People have enough shit to be worried about than to worry about their power ticker going up and down. This is not something we should add as a burden to our citizens.
Next I'm going to hear people wanting to short electricity.
Also applies to net neutrality and health-care btw.
What happens in such situations is electricity ends up being rationed with rolling blackouts. Or, if you manage to produce enough anyway by massive government investment, per capita energy usage skyrockets. The former situation happens in developing countries and the latter in oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia which heavily subsidize electricity costs so it ends up being cheaper to just run the A/C at full blast constantly instead of properly insulating your household.
But most people don’t care about climate change, so maybe that’s the direction things would go.
Texas saw similar temps in late January, 2011, highs around 20°F, lows near zero. That was ten years ago. There weren't widespread outages.
ERCOT's planning excluded that recent history.
Put the responsibility on the generators, not consumers.
Free-market pricing seems wrong, as would per-minute pricing, but something like a 3-window (on-peak, off-peak, standard) time-of-day rate seems more acceptable.
That's a big if. In reality, they won't be adequately informed - they'll be at best adequately disinformed by the marketing departments of the power companies and third parties popping up around variable-pricing schemes. And to the extent exposing the customers to price variability is beneficial for the suppliers, the market has a nice way of removing the previously available options from the choice pool.
There's a spectrum between "let the people decide for themselves" and "the people will predictably decide to do something stupid and then they'll beg to be bailed out, so perhaps let's not offer that option", and I feel this may fall closer to that second end.
Heads you win; tails someone else loses; how much would you like to wager?
So a bunch of people do something obviously stupid - like getting scammed by a tech support call, or get infinite debt on a payday loan, or put a hand in a moving machinery and lose it. Now they're there, scammed, without money, and/or a hand. What are you going to do? Deny them healthcare and basic support? No, we help them anyway, and instead chase scammers, put limits on payday loans, and enforce safety requirements on equipment - we take away the choice of being stupid, because that's more reasonable than being indifferent to the suffering of victims of their own stupidity, for the sake of enforcing a corrective feedback loop.
If a traditional electricity supplier tried to buy all their electricity daily at the spot price and not hedge against any risk, they would quickly go bust. So why is it sensible for consumers to be allowed to do that? Some businesses may buy their energy at wholesale prices through their supplier, say an aluminium smelting factory. But those businesses will have full time traders who are also buying insurance/derivatives to protect against volatility in the market. Consumers should insure themselves against that risk too, by using a more traditional energy supply contract.
> The people signing contracts to buy Texas electricity at wholesale prices were doing so to economize. In some theoretical sense they accepted higher price volatility in exchange for usually lower prices, but in a much more practical sense they wanted the usually lower prices and couldn’t afford the higher price volatility. And then when prices rose they were wiped out.
> But the Griddy stories suggest that there’s something to it. It turns out to be really easy to accidentally engage in risky financial speculation, to somehow make disastrous bets on spot power markets in your monthly utility bill because it’s simple to sign up. If life is a constant series of high-stakes financial gambles anyway, perhaps it is tempting to choose some of your gambles on purpose.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-22/electr...
But I never in my wildest dreams imagined that rates would shoot to 100x normal values for days on end. The very claims of “it’s market driven!” made me think that was impossible - how could any efficient market sustain such prices?
Realizing now that I dodged a bullet.
In the past, one could count on their hands and feet the number of contracts that one would enter into over one's life.
Now? There's so much churn that the act of accepting is more a ritual or formality. One that sadly has the capability to take advantage of a lot of people due to information asymmetry.
More recently - and still IMO OK - maybe you entered into more than 20 contracts in your life, but you were unlikely to have 20 contracts ongoing simultaneously. Today? I don't even know how many contracts or pseudo-contracts I'm involved in, but its in dozens.
That's my biggest reason I started to avoid SaaS and subscriptions as much as I can. Because every service you subscribe to is a relationship you enter, that you now have to manage, keep in mind. These add up quickly.
I remember the Cal ISO rolling blackouts of 2000-2001.