a lower price, provided the agravation is’t too great. And dominion should still get a cut.

    So far, you have not said how I will see a difference on my bill. Granted, the difference might be submerged by higher fuel costs and the distributed costs of new facilities that will still be needed, but that just proves my point, that it is trivial over all.

    We simply cannot afford to go whole hog after every trivial idea,especially when Dominion is going to turn around and use them against us when we ome to the major problems.

    Wake up and smell the roses. You are being suckered.

    RH

Leave a Reply