Gentleman, you hold strong opinions and you state them authoritatively,
so I surmise that you have done your own independent research into this
matter and have reached your conclusions independent of the popular
media. As a utility manager with two major midwestern electric utilities
over the past 2 decades--albeit primarily in the nuclear power side of
the business--and having served on the Minnesota AFL-CIO Energy and
Environment committee during the mid-1980's, I have had more than
passing involvement with this issue. I have worked with utility groups,
labor groups, and elected and non-elected government personnel at both
the state and federal levels, in numerous venues. Here is my
perspective:
1) Utilities had a great incentive to build new generation
throughout the 1970's and 1980's. The rate formulae in almost all
jurisdictions provided financial benefits associated with bringing new
plants on line.
2) At the core of the staff and management of most electric
utilities was a great deal of enthusiasm, talent and expertise with
respect to design and construction of power plants. Career paths for
most engineers and managers were built around the notion of continuous
growth and an ongoing construction program.
3) The regulated utility structure features a defined service
territory that means the only way for a utility to "grow the
business"--aside from a merger--is through economic development (and
associated load growth) in its service territory. That is why most
utilities added a non-regulated "community development" subsidiary, to
encourage new commerce and industry in its captive service territory.
4) The utilities, along with industry and government research
groups, did a great deal of study on population growth and movement,
along with economic growth studies. These studies obviously required
some assumptions, but they consistently (and correctly) predicted
sustained load growth into the foreseeable future. Based on these
studies and 1) through 3) above, the utilities aggressively and
confidently proceeded with their design and construction programs.
5) When environmental protection and energy conservation moved from
the fringe to the center in the late 1970's, utilities were required to
develop conservation programs which would provide incentives for
customers to reduce demand or "smooth" it out, i.e., "peak-shaving," to
accomplish 2 things: conserve the raw materials required for generating
power, and mitigate the environmental effects of increased power
generation. These are both laudable objectives which garnered
tremendous public support, as they should, but they were near suicidal
moves for the utilities with respect to business growth. Nobody in
their right mind in the utility business wanted to curtail the
construction programs, but we had no choice. Minnesota Governor Al
Quie's environmental department head told me directly, in plain terms,
"Our position is that there will be no more power plants built in
Minnesota."
The policy makers showed us how our load growth projections would be
completely negated by conservation efforts, and any emerging need would
be met by purchasing power from areas with "over-built" generation such
as Illinois. And they were right --for a while. And so numerous plant
sites which had already been purchased sat idle, while the preliminary
designs for the facilities went in file drawers and vaults and gathered
dust, and the regulated utilities saw a vast exodus of talent and
experience from their engineering ranks.
And with deregulation, which was a congressional brain child, not the
utilities--the economics of power plant construction are completely
reversed. No longer can the cost of the plant be rolled into the "rate
base." Genco's want to stretch out the life of existing plants as far
as they can, and invest the minimum in maintenance to maintain
operability. This will not increase the reliability of the nation's
power supply over the next few decades.
Hind sight is 20/20, and the public and its elected and non-elected
representatives would certainly rather blame the utilities than blame
themselves for buying into the attractive dream that the nation had all
the power plants it would ever need. But power plants wear out, and
people keep finding more uses for electricity--such handy stuff--like
powering up this incredible network of computers we are beginning to
take for granted. And many of us who--from the inside--watched the
battle being taken by bureaucrats, greenies, media "experts," and
celebrities, are nevertheless still working very hard to keep your
lights on, your computer humming, your hospitals, traffic lights, police
stations, banks and brokerages and malls, and yes, even your A/C--should
you choose to use it--in business 24 hours per day 7 days per week.
Unlike my friends in China and Haiti who receive 2 hours of power in
their homes each evening, WHEN every thing is working.
Ron, (Asbestos?) thanks for responding off line. I love this VAC list,
but those who use it as a chat room are going to kill it eventually.
John
