This Electricity Market Change Could Cost Texans Billions and Pollute the Air

Categories: Biz

butt plug.jpg
Peter Ryan
Last week, Governor Rick Perry's chief of staff Brandy Marty -- his newest appointee to the Public Utility Commission -- broke the deadlock between commissioners Donna Nelson and Ken Anderson over just how much intervention the electricity market needs right now. Both Nelson and Marty signaled their interest Friday in a "mandatory" reserve margin, or a set amount of generation capacity in the state. It wasn't made clear exactly how that margin would be enforced.

Nevertheless, analysts believe this is the long-expected first step toward a capacity market, a very un-free-market system in which load (that's you and me) subsidizes the operation and construction of power plants.

The differences between the two sound arcane, even semantical, and they could be. But if the financial services firm Barclays is right, the consequences will be made real to every Texan each time we get an electric bill. The projected cost to ratepayers has been pegged anywhere from a billion dollars to $5 billion per year. The devil will be in the details if and when it's hashed out.

Unfair Park reached out to commissioner Anderson, the odd man out here, and got him to expound on why he thinks "corporate welfare" is a bad deal for Texas.

At the root of his belief is a questioning of the entire premise: That the state is barreling toward electricity shortfalls and rolling outages. The belief is based on projections calculated by electrical grid-manager ERCOT, showing a thinning margin of safety between available electricity and consumer demand. When the latter outstrips the former, you get uncontrolled blackouts. But in its calculations, ERCOT often overstates demand and understates capacity. A number of factors, especially energy efficiency, are flat-lining energy consumption. Essentially, we don't know for certain this is a problem that requires an incredibly expensive solution.

"The old link between growth and non-farm employment and other economic activity and load growth has been severed," Anderson said. "[ERCOT] think[s] they have a better model. We won't see results until December."

Any action before then, he said, would be premature and destructive. A capacity market is the nuclear option in a deregulated system like Texas', where money is made and lost on the sale of electricity only. It would be a tacit admission that this system isn't creating reliability. Yet if you look to the last big blackout event in 2011, the lights went out not because we didn't have enough power plants, but because the ones we had did a poor job of weatherizing their equipment and got caught with their pants down in the middle of a cold snap. Even the hellish summer that followed didn't precipitate rolling outages.

Anderson believes that while the current system may not create fat reserve margins, it is efficient. "It encourages generators to keep their fleets well maintained and in service or they suffer financial consequences imposed on them by the market. It also encourages consumers to manage their consumption well."

The billions ratepayers would be forced to cough up, he said, would be better spent on "hardening" the distribution system (sticks and wires) where most outages originate anyway.

That much of the industry is heavily in favor of a capacity market doesn't surprise Anderson. "They want it because it's free money. It's money they don't have to work for. It's basically corporate welfare that's paid for with a giant energy tax on consumers, and i call it that because the cost is completely disconnected from the electricity they actually generate and that customers pay for," he said. "[Customers] are still going to pay for that. [Generators] are still going to expect to be paid for the energy they produce, but they want extra payments because it makes it easier to manage their portfolio.

"They're essentially making their problem the ratepayers' problem by shifting the risk onto ratepayers. The intent of going to a competitive market was to get away from that."

What's worse, if generators get their way, the increase in the cap electricity prices can hit during peak demand -- currently $4,500 per megawatt hour, and possibly double that in the future -- means they get to reap the generous reward of a deregulated system while receiving subsidies that eliminate all the risk. The result would be a summertime electric bill sending ratepayers into fits of spit-flecked apoplexy.

In the case of generators like Dallas-based Luminant, it isn't clear that they could build any new power plants. Under the deregulation bill, no single company can have more than 20 percent of the supply. It's supposed to prevent them from exerting price-distorting influence on the market. The former TXU has 19 percent already. A capacity market would encourage Luminant to keep its aging coal-fired power plants running.

"You'd be keeping older plants in service longer and what you'd see first is a bunch of old stuff coming out of mothballs, which is less efficient, more expensive and dirtier," Anderson said. "The experience in markets that have capacity payments is that it subsidizes older and dirtier plants."

Much about this remains to be decided. Anderson isn't convinced that Marty was unequivocally endorsing a capacity market. But a Barclays analyst reads it as a crucial first step, and a potential investment opportunity, guaranteed not by the vibrancy of the deregulated market, but by you and me.

"This supports our view that Texas is the only power market that supports investment," the analyst wrote.

Send your story tips to the author, Brantley Hargrove.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
scottindallas topcommenter

Conservatives believe in free markets.  You don't have to buy electricity, you're free to choose.  They've been in the dark for 30 years, and you know, misery loves company

Montemalone topcommenter

Uh, isn't this what we had before? Regulated market where customers paid for power plant construction as well as power?

Except now Perry's cockwhores get bigger subsidies and bigger profits?

Plus they got to LBO, pay themselves billions, then end up bankrupt and dump the losses on... us?


The 100 Mile Mirror Project, Arizona desert.  Read about it.  Chaps my **** that the energy lobbyists are in control when we have the largest source of energy available to use that appears every morning in the sky. 

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

Sounds as if it is the co-op model that they are advocating but the only member class is the generating facility owners.

"The billions ratepayers would be forced to cough up, he said, would be better spent on "hardening" the distribution system (sticks and wires) where most outages originate anyway."

Keeping vegetation away from power lines is an operating and maintenance cost.  The PUC should be examining why the distribution companies are not maintaining their ROWs.

Replacing and upgrading power poles and towers is a capital expense.  After all, the power poles (especially wooden ones) and transmission towers do have limited life and they must be replaced.

'Anderson believes that while the current system may not create fat reserve margins, it is efficient. "It encourages generators to keep their fleets well maintained and in service or they suffer financial consequences imposed on them by the market. It also encourages consumers to manage their consumption well." '

No, it doesn't.  The outages due to freezing weather a few years back were due to the power generators not designing for a foreseeable weather event.  Right now, EFH is spending its money on bonds payments, not O&M.

The only parties who have benefited from "de-regulation" are the generators and the middle man providers who have no significant capital at risk.

Finally, the bid - in model for ERCOT's marketplace does not work and it rewards the most expensive generator; and, handsomely rewards the least expensive generator at the expense of the consumer.


So basically we get all the disadvantages of a de-regulated market and a regulated market and privatize all the profits and eliminating the risk?

Sounds to me like the Texas should either re-regulate or start building our own power plants. What benefit do we get from paying for them and then giving them away?

scottindallas topcommenter

@Montemalone The profit margins were capped at 8-10%, reserves for construction to meet demand provided.  Now, they're free to charge what they can get.  You're free to have electricity or not. 


@Montemalone Yes it is. It was called Construction Work in Progress, or CWIP. And it would go something like this: TXU would ask for $10 billion in CWIP to pay for Comanche Peak, knowing the PUC would eventually give them 50% of whatever they asked for and then claim a big victory for on behalf of consumers because they cut the request in half. This is the way that the most expensive power plants in Texas - Comanche Peak and the South Texas Nuclear Project - were able to be finished. And it's what Deregulation has prevented from happening - until now.

scottindallas topcommenter

@jmckee3 Why Wendy Davis doesn't offer an alternative is concerning.  No one is challenging "de-regulation" sic

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault