Archive for Global Warming

Five minutes with Xcel’s Dick Kelley

Richard C. Kelly

Dick Kelley, the President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Xcel Energy spoke to the board and invited guests of Western Resource Advocates last Friday.  I was invited as a supporter of WRA.

 

His speech was widely reported in the press because he called for national regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.  The AP story emphasized Kelly’s shift from being an environmental skeptic to calling for national Carbon emissions regulation.  This is a big shift, and a giant step for a utility, but Kelly is not so much of an environmental advocate as he might sound.

 

I had a short conversation with him before dinner.  After we introduced ourselves, I told him I’d been making his life harder recently at the Colorado PUC.  Like anyone who’s been successful in business, he didn’t miss a beat, and told me that it was great, and the more people’s input we had, the better.

 

He said that Xcel had been opposed to Amendment 37 because of the cost of the solar set-aside, a position I’m actually sympathetic with.   After all, is it better to have 1 MW of solar photovoltaics on people’s roofs, or 20 MW of Wind?  When you look at the subsidies needed to get people to install PV (which is an Amendment 37 requirement), we could probably get 20x as much wind energy onto the grid for the same cost.   It’s not that wind cost 1/20 as much as solar, but since the price of electricity from wind is comparable to the price of coal, it does not take much to get a lot of wind, while solar needs to be heavily subsidized.

 

What I really would have liked in A37 was an allocation for Demand Side Management (DSM) and energy efficiency.  If the same incentives could have gotten us 20 MW of wind or 1 MW of solar, it could also have gotten us 40 MW of DSM and energy efficiency.  (none of these numbers are precise… it’s hard to tell what an incentive will accomplish until it is implemented, but we do know that DSM is cheaper than wind is cheaper than solar.)  But energy efficiency was not on the table when A37 was being written… polling data said that adding “energy efficiency” to the bill dropped popular support by so much that we couldn’t have gotten it passed.

 

Dick Kelley also told me that Comanche 3 (a new 750 MW coal plant) would be the last conventional coal plant that Xcel would build.  I told him Comanche 3 would be fine with me, if they’d just shut down Comanche 1 and 2 (a couple old, less efficient plants at the same site.)  That was an option that’s clearly off the table, but he did say Xcel needed to find a way to clean up the emissions of those plants.  I suggested wood chips, like Aquila is doing at their  Clark Generating Station in Canon City.  By co-firing wood and pine needles from necessary forest thinning, Aquila is able to reduce net CO2 emissions, as wel as NOx, SOx, and Mercury.

I mentioned the option of hybridizing concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) with existing coal plants.  He didn’t really understand the concept, and thought I was talking about photovoltaics.  I’m not sure I was able to explain myself well.  Put simply, when heat is available from the sun, it can be used to displace heat from coal (or natural gas) in an existing generator.

Kelly also said he’d like to raise wind to 20-25% of generation, but after that they’d have to see what the effect on reliability of the grid would be.  I brought up the idea of Pumped hydro or CAES.  He didn’t seem familiar with the fact that Colorado’s Big Thompson Project could be adapted for pumped hydro fairly easily.  As he said, new big hydro is not going to happen.  Which is all the more reason for adapting out existing reservoirs for energy storage with pumped hydro.

I was encouraged that he has recognized that Carbon Emissions are a massive problem, and that the utilites, who are the biggest emitters of carbon, are going to have a big part in the solution, but discouraged that he knew so little about several pieces of the solution that have great potential to be quickly viable.

Xcel likes wind, but is not looking at new ways to increase how much they can put on their system… they’ll just go to 20-25% and see what happens.  They’re pursuing IGCC (Internal Gasification Combined Cycle a.ka. “Clean Coal”) with carbon sequestration in a pilot plant, which many environmentalists feel is just a distraction from renewable energy, pointing out that no one has ever done any sort of sequestration on a large scale.  To me, that is an argument for IGCC with Carbon Sequestration, on a small scale: let’s give it a try and see if we can make it work or not.

IGCC is a lot better than one of the other ideas that Kelly brought up in his speech: he thinks that part of the solution will be nuclear power.  Nuclear power is indeed carbon neutral, but it requires diminishing uranium supplies, or the use of breeder reactors which make plutonium, an element which is not only extrememly toxic, but also an excellent material for making nuclear bombs.  We still haven’t figured out what we’re going to do with the waste from our existing reactors… until we do that, I think it’s crazy to look into building more.  And considering the real threat of terrorism, a nuclear reactor or wastepile makes a much better target than a solar array or wind farm.

When it comes to Kelly’s call for national regulation of carbon emissions, it’s a great step in the right direction, but it was a far cry from calling for a carbon tax (which economists think would be the most effective method of carbon regulation.)  Kelly knows global warming is real, and he knows that our politicians are going to do something about it.  By calling for national mandatory regualtion (but not a tax) he’s trying to shape the debate to come out in a way that Xcel will find easier to deal with. 

With a little more education about alternatives such as CSP, and ways to make the grid able to accept more intermentent resources (Time of use pricing, DSM, and energy storage), he may come to realize that Xcel has lots of ways to live in a carbon taxed or carbon limited world.  And he seems willing to listen; so if you get his ear for five minutes, try to make the most of it.

Comments (1)

Down at the Public Utilities Commission

I just testified on Friday in the Colorado Public Utilities Commission rate case for Xcel Energy.  The case has been going on since April, and is in its last stages.  I only recently got involved (Who pays attention to rate case hearings, anyway?)
To be clear, a rate case is not a Least Cost Planning (LCP) process, which is when the regulators decide if the utilities plans to meet future needs of consumers are prudent.  That is, when they decide what sort of generation they need.  This is somewhat relevant because much of the opposition to this rate case is really opposition to the new coal plant being built by Xcel in
Pueblo, Comanche 3.  

Given the reality of global warming (which many people are just now starting to realize is a real and immanent threat), the fact that coal is our most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (not to mention all the other emissions associated with coal), and the fact that the planned life of a coal plant is 50 years, the opposition is understandable.  Unfortunately, this rate case is not the proper forum to oppose construction of new generation.

A rate case, is about how Xcel is allowed to charge for their electricity, and how much they are allowed to charge.  When it comes to how much they are allowed to charge, this is determined by setting an allowable Return on Equity (ROE) for shareholders, as well as a Debt/Equity mix.  Because debt is cheaper for a company to raise, a higher ratio of debt to equity will be cheaper for ratepayers, but the more debt to equity there is, the less stable a company will be, and the higher return both debt holders and equity holders will demand in order to take the risk of owning the debt or stock.

I made three basic arguments. 

  1. In order to avoid perverse incentives, it is best that in any situation, the parties should share risk in proportion to their ability to take action to reduce that risk. 
  2. The return on equity allowed under the settlement agreement was higher than is necessary to induce shareholders to own the stock under current market conditions,
  3. The rate mechanism, as envisioned in the settlement, contained several perverse incentives which would lead to behavior by Xcel that will likely place costs on ratepayers which would likely be prudently avoided if Xcel has an incentive to do so.

The first point about perverse incentives is important mainly for future planning.  If Xcel bears the risk that costs will exceed their projections, they will be much more conservative about their cost projections.  In this case, that means that cost projections will be higher, and take more of the unpredictability of fuel costs into account.  In addition, holding Xcel accountable for unexpected environmental costs will lead them to be much more conservative about their assessments of future environmental costs. This better information both of these effects will lead renewables to be seen in future least cost planning cases much more favorably, because many have zero fuel cost (and hence zero fuel cost risk), while their lower environmental impacts will lead to lower future environmental costs.

Energy efficiency measures, demand side management, time of use pricing, and investments in large scale energy storage, all of which lower fuel costs by reducing or shifting fuel use will also be more likely to be pursued by a company that bears modeling risks, because these measures all reduce risk by reducing fuel use or shifting it to lower cost times.

Widespread adoption of demand side management, time of use pricing, and energy storage also all favor intermittent renewables such as wind and solar by shifting usage to times when these resources are available.

Basically, energy efficiency and renewables are excellent way of addressing both the price and environmental risks that are currently borne by ratepayers for utilities.  Shifting some of these risks to the utility will lead the utility to take more proactive action to address these risks, both through renewables and through other mechanisms we may not yet have thought of.  That is the beauty of incentives rather than mandates: they inspire creative thinking, and usually come up with cheaper and more effective solutions to the same problem.

I’d like to be clear here that I don’t think that Xcel is the problem; I see Xcel as the solution.  What I hope to accomplish is to provide carrots and sticks will induce Xcel to be much more responsive to environmental and energy cost concerns.  With those properly designed incentives, I expect that Xcel will be able to accomplish more than many environmentalists could ever hope to win in mandates.  And Xcel shareholders should be well compensated for the risks of these investments; I want them to be able to do well by doing good. My second point, that the return on equity (ROE) allowed under the settlement agreement hinges on weaknesses on the various methods of calculating appropriate ROE.  ROE is the compensation that shareholders demand and are entitled to for taking on the risks involved in operating a public utility.  These calculations are inherently tricky: the formulae are fairly simple, but actually getting good numbers to put into the calculations can be very tricky.  The essence of the problem is that financial markets, and the formulas are all forward looking.  To really know what ROE is appropriate, we would have to know about future growth and risks of the company.  This information is unknowable, and in practice, the calculations are based on past information, and stock prices.

There were three calculation methods used, two of which depend on estimating the risk premium (Risk premium and Capital Asset Pricing model or CAPM) that shareholders demand in order to hold the stock, and the other (Discounted Cash Flow model, or DCF) of which depends on analyst predictions of future growth rates.  The Risk premium and CAPM use historical market data to derive those risk premiums, and the results of those calculations from those methods led to almost uniformly higher estimates of ROE than the DCF method.  I believe this is because the markets are currently demanding much lower risk premiums than they have in recent years.  These lower risk premiums are partly a function of the market run-up since 2002, and partly a function of the run-up of the late 1990s, which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other market analysts whom I respect.  I bring up Alan Greenspan, the former fed chairman in my testimony, but I also include Richard Russell, Nouriel Roubini, Pimco’s Bill Gross, and Yale’s Robert J. Shiller in that.  I chose Alan Greenspan because he has the most kudos and is most likely a recognizable name.  I note that when Xcel’s witnesses were trying to trash my testimony, they convieniently chose not to mention Greenspan.

 However, if I’d been able to travel a week into the future, I would have probably tried to include Bill Gross’ November Investment Outlook  column in my testimony as an exhibit.  As allways, Bill leaves me in awe with his depth of research and clear reasoning. 

The DCF method is also flawed in its reliance on analyst estimates, since analysts can easily be caught up in the market mood as well, but they are often a much more sober lot, and so based my recommended ROE on the low range of the DCF calculations of other analysts.  If you look at the confidence index graphs at the International Centerfor finance at Yale, you will note that institutional and individual confidence tend to follow the same long term ternds.           

Finally, in reference to the perverse incentives in the Electric Commodity Adjustment (ECA) primarily concern two parts of the ECA: the Baseload Energy Benefit (BLEB) and time of use (TOU) pricing.           

With regard to the BLEB, this is an incentive for Xcel to keep their coal plants running as much as possible, under the assumption that coal is the cheapest form of electricity generation that is dispatchable (i.e. that they can turn on and off at will.)  I have serious problems with a lot of the assumptions that go into the BLEB.  I had problems with the form of the equation they used, given that it was based on annual average prices for natural gas, as opposed to real time prices, but that was a minor point compared to the things which the BLEB left out. Carbon Intensity of various fossil fuels, lb Carbon/MBtu.

Source: Treepower.org           

The BLEB left out of the costs of coal all the environmental costs of its use, thereby giving coal a great incentive than it deserves.  Also, only natural gas an coal were had reference at al.  Xcel’s explanation of this is that only gas and coal are dipatchable, yet part of what they say the BLEB is designed to encourage is improved maintenance of their coal plants to ensure that they are always available.  All forms of generation can benefit from improved maintenance.  Using their logic that the form or generation with the cheapest fuel cost should be incentified, there should clearly be strong incentives for improved maintenance of renewable resources such as wind and solar.            Finally, while wind and solar power are not now dispatchable, with the addition of energy storage such as pumped hydro or CAES, they can be made dispachable.  Incentives for coal will only delay investments which improved the dispatchability of other forms of generation. 

Here are links to my testimony, as well as all the testimony in the case, and the settlement agreement. 

Xcel did me the honor of spending several hours of the hearing trying, with various degrees of success, to tear apart my arguments.  I almost didn’t get any chance at all, but Ratepayers United Colorado’s attorney Gina Hardin managed to get me about 5 minutes to respond to multiple comments from several other witnesses.  Thank you, Gina!

             Here is my take on what they had to say (from my notes.) Frederic Stoffel – Testifying in his former capacity as VP Energy Policy development for Xcel. Stoffel totally misinterpreted my testimony, by saying that he felt that I wanted Xcel to take on all environmental risks, and the price risk of any deviation from projections.  Note that while this blog makes it clear, I’m not sure if he didn’t get it because I was unclear, or because he simply chose to misinterpret what I was saying to make it easier to defend against.  I feel I managed to counter this argument effectively in my five minutes on the stand the next day. 

I did not fare so well at the hands of George Tyson, Xcel VP and Treasurer.  In my analysis of appropriate ROE, I glossed over a major salient point, saying Public Service of Colorado had a “high” bond rating from S&P.  I had gotten this impression reading other testimony in the case, but in fact, PSCo’s senior unsecured debt rating is BBB-, one tiny notch over junk status.  Oops!   This makes a lot of my arguments about risk premiums irrelevant, because a debt downgrade (which might indeed follow if the commission were to assign my recommended ROE of 8.9%) would seriously impinge on PSCo’s ability to operatate, even if shareholders at the moment are not worried about such an event.  (In fact, shareholders shouldn’t be worried about this case, because the realistic chances of this settlement being thrown out are nil.  The main reason we were doing what we were doing is to demonstrate that there is real ratepayer unhappiness, so, when we have a more sympathetic PUC with one or two new appointments from Bill Ritter, who we hope and expect to win the election Tuesday – If you have not voted yet, do it! – then we can go back and appeal this.)   

But Xcel did feel that they needed to counter what I had to say, since for both Tyson and Robert B. Hervert spent much more time attacking my testimony against the settlement than they did on any aspect of the settlement itself.  Considering how little they said about the settlement agreement, I get the feeling that they probably would not have even taken the stand under other circumstances. Hervert is a CFA charterholder, and economic and financial consultant for Xcel.  He took me to task for my conclusions about risk premiums.  His points were basically that he sees no indication that investors are currently asking lower risk premiums, and that analysts are not being swept along with that sort of mood, either.  I really can’t argue with that: it’s impossible to judge if valuations are currently high now because the current outlook really is good, or because people are too exuberant.  All I can say is, “Time will tell.” 

He also took more to task for saying that the VIX is at historically low levels.  If you will note from the graph, it has currently only been this low once before (the index did not exist prior to 1990,) and, he noted that it is currently within “one standard deviation” of its mean.  This is bad analysis, which I would not expect from a Charterholder, and it really gets me steamed because I wasn’t able to dissect his mistake fast enough to pass a good question to Gina Hardin to allow her to challenge it by crossing him. 

(Skip this paragraph if math makes your eyes glaze.)  Hervert’s mathematical sin is that the VIX does not conform even roughly to a normal (or even symmetrical) distribution, and so talking about “standard deviation” in reference to a lopsided distribution such as the VIX really is not relevant.   

Anyway, I wish I’d had time to bring that point up in the few minutes I actually got on the stand.  Not that anyone would have understood it, which is why I stuck to my main points about incentives and Stoffel’s misinterpretation of my testimony. 

I really don’t care that much what ROE Xcel is authorized.  I’m much more concerned about the incentives that they are given. With the right incentives, Xcel would stop trying to build coal plants and instead invest heavily in energy efficiency, demand side management, time of use pricing, energy storage, transmission, and renewable energy generation, and make a lot of money doing it.  That’s what I would hope to come out of a rate case.  Maybe under our next governor, we’ll get something like that.

So go vote Tuesday (even if you don’t live in Colorado.)   It really does matter who wins even the small races.  If you had the time to read through this multipage diatribe, surely you have enough time to make it to the polls.

Comments (1)

Tilting at Wind Turbines

I’ll be testifying for Ratepayers United Colorado in the upcoming hearing starting Thursday on the Settlement Agreement reached between Xcel, regulators, and consumer advocates (representing large commercial purchasers of electricity.) 

I’ve been told that hardly anyone fights settlement agreements in these cases, but environmentalists and clean energy advocates were left entirely out of this agreement, which actually contains an incentive, refered to as the BLEB, or Base Load Energy Benefit, for Xcel to burn as much coal as it possibly can, in preference to all other types of electricity generation.Coal dominates Xcel Energy’s power generating capacity - Xcel Energy is a major US electricity and natural gas energy company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ratepayers United asked me to help out because 1) I volunteered, 2) I understand economics, and 3) there wasn’t anyone else with the first two qualifications bull-headed enough to go ahead this late in the game.

Links:

Denver Post Article

Denver Business Journal article

What I had to say afterward

Comments off

You Can’t Hide from Peak Oil in Big Oil

Last week, Russian Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev signed an order to cancel part of Shell’s Sakhalin-2 license on environmental grounds.  Russia is also pressuring Exxon about cost overruns in a related project.  A triumph for environmentalists over Big Oil?  Hardly.

shell.jpgMost analysts agree that this is an attempt by the Russian government to renegotiate an oil and gas deal struck when prices were low.  Thinking back on what Russia did to Yukos, and Chavez forcing foreign oil firms to renegotiate contracts in Venezuela, the trend is clear:  Countries rich in fossil fuels are increasingly re-writing the rules to their liking, with little regard to the desires of foreign capital.

Given that 90% of the world’s oil and gas is controlled by state owned firms, private companies have little bargaining power, yet desperately need access to new reserves. 

Big Oil needs Russia more than Russia needs big oil: they’re going to have to settle for a much smaller take than they negotiated 10 years ago.  As oil prices rise in response to the peaking of world oil output, realpolitik will continue to trump contracts.  Western, publicly held oil firms will be the losers, as will their investors.

How can we invest to protect ourselves from rising energy prices, if Big Oil is at the mercy of every oil-rich dictator around the world?   I see two choices: fossil fuel reserves in western countries: coal mining companies and tar sands, or renewable energy sources.

Tar sands and coal both have the problem of causing high greenhouse gas emissions.  The process of extracting oil from tar sands releases 80kg of greenhouse gasses per barrel of oil extracted (and that is before the oil is used.)  The extraction of tar sands has caused Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to increase 24% since 1990, despite the fact that they are obligated under the Kyoto protocol to reduce emissions by 6%. 

Coal is also carbon intense.  So while both coal and tar sands are relatively safe from political risk due to opportunistic regimes, both are likely to become relatively less economic in the face of possible restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. 

Oil Shale is a boondoggle, and requires even more energy to extract than tar sands. 

This brings us back to investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency companies, both of which will benefit from rising energy prices and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.  The problem here is that many of them are start-ups with little or no revenues, let alone earnings.  Right now, I like energy efficiency best, since many renewable technologies have been the subject of a feeding frenzy over the last year.  Although things have calmed down over the last couple months, energy efficiency is still more economic than most renewables, and subject to a lot less hype.

Comments off

What does all this environmental stuff have to do with investing?

Question: What do all these long postings about Ethanol, Biodiesel, Global warming, and CFLs have to do with investing?

TK: Superior investing arises out of having a deeper understanding of the companies and industries you’re investing in than other market participants. 

Global warming is not just an impending ecological disaster, it is an economic disaster as well. Understanding global warming, energy efficiency, and renewable energy are the first steps to protecting our financial assets from the effects of global warming and peak oil.   

Many consider it immoral to profit from disasters.  That is a recipe for going broke when the disaster hits.  When there’s a drought, I want to be able to pay my water bill.  If the water system shuts down, I want to be able to come up with whatever it takes to buy a few gallons wherever I can find them.

It’s sensible to use our investments to mitigate the problems we see on the horizon, and make a profit which we can use to help shield ourselves and those we care about from those problems when they arrive.  To do that, we have to understand the nature of those problems, and the possible solutions.

Causing disasters is immoral.  Preparing is the right thing to do.

Comments (1)

Global warming picture pairs, coastal erosion.

Take a look at this global warming pictorial from the BBC.  Not just pictures of disappearing glaciers, but some interesting coastal erosion pictures as well.  Coastal erosion is aggravated by increasingly frequent severe storms and the slight rise (so far) in sea levels.

Just as we cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming (and there is still some argument about the trend), it is also impossible to attribute any instance of coastal erosion, such as the one above, to global warming. 

Coastal erosion has been going on throughout history, as have intense storms, droughts, and heatwaves.  The trends of all these things, along with atmospheric CO2 levels well above any that have ever been seen, together form a preponderance of evidence in support of climate change.

As an investment manager, I make my living by acting when the evidence is sufficient, not by waiting until all the evidence is in.  That doesn’t mean new evidence won’t make me change my mind later, but the whole point is to take action before other investors decide to act.  In the case of global warming, I feel we (as a planet) have already waited longer than we should before taking meaningful, large-scale action. 

As a mathematician who studied chaos theory, I know that a small difference in initial conditions, such as an 8 inch rise in sea levels, can cause a completely different outcome (a coast being unharmed, or completely washed away.)

I’ve greatly modified this post in response to a conversation with Lars Smith, see the comments below, and his post in his Conservation Finance Blog.

Comments (13)

Getting Steamed about Global Warming

I need to rant.  A local co-op utility, IREA, just south of the
Denver metro area, just came up with $100,000 of their rate payer’s money to a
global warming apologist.  See an article about it at the Denver Post.  Fortunately, the reporter had the good sense to go to my friend and associate Phil van Hake, who was very clear about how idiotic this is.

Just to set the record straight:

  1. Global warming is not longer controversial in scientific circles.  Just read any relevant publications from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.   I chose them simply because they are government funded, and considering the stance of our government, they’d probably pooh-pooh global warming, too, if it were possible to do so and still maintain some shred of scientific integrity.  If that’s not a good enough source, I was just reading the latest issue of the Economist, (hardly an environmentalist rag), and where they discuss the continuing heat wave in much of the US.  No, we can’t absolutely attribute this particular heat wave to global warming, but the pattern of erratic and hotter weather is completely consistent with climate change models.
  2. Suppose you’re playing dice, and your opponent keeps on getting lucky rolls.  You might assume his luck is due to chance, but if someone later tells you that he was caught with loaded dice, do you then think to yourself, “He seemed like a really nice guy.  I’m sure he was unjustly accused.”?   That’s the game we’ve been playing with climate change: luck has not been going our way, and most reputable scientists are telling us the dice are loaded.  Isn’t it time to get up from the table and cut our losses?
  3. IREA is a CO-OP.  It should be spending money trying to increase the welfare of its members.  Instead, it’s spending their money lying to them.  When Exxon lies to us, at least I understand their management is doing it because they believe that those lies will lead to greater profits for their shareholders. 
    I think they (the Exxons of the world) are wrong, because when public opinion catches up with scientific reality, we will start enforcing strict carbon emissions standards, and companies that are not prepared for that eventuality will be hurt.  But IREA has no such excuse: they exist to serve their members.
  4. IREA is not alone in giving Pat Michaels moneyin his attempts to debunk climate change.  He’s an industry apologist, and does bad science.  Michaels has a history of threatening to sue people who say this sort of thing about him.  I’d love to have this discussion with him in a public forum such as a court of law.
  5. Here are some other sites having discussions about this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/disinformation-you-want-it-ireas-got-it/; http://mountainpower.blogspot.com/

8/7/06– Colorado is far from alone in having to deal with obstructive government.  I just read a scathing editorial by RENEW Wisconsin  Executive Director Michael Vickerman on a so-called planning report from the Wisconsin PUC.  Wall Street has woken up to the need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and main street is not far behind, but that does not mean that the bureaucrats are are going to wake up and smell the coffee any time soon.  What we have here are people who made up their minds long ago about coal-fired power generation, have supported coal as the “least cost” alternative for decades, and now that the facts have changed, they are fighting a furious rear-guard action to justify their past mistakes. 

To quote Stan Lewandowski, IREA General Manager, “A carbon tax or a mandatory market-based greenhouse regulation system would erode most, if not all, of the benefits of the coal filed generation.”   That is absolutely true.  If the true costs of coal fired generation were taken into account (which is what a carbon trading system, tax, or regulations should be designed to do), coal would have no price advantage.  Only someone wedded to coal as a generation technology would think this was a bad thing.

To quote John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change.  What do you do, Sir?”

Comments (2)

« Newer Posts