Nicely written, ma'am. Thank you. I have several questions:
1. “less dispatchable generation?” WTH? Why do we sugar-coat unreliable generation? Adding more words to make it sound less objectionable won't improve its capacity factor.
2. What does “elevated” mean? From 0.0001 to 0.0002 is elevated, but still pretty damn small. Subjective terms mean little. I understand that organizations are wont to place values with such statements for liability purposes, but without context “elevated” has absolutely no meaning at all.
3. In your bar chart, you showed a value for “expected operating reserve requirement.” Is that the value that is actually NEEDED to maintain inertia and thus preclude an Iberian-type outage? If not, how much is needed to keep the system operational?
4. In figure 1, you have the term “MRO” for SPP and Saskatchewan Power. What is “MRO?”
5. You conclude your essay with the statement “[i]nstead of rushing to close down reliable, dispatchable coal and natural gas, MISO needs to plan a generation mix that replaces baseload-for-baseload, like nuclear plants, rather than intermittent sources like wind and solar.” It seems like you, other experts like Bryce, Doomberg, Angwin et al have been saying this for some time now. Why, especially after the fiasco in Spain, aren’t they listening?
6. It is my understanding that RTOs are a separate entity from the generating utilities, but that the RTOs have responsibility for maintaining grid stability. Why can't the RTOs tell the utilities that new capacity must be considered dispatchable? Has the entire system - grid, utilities, private generators - become so dependent on the government teat that unreliability and lunacy must prevail?
Hello Barry, thank you as always for leaving such a thoughtful comment! Let me try to address it one by one.
1. I think in context it is meant literally, so that's my error in usage. The full sentence from the reliability report is: "The retirement of 1,575 MW of natural gas and coal-fired generation since last summer, combined with a reduction in net firm capacity transfers due to some capacity outside the MISO market opting out of the MISO planning resource auction, is contributing to less dispatchable generation in MISO."
2. 'Elevated' in the NERC context is one of their three categories of risk, meaning "Potential for insufficient operating reserves in above-normal conditions." Page 10 documents their model criteria.
3. The risk bar chart is from MISO's analysis on Page 16. I'm not sure how they did the math on that and it doesn't specify the reserve margin.
4. That stands for Midwest Reliability Organization! The NERC report pairs it up as MRO-SaskPower and MRO-SPP usually, so I followed convention because I was moving fast. :)
5. First, I'm flattered to be listed among Bryce, Doomberg, and Ms. Angwin. Second, I think Spain could really be a tipping point in the discussion for normal people that might've heard about it. It's becoming really transparent that wind and solar (I'm sorry, it's just the "management of renewables") can't hack it. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dont-blame-renewables-spains-power-outage-bousso-2025-04-30/
6. You've hit a really, really tricky problem for this weird, ostensibly market-based (but not really) system that we have. RTOs operate the electricity markets and transmission. Individual utilities decide what to build, in part based on what state regulations there are. States oversee resource adequacy, integrated resource planning, and generation mix decisions (and can make really dumb decisions like 100% clean electricity mandates that drive decisions rather than reality). RTOs have to try to plan to meet reliability criteria set out by NERC and FERC.
Like I replied to Andy, once everyone is responsible for grid reliability, no one is.
Thank you very much, ma'am. a couple of observations - first, it was MISO that used the language "less dispatchable generation." regardless of context, calling unreliable power "less dispatchable" is akin to putting lipstick on the pig! No other way to say it!
Second, are you aware of Puerto Rico's problems. Attached article from Power Magazine adds fuel to the shitstorm that has become failing grids! Power says the issue is due to poor maintenance.
Please keep up your good work! Thanks again for the responses.
This song is being sung more regularly, that's for sure, but it is also apparent that the grid operators are not listening. my guess is they don't listen because they don't get paid to listen.
Alas, my concern is we will need to have at least 3 major outages in the coming years, with 2 in the same grid system, before anybody with any authority starts to respond. Elsewise, I expect to see crowds with pitchforks in their hands outside the grid regulators offices.
indeed you are, as are Doomberg, Robert Bryce, Tuco's Child and the Energy badBoys. but if subsidies still flow for wind/solar and politicians benefit from those who receive subsidies, I think they will literally have to fear for their own lives after a blackout before changing anything.
if the current congress can kill the subsidies, that is a start that both saves money and forces the politicians to start to listen to the engineers and physicists again, but if not, you are right, you need a generator!
That's what's been keeping me busy this week! Hoping for better compromises on reconciliation and IRA subsidies than we've been hearing in the news...
Cynically, I'm certain every politician of note has a generator and isn't worried about grid reliability when it comes to their own families. But I sure am!!
Thank you, the more truth we can get out there the sooner the consumers will see their error. Renewables, as they call them, are not and this should never have gone to this degree of scale. We've wasted Trillions and could have some nice Nuclear Reactors making cheap energy.
Nicely written, ma'am. Thank you. I have several questions:
1. “less dispatchable generation?” WTH? Why do we sugar-coat unreliable generation? Adding more words to make it sound less objectionable won't improve its capacity factor.
2. What does “elevated” mean? From 0.0001 to 0.0002 is elevated, but still pretty damn small. Subjective terms mean little. I understand that organizations are wont to place values with such statements for liability purposes, but without context “elevated” has absolutely no meaning at all.
3. In your bar chart, you showed a value for “expected operating reserve requirement.” Is that the value that is actually NEEDED to maintain inertia and thus preclude an Iberian-type outage? If not, how much is needed to keep the system operational?
4. In figure 1, you have the term “MRO” for SPP and Saskatchewan Power. What is “MRO?”
5. You conclude your essay with the statement “[i]nstead of rushing to close down reliable, dispatchable coal and natural gas, MISO needs to plan a generation mix that replaces baseload-for-baseload, like nuclear plants, rather than intermittent sources like wind and solar.” It seems like you, other experts like Bryce, Doomberg, Angwin et al have been saying this for some time now. Why, especially after the fiasco in Spain, aren’t they listening?
6. It is my understanding that RTOs are a separate entity from the generating utilities, but that the RTOs have responsibility for maintaining grid stability. Why can't the RTOs tell the utilities that new capacity must be considered dispatchable? Has the entire system - grid, utilities, private generators - become so dependent on the government teat that unreliability and lunacy must prevail?
Hello Barry, thank you as always for leaving such a thoughtful comment! Let me try to address it one by one.
1. I think in context it is meant literally, so that's my error in usage. The full sentence from the reliability report is: "The retirement of 1,575 MW of natural gas and coal-fired generation since last summer, combined with a reduction in net firm capacity transfers due to some capacity outside the MISO market opting out of the MISO planning resource auction, is contributing to less dispatchable generation in MISO."
2. 'Elevated' in the NERC context is one of their three categories of risk, meaning "Potential for insufficient operating reserves in above-normal conditions." Page 10 documents their model criteria.
3. The risk bar chart is from MISO's analysis on Page 16. I'm not sure how they did the math on that and it doesn't specify the reserve margin.
4. That stands for Midwest Reliability Organization! The NERC report pairs it up as MRO-SaskPower and MRO-SPP usually, so I followed convention because I was moving fast. :)
5. First, I'm flattered to be listed among Bryce, Doomberg, and Ms. Angwin. Second, I think Spain could really be a tipping point in the discussion for normal people that might've heard about it. It's becoming really transparent that wind and solar (I'm sorry, it's just the "management of renewables") can't hack it. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dont-blame-renewables-spains-power-outage-bousso-2025-04-30/
6. You've hit a really, really tricky problem for this weird, ostensibly market-based (but not really) system that we have. RTOs operate the electricity markets and transmission. Individual utilities decide what to build, in part based on what state regulations there are. States oversee resource adequacy, integrated resource planning, and generation mix decisions (and can make really dumb decisions like 100% clean electricity mandates that drive decisions rather than reality). RTOs have to try to plan to meet reliability criteria set out by NERC and FERC.
Like I replied to Andy, once everyone is responsible for grid reliability, no one is.
Thank you very much, ma'am. a couple of observations - first, it was MISO that used the language "less dispatchable generation." regardless of context, calling unreliable power "less dispatchable" is akin to putting lipstick on the pig! No other way to say it!
Second, are you aware of Puerto Rico's problems. Attached article from Power Magazine adds fuel to the shitstorm that has become failing grids! Power says the issue is due to poor maintenance.
Please keep up your good work! Thanks again for the responses.
This article, right? https://www.powermag.com/doe-orders-fossil-units-online-after-puerto-rico-blackouts-citing-dispatchable-capacity-need/
That's alarming! I hope that exercising the DOE's emergency powers will help their grid, as seems to be the hope.
Thank you for being an appreciative audience! :)
yep, that's the article.
This song is being sung more regularly, that's for sure, but it is also apparent that the grid operators are not listening. my guess is they don't listen because they don't get paid to listen.
Alas, my concern is we will need to have at least 3 major outages in the coming years, with 2 in the same grid system, before anybody with any authority starts to respond. Elsewise, I expect to see crowds with pitchforks in their hands outside the grid regulators offices.
If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible... I certainly hope it takes less than that, though! We're beating the drum pretty loudly over here.
indeed you are, as are Doomberg, Robert Bryce, Tuco's Child and the Energy badBoys. but if subsidies still flow for wind/solar and politicians benefit from those who receive subsidies, I think they will literally have to fear for their own lives after a blackout before changing anything.
if the current congress can kill the subsidies, that is a start that both saves money and forces the politicians to start to listen to the engineers and physicists again, but if not, you are right, you need a generator!
That's what's been keeping me busy this week! Hoping for better compromises on reconciliation and IRA subsidies than we've been hearing in the news...
Cynically, I'm certain every politician of note has a generator and isn't worried about grid reliability when it comes to their own families. But I sure am!!
Thank you, the more truth we can get out there the sooner the consumers will see their error. Renewables, as they call them, are not and this should never have gone to this degree of scale. We've wasted Trillions and could have some nice Nuclear Reactors making cheap energy.