With the high temperatures and rolling electricity
outages California is experiencing, Dateline offers its readers an
opportunity to revisit a Sept. 25, 2003 Q&A with CSUF economics
professor Robert
Michaels, an expert on the electrical industry.
Faculty Q&A
Electricity Woes Continue to Dog Sunshine State
BY PAMELA MCLAREN
With the recent power outages on the East Coast reminding Californians
of the 2001 power crisis, Dateline turned to Robert Michaels, professor
of economics, to find out if the state has learned anything from
the rolling blackouts of two years ago.
Michaels has served as an energy consultant
and authored numerous articles on the electricity and natural gas industries.
He's testified before the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as
the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Q. Briefly, what was the difference
between what occurred on the East Coast and what happened two years
ago in California?
A. Our situation was quite
different from that in the East. The outages we had were controlled
- so-called rolling outages that were for short, predictable periods
of time. In the East it was a complete system failure. Hearings on
the cause of that failure began earlier this month.
In 2001, California had power, but transmission
was inadequate. The connections between the northern half of the state and
the south were too weak. Everyone knew that the crisis was coming. The signs
were all there and everyone knew where the outages were most likely to occur.
Until recently, California has not built any
major new power plants in more than 20 years. As we grew, we became more dependent
on power markets. Hence the need for those transmission lines.
Q. Was deregulation to blame?
A. No. The state's deregulation
law was a political compromise that disregarded the basic economics
of the industry. Deregulation replaces utilities with markets, but
California's problems were inadequate supply, growing demand and
bottlenecked transmission. For its mistakes, California now has a
legacy of high prices, but elsewhere markets are functioning well.
Nationally, the real price of delivered power has fallen nearly 30
percent in the last 10 years, and we cn credit a lot of that to the
market. Other people have choices and are using them - 25 percent
of all the households in Pittsburgh have found better bargains than
their old utility.
Q. Could the situation happen
again?
A. Do the math. In 1975 the U.S. spent $5 billion
on high-voltage transmission. Last year, it was down to $2 billion
while electrical use has doubled. I'm not very hopeful because no
one in Washington really wants to face the big issue.
State governments authorize the construction
of new lines and the paths they can take. They have no desire to transfer that
control to Washington despite change in the industry. The Federal Power Act
of 1935 left authority to that estates, since most utilities at the time were
small, self-contained systems and little power crossed state lines. Now most
of the power that matters does. As we speak, power is arriving here from South
Dakota, Northern Alberta and Baja California.
I prefer local control for those activities
that affect only local interests. But electrical flows between California
and Arizona affect power costs everywhere in the west. A state that blocks
new lines imposes costs on residents of other states. Locals should have a
say over transmission, but all too often they abuse environmental law to protect
their own interests. A nation that has not built any major transmission
since 1995 needs a federal backstop with eminent domain powers. And delay feeds
on delay. The Valley-Rainbow line in San Diego County has just seen its 10th
year of planning and permitting, and over the interim new towns and new protestors
have sprung up in its path.
The federal government controls the siting of
interstate gas pipelines and there have been no comparable problems
in delivering it.
Q. Can this be changed?
A. State electricity regulation in effect allows
governments to tax and subsidize different power users and environmental
interests without the need for legislation. State regulators have
lots of friends in Congress and my bet is that the emerging energy
bill will not make the needed changes. But without those changes,
all the legislation in the world will add very few new wires to the
system.