US/Canadian blackouts 'could have been avoided'
Blackouts in the US that have left 50 million people without power would probably have been avoided had delayed reliability legislation been passed several years ago, according to the CEO and president of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), Michehl Gent.
Gent’s agency is ultimately responsible for preventing these blackouts – NERC was formed in 1965 following a widespread power outage in the northeast – and Gent says he is personally embarrassed and upset by the disaster. He has been campaigning for five years for a federal mandate that would see NERC transformed into the North American Electric Reliability Organisation (NAERO) and would give it powers to enforce its reliability rules across the US. The legislation promoting this is presently with Congress, as part of the Energy Bill.
The cause of the outage, which saw more than 100 power plants tripping out of the system, is yet to be determined. NERC is assembling a task force of industry experts, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, FERC and the Department of Energy, to investigate the matter, although it is expected to be several months before the exact details of the cascading system failure are known.
According to New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former US secretary of energy: “[The US has] a third world grid that needs to be modernised – that is antiquated."
But Gent refuted these comments, saying: “We have the finest grid in the world. But what is needed is more investigation into digital tools which will allow us to utilise it better.”
According to the chief executive officer of consultants R. J Rudden Associates, Richard Rudden, there is “no clear, coordinated set of guidelines to govern the development and operation of the nation’s transmission grid. The cascading events of August 14th are not simply a regional anomaly, but underscore a potentially broader industry problem, and the need for national consensus.”
A recent report released by Rudden Associates states that electric utilities and transmission owners should be spending about $63 billion for distribution improvements, and about $25 billion for transmission improvements, over the next five years. These 2002-2005 spending requirements average out to be about $13.6 billion and $5.3 billion a year, respectively, for 2002-2005.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
AI governance rules coming soon, says CFTC chair
Selig doesn’t want to stifle innovation, but says trading or advice algos will need guardrails
For Esma the supervisor, people power will be prime
Industry hopes to avoid people risk during transition, with help from national authorities
Basel III endgame: overall relief hides winners and losers
G-Sibs gain from surcharge reform while AOCI hits regional banks
One thing missing from US Basel III proposal: a deadline
Without a deadline, risk teams will struggle to secure resources to begin implementation projects
In simplifying credit risk models, EBA could compound capital costs
Skipping hard yards of internal ratings-based approach might trip higher capital charges and implementation costs
Change fatigue could dim EBA’s credit risk simplicity drive
Revisions may be kept to a minimum as short-term implementation burden weighs on banks
Foreign banks can swerve US Basel op risk capital charges
New proposal offers category III and IV banks op-out from regime, but intragroup trades penalised
BoE’s Bailey expects global consensus on FRTB internal models
Isda AGM: UK is reviewing proposals from US and EU regulators before finalising its IMA rules