Power Privatisation

[Valipac]

:x The NSW Government in Australia has decided to Privatise the Electricity Industry. While 89% of the state is against it. It has already gone to parliament and been defeated but the premier had a new plan all along. The original Plan was they could privatise the Retails and Generators. The New plan is they can privatise the Retails, portential Electricity building sites and the Electricity that is generated from the generators. They don't have bring this legislation to parliament because it doesn't actully have the words

"generator privatisation".

They say prices won't go up, Jobs won't be lost, Jobs won't go off shore. Well, I can tell you that jobs will go off shore, Prices will go up and Jobs will be lost. Discuss, Thoughts

Take part in the poll to...

Prices will go down, due to what always happens when you introduce competition into a marketplace. Jobs won't be lost, as why would you shut down jobs that you had just purchased? What will happen is the energy industry in Australia will become much more efficient, as the UK experienced in a number of industries during the Thatcher administration.

[Gift-of-god]

Prices will go down, due to what always happens when you introduce competition into a marketplace. Jobs won't be lost, as why would you shut down jobs that you had just purchased? What will happen is the energy industry in Australia will become much more efficient, as the UK experienced in a number of industries during the Thatcher administration.

The International Energy Agency has found a consistent pattern of cheaper power under publicly owned utilities – 16 to 20 percent cheaper on average than private utilities.

http://cupe.ca/PrivatizationUtilities/A ... #solutions

Apparently, objective analysis suggests prices will probably increase.

[Zavizar]

I'm of the opinion that anything outside of essential government services(i.e. police, military, etc.)that can be privatised, should be.

I respectfully disagree. I'm not going to get into a big rant about why I disagree because I'll inevitably write 10 pages of why things shouldn't go down that route.

[Andaluciae]

This is your unsupported opinion. It would help if you had some sort of evidence that showed that this is a problem in public utilities.

It's a systemic problem throughout government. Subject matter and territorial jurisdiction disputes shoot through the government. A recent example being the Governor of Ohio wants to take the Performance Audit function away from the Auditor of State, almost entirely because the AOS is headed by someone who is a different party from him.

This does not answer my question as to why they didn't just pick up a phone and make sure that the other electrical companies received the information that the software was supposed to pass on. I don't think that can be attributed to a software problem. It can, however, be explained by the simple fact that they were under no obligation to follow up.

And I repeat:

"The Task Force also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late, because of a software bug in General Electric Energy's Unix-based XA/21 energy management system"

It wasn't the job of the software to alert the other grids, rather, the purpose of the software was to alert the technicians to the problem. The software malfunctioned and did not alert the technicians to the problem in the first place, so unless you're expecting some techs to be psychically in tune with the power grid, then they're not going to know there's a problem to alert neighboring grids about.

In other words, it happens often enough that they should have had a maintenance shedule that takes that into account. But they didn't. And no one knew about it until it was too late, because no one was regulating them.

You can't just magically command the maintenance to be done, if more pressing issues develop. Schedules are adjusted as events change.

[Andaluciae]

http://cupe.ca/PrivatizationUtilities/ART3f719b0a8bd00#solutions

Apparently, objective analysis suggests prices will probably increase.

That's from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. What the heck do you think they'd want? More privatization? I severely doubt that.

[Andaluciae]

I'll quote the entire wiki section, with bolded emphasis

The Task Force also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late, because of a software bug in General Electric Energy's Unix-based XA/21 energy management system that prevented alarms from showing on their control system.[ This alarm system stalled because of a race condition bug. After the alarm system failed silently without being noticed by the operators, unprocessed events (that had to be checked for an alarm) started to queue up and the primary server failed within 30 minutes. Then all applications (including the stalled alarm system) were automatically transferred to the backup server, which also failed due to the same reason as the primary one. After this time (14:54), all applications on these two servers stopped working. Another effect of the failing servers was that the screen refresh rate of the operators' computer consoles slowed down from 1–3 seconds to 59 seconds per screen.

Their control systems failed from what it would be reasonable to view as an internal IT issue.

[Ashmoria]

for privitization of utilities to work you need to have a very strong regulatory system and be able to rely on the good character of the people involved.

its a big risk

see "enron"

No, no, no. Enron was was a child of deregulation, not privatization.

so?

my point is that when you go from govt owned to privatized you have to both regulate heavily and rely on the company you sell it to to do the right thing by the public

enron is an excellent example of how a poorly regulated industry can go very wrong.

[Gift-of-god]

....

This does not answer my question as to why they didn't just pick up a phone and make sure that the other electrical companies received the information that the software was supposed to pass on. I don't think that can be attributed to a software problem. It can, however, be explained by the simple fact that they were under no obligation to follow up.

And I repeat:

"The Task Force also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late, because of a software bug in General Electric Energy's Unix-based XA/21 energy management system"

It wasn't the job of the software to alert the other grids, rather, the purpose of the software was to alert the technicians to the problem. The software malfunctioned and did not alert the technicians to the problem in the first place, so unless you're expecting some techs to be psychically in tune with the power grid, then they're not going to know there's a problem to alert neighboring grids about.

I don't think the technicians need to psychically in tune with a coal burning electrical plant to realise that the entire plant has shut down. The lack of coal burning or electricity generation should be enough of a hint.

In other words, it happens often enough that they should have had a maintenance shedule that takes that into account. But they didn't. And no one knew about it until it was too late, because no one was regulating them.

You can't just magically command the maintenance to be done, if more pressing issues develop. Schedules are adjusted as events change.

If you know in advance that pressing issues will develop, which was obviously the case here as we know that hurricane season occurs on a regular basis, then you should organise so that both get done. We don't just ignore half the problems in the hope that nothing bad happens.

[Gift-of-god]

http://cupe.ca/PrivatizationUtilities/ART3f719b0a8bd00#solutions

Apparently, objective analysis suggests prices will probably increase.

That's from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. What the heck do you think they'd want? More privatization? I severely doubt that.

Just because the have an ideological position different from yours do not mean they are automatically worng. Show me that there evidence is wrong.

[Andaluciae]

so?

my point is that when you go from govt owned to privatized you have to both regulate heavily and rely on the company you sell it to to do the right thing by the public

enron is an excellent example of how a poorly regulated industry can go very wrong.

Except it wasn't in the delivery of utilities that Enron went wrong, it was in financial accounting and internal controls that Enron went wrong.

[Andaluciae]

Just because the have an ideological position different from yours do not mean they are automatically worng. Show me that there evidence is wrong.

Perhaps you missed my objection:

They are the Canadian Public Employees Union. They have an extremely vested financial interest in this matter on the behalf of their employees. It's like if someone were to provide the oil companies as a source for why greenhouse emissions aren't bad for the environment.

[Ashmoria]

for privitization of utilities to work you need to have a very strong regulatory system and be able to rely on the good character of the people involved.

Good character and private enterprise do not go together.

Privatising power will lead to more black-outs, because companies have to utilise their entire capacity in order to make profit. This means there's less excess capacity to negate calamities, which means that small problems, which could be negated with excess capacuty will cause failures. A government can afford to have excess capacity, because it doesn't have to compete for profit.

yeah

you have to ask yourself "where does the profit to the new company come from?"

they could raise rates, offer less customer service, hire fewer workers, pay the workers less, or a combination of all of those.

in a government utility the head of the utility is going to be paid as a civil servant...whatever the highest rate might be for such a job in australia. in a private company worth many millions of dollars with millions of dollars in revenues and thousands of employees, the CEO is going to demand far more money. as will all the new "vice presidents". thats a bunch of money that needs to be made up.

the new company is beholden to its share holders who want PROFITS. the more the better. those who run the company will be on the constant lookout for ways to help the bottom line even if its bad for the customer (and sometimes even if its bad for the company as long as the day of reckoning will be after the CEO has left the company). he temptation to do the wrong thing is verrry strong. it requires strick and vigilant regulation to keep the same standard of service.

of course i dont live in NSW so maybe the managers of the eletrical utility are lazy and inept. they have litle motive to work harder and do better. they get paid the same amount whether you have steady electicity or not.

[Ashmoria]

so?

my point is that when you go from govt owned to privatized you have to both regulate heavily and rely on the company you sell it to to do the right thing by the public

enron is an excellent example of how a poorly regulated industry can go very wrong.

Except it wasn't in the delivery of utilities that Enron went wrong, it was in financial accounting and internal controls that Enron went wrong.

im missing your point.

and laughing while old ladies are sweltering without electricity in california is bad no matter what side of things are going wrong.

[Gift-of-god]

Just because the have an ideological position different from yours do not mean they are automatically worng. Show me that there evidence is wrong.

Perhaps you missed my objection:

They are the Canadian Public Employees Union. They have an extremely vested financial interest in this matter on the behalf of their employees. It's like if someone were to provide the oil companies as a source for why greenhouse emissions aren't bad for the environment.

The findings actually come from the International Energy Agency.

[Andaluciae]

I don't think the technicians need to psychically in tune with a coal burning electrical plant to realise that the entire plant has shut down. The lack of coal burning or electricity generation should be enough of a hint.

And I repeat

The Task Force also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late, because of a software bug in General Electric Energy's Unix-based XA/21 energy management system[11] that prevented alarms from showing on their control system.[12] This alarm system stalled because of a race condition bug.[13] After the alarm system failed silently without being noticed by the operators, unprocessed events (that had to be checked for an alarm) started to queue up and the primary server failed within 30 minutes. Then all applications (including the stalled alarm system) were automatically transferred to the backup server, which also failed due to the same reason as the primary one. After this time (14:54), all applications on these two servers stopped working. Another effect of the failing servers was that the screen refresh rate of the operators' computer consoles slowed down from 1–3 seconds to 59 seconds per screen.[14]

They didn't know about the exterior problem, because of the interior IT problem. It's really not that hard to grasp.

If you know in advance that pressing issues will develop, which was obviously the case here as we know that hurricane season occurs on a regular basis, then you should organise so that both get done. We don't just ignore half the problems in the hope that nothing bad happens.

When an emergency occurs in the midst of a project, you address the emergency, and then return to the project after the fact, which First Energy was doing. They were not in line with their initial schedule, because you cannot build emergencies into your schedule--period. You can only respond to them as they happen.

Paraphrased from the PMBOK Guide, 4th Edition. PMI.

Even if they had greater maintenance capacity, they would have been knocked off of their initial schedule by the repairs crews had to go down and do because fewer resources than initially planned would have been available, unless you're proposing they should keep staff in a "Jobs Bank" type of situation, which is ludicrous.

You've clearly never been a project manager or team lead, have you?

[Andaluciae]

im missing your point.

The problem with Enron was they were violating the law, and new laws wouldn't change that fact.

[Andaluciae]

The findings actually come from the International Energy Agency.

A finding, I might add, which they don't reference.

[Gift-of-god]

They didn't know about the exterior problem, because of the interior IT problem. It's really not that hard to grasp.

You seem to be unclear. A whole plant shut down. No other electrical company was told about this. Even if all the computers shut down because of that bug, it would still have been possible for a technician or plant foreman to simply lift a phone and call those who needed to know. Why didn't they? The bug does not expalin why idle technicians standing beside idle machinery didn't contact the people who should have seen it on their computers if it wasn't for the bug.

If you know in advance that pressing issues will develop, which was obviously the case here as we know that hurricane season occurs on a regular basis, then you should organise so that both get done. We don't just ignore half the problems in the hope that nothing bad happens.

When an emergency occurs in the midst of a project, you address the emergency, and then return to the project after the fact, which First Energy was doing. They were not in line with their initial schedule, because you cannot build emergencies into your schedule--period. You can only respond to them as they happen.

Paraphrased from the PMBOK Guide, 4th Edition. PMI.

Even if they had greater maintenance capacity, they would have been knocked off of their initial schedule by the repairs crews had to go down and do because fewer resources than initially planned would have been available, unless you're proposing they should keep staff in a "Jobs Bank" type of situation, which is ludicrous.

You've clearly never been a project manager or team lead, have you?

I really don't like PMing, so I don't do it as often as I should. I usually delegate the PM duties to others in the team. When an emergency occurs that threatens my critical path, you bet your ass I get more manpower. They could have farmed it out to a subcontractor, or many other options.

[Gift-of-god]

The findings actually come from the International Energy Agency.

A finding, I might add, which they don't reference.

Well, it's still more evidence than the fellow/lady that claimed prices would inevitably go down.

[Andaluciae]

You seem to be unclear. A whole plant shut down. No other electrical company was told about this. Even if all the computers shut down because of that bug, it would still have been possible for a technician or plant foreman to simply lift a phone and call those who needed to know. Why didn't they? The bug does not expalin why idle technicians standing beside idle machinery didn't contact the people who should have seen it on their computers if it wasn't for the bug.

Because, from what I can tell, with the exception of the nuclear plants, the generation capacity didn't shut down until well after the grid had been hit by the first 2 GW flow East, and then it was too late.

I really don't like PMing, so I don't do it as often as I should. I usually delegate the PM duties to others in the team. When an emergency occurs that threatens my critical path, you bet your ass I get more manpower. They could have farmed it out to a subcontractor, or many other options.

It wasn't viewed as critical because it was routine maintenance, like pushing your car to 3300 miles before the oil change rather than 3000.

[Andaluciae]

Well, it's still more evidence than the fellow/lady that claimed prices would inevitably go down.

I'd suspect in the long term, they would. In the short term, there would likely be price hikes and shortages, which is why if you're going to privatize a utility, you should do it slowly, patiently and maintain a competitive public power supplier for a while.

[Gift-of-god]

You seem to be unclear. A whole plant shut down. No other electrical company was told about this. Even if all the computers shut down because of that bug, it would still have been possible for a technician or plant foreman to simply lift a phone and call those who needed to know. Why didn't they? The bug does not expalin why idle technicians standing beside idle machinery didn't contact the people who should have seen it on their computers if it wasn't for the bug.

Because, from what I can tell, with the exception of the nuclear plants, the generation capacity didn't shut down until well after the grid had been hit by the first 2 GW flow East, and then it was too late.

I don't understand how this makes it impossible for a technician to call his or her superior and say 'the plant seems to have shut down'.

I really don't like PMing, so I don't do it as often as I should. I usually delegate the PM duties to others in the team. When an emergency occurs that threatens my critical path, you bet your ass I get more manpower. They could have farmed it out to a subcontractor, or many other options.

It wasn't viewed as critical because it was routine maintenance, like pushing your car to 3300 miles before the oil change rather than 3000.

I wasn't talking about what was critical. I was talking about critical path.

[NmyJJGvf]

Privatising power will lead to more black-outs, because companies have to utilise their entire capacity in order to make profit. This means there's less excess capacity to negate calamities, which means that small problems, which could be negated with excess capacuty will cause failures. A government can afford to have excess capacity, because it doesn't have to compete for profit.

False, and I can make a very similar argument as to why a government provided service would not be able to have any excess capacity for calamities. After all, a government is operating with the funds provided by its taxpayers, and in being the responsible fiscal stewards of those taxpayers, and beholden to their democratic wishes, it must also minimize the costs it incurs. As a result, taxpayers will seek to minimize their tax expenditures and the government will not be able to maintain the excess capacity.

You have a point, up to a point. Excess capacity is cheaper to maintain for a government than for companies, because each company would have to have excess capacity, even when other companies have excess capacity in the same region, while the government needs less excess to achieve the same coverage.

depends, power companies sell electricity to each other all the time. As long as that's the case they can easily back each other up.

According to what I've read, they would have had to report the shutdown that occurred before the blackout, which would have allowed other companies to provide the electricity. They would have had independent inspectors checking the transmission lines and would have forced First Energy to maintain them as they should have.

From what I can recall, First Energy had systems in place to alert the rest of the grid about the shutdown, but the software that they, and virtually every other major electricity provider in the northeast, used had a fatal flaw that failed to compensate.

Further, as I've already referenced, First Energy would have been able to maintain clean lines, but their maintenance staff was behind schedule due to schedule delays incurred when First Energy crews were on loan in the South helping to clean up after a hurricane. Line inspections would only have told them what they already knew--that they had line space that was not clean, and the five year schedule of maintenance had fallen off as a result of emergencies they were required to respond to elsewhere. I fail to see how privatization would cause that.

You work for a living, right? So you know you have to follow up on any important information you send out, just to make sure the other person gets it and the project can move forward. So, why didn't anyone pick up the phone and call the other power companies? Because they had no obligation to. Why did they have no obligation? Because of deregulation.

I highly doubt that emergency aid to other areas was such a problem, as by their very nature, emergencies don't come up that often. If they are coming up often enough that they can affect a schedule that badly, then they should have organised their schedule to accomodate it. Or hired more labour. But all those 'campaign contributions' must have already cut into the bottom line.

campaign contributions are a problem with the political model, not privatization or deregulation. Without addressing problems with buying politcal favor, regulation would just be giving one company an advantage in the industry.

[Andaluciae]

I don't understand how this makes it impossible for a technician to call his or her superior and say 'the plant seems to have shut down'.

The plants didn't shut down until after the problem had already gone beyond the point of successfully saving the grid. Had the plants shut down before that point, though, it's unlikely it would have changed anything because the control room in Akron was the primary contact point with the grid administrators in other states, and the control room had, essentially, collapsed.

I wasn't talking about what was critical. I was talking about critical path.

Neither was I.

I was responding to your "They could have farmed it out to a subcontractor, or many other options" part, and merely unconsciously lifted the word critical from your sentence.

[James Bluntus]

keep posting!!