Comment On The Robert Bryce Series "Juice: Power, Politics, And The Grid"

February 22, 2024 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian 

In a post earlier this week, daughter Jane (just returned from maternity leave) reviewed, and put in an enthusiastic plug, for the new Robert Bryce documentary series titled “Juice: Power, Politics, and the Grid.” Jane even embedded the first episode of the five-part series into the post.

Several commenters offered what seemed to me to be serious criticisms of Bryce’s work. So I thought I owed it to the readers to watch some of Bryce’s series to see who was right. Having now watched a couple of episodes, and some of the rest, I have a few thoughts.

“Deregulation.”

Several commenters point out that Bryce at various points puts the blame for much to most of the decreasing reliability of the grid, and for the Texas blackouts of 2021 in particular, on what he calls “deregulation.” The term is sometimes used without going into detail as to what specific regulatory changes are referred to. The commenters question whether it is fair to make “deregulation” the scapegoat for the resulting problems.

My response is that there has been a great restructuring of the markets for producing and distributing electricity over the past 30 years or so; and that restructuring has been referred to by the people who proposed and implemented it as “deregulation.” I don’t think that it is unfair for Bryce to adopt the terminology that was originally used by the very people who implemented the changes.

However, my own view in this instance is that the term “deregulation” is a somewhat misleading shorthand for what actually occurred. Rather than a simple “deregulation,” what occurred was that one regulatory framework was replaced by another. The new framework had a meaningful “deregulatory” aspect, in that an element of competition has been introduced into the portion of the system where the electricity is produced. However, that change was accompanied by the imposition by regulators of a market structure that is non-sensical and dangerous. This market structure was imposed by the government, rather than being devised by private actors, and in that sense was not “deregulation” at all.

Consider the situation in my own area. Historically, a vertically-integrated utility, Con Edison, owned all aspects of the grid — the power plants, the long-distance transmission system, and the local transmission into each person’s home. In the “deregulation,” Con Edison got out of the business of running the power plants to produce the electricity. Instead, different power producing facilities are owned by different owners, and they bid to government-designated market makers to supply the power. The regulators have set up two markets into which producers can bid: a “day ahead” market, and a “real time” (right this second) market. The lowest price wins. If you want more detail on how these markets work, here is a short primer from something called Resources for the Future.

Whoever came up with this market structure was a complete idiot. On an electrical grid the most valuable thing is reliability of supply. This government-created structure puts no value on reliability of supply, and instead advantages unreliable and useless wind and solar production. Anybody who happens to have electricity to supply right now (i.e., a wind turbine owner when the wind is blowing) can underbid the reliable producer for this minute or hour or day, and force that reliable producer to go idle. And thus we now have the brave new world where on windy days wind producers force all the thermal plants offline, while prices drop near zero (or even become negative at times); and then when the wind is calm the thermal producers can charge exorbitant prices needed to cover their capital costs over a handful of hours of production. Consumer prices soar.

So is this really “deregulation”? It has some aspects of that, particularly that there is competition among different producers to supply the electricity. But a better description would be that it is just a different form of regulation. However, I don’t fault Bryce for using the term first adopted by the designers of this disaster. I think that when Bryce talks about “deregulation,” and blames it for the current and impending problems of grid reliability, he is talking about the same changes in market structure that I have just described.

Consequences of grid failure.

An important theme of Bryce’s documentary is that grid reliability is a big deal, and forfeiting it could have very, very bad consequences for our well-being and our economy. I completely agree with him on that. However, I think there is some serious hyperbole here.

At one point in the first episode, an unidentified female voice says that if the grid in some part of the country failed entirely and went out for an extended period, that could lead to “50 to 60 percent” of the people dying. The woman then lists all the things that would disappear without electricity, from heat to food to water to healthcare.

Well, I’m not saying that it’s pleasant to go without electricity. But after all, humanity existed without electricity for a million or two years, and widespread electricity is a phenomenon of only the last hundred years or so. Even today, one to two billion people in the world completely lack access to electricity, and another billion or two have unreliable electricity that goes off for hours per day. No, half of them don’t just die.

I got a taste for what it is like going without electricity back in 2012, when Hurricane Sandy knocked out the power in my area of Lower Manhattan for a full week in late October and early November. This was just a couple of weeks before the first posts went up on this blog.

Yes, there were some inconveniences. But to be honest, it was more like an adventure than an existential crisis. The natural gas continued to work for cooking, heating and hot water. The water continued to work. (In New York City, the water works by gravity, without need for electricity, up to six floors.). The land line telephone continued to work. Food stores were open, with some obvious things missing, but no one was in danger of starving. Many restaurants were open, with gas stoves and candlelight. The biggest things missing indoors were light (days are short in November) and refrigeration. Outside, the traffic lights and streetlights were out. Cars proceeded slowly. Having no streetlights at night in Manhattan was a very eerie experience. But no, half of us did not die. People who lived in high-rises had to walk up. That’s a good reason not to live in one of those.

This could have become a much bigger problem if the power outage had extended into January, when the temperatures are so cold that people could freeze to death. But frankly, although some would have died had that occurred, the numbers would not have been big. People are way more resourceful than that. In a worst case, all but a few can find somewhere to go with gas or oil heat or a wood fire. Likely some of the elderly or infirm would not make it, which would be a bad thing.

But we should discuss the scope of the issue honestly, and without hyperbole. Loss of much life-saving equipment in hospitals would be important, and could lead to many premature deaths. So could loss of heat in January and February. We currently have a group of completely incompetent and idiotic politicians and bureaucrats working to force everyone to use electricity for heat and cooking and hot water, even as they simultaneously proceed to de-stabilize the grid. That is a huge issue. And yes, it could lead to many deaths (although nothing like 50% of the population). As the grid becomes less stable, sensible people do not alter their lives to be 100% dependent on working electricity. Instead, they put backups in place for when the electricity goes out. If it is possible and relevant to your situation, get a backup diesel generator. Put a hand pump on your well. Use natural gas or oil for heating and hot water.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I join in Jane’s recommendation of Bryce’s documentary. Yes there is some hyperbole, and there is some shorthand use of terminology. But you can’t cover every detail of everything in a time-limited film. Overall, the big points are sound.