| >> Because the wind providers have already sold that electricity in an energy auction. So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. > This isn't a real economic loss. Perhaps I'm misinformed on what economic loss is. To me, paying for something and not getting it is a loss. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me that's a simple economic loss, and roughly the same. I paid for it, I didn't get it. Worse still is paying for curtailment on both sides. From the article: Consumers end up effectively paying three times for the power they’re getting: the original payment to the windfarm for the electricity, the payment to turn off, and then the payment to the alternative generator. If this is true, and you're both paying a turbine operator for the power, and then again to not produce the power, well that's extra worse. That would be the initial economic loss (I paid for the thing and didn't get it) with an fee tacked on top. I go to movies, I buy popcorn, I spill popcorn. Movie theater says "tough noogies" to me and doesn't replace the popcorn. They also charge me a fee for cleaning up the popcorn I spilled. That's worse from what I can tell. Again maybe I don't understand what's going on here with respect to how precisely curtailment works. But it's hard to imagine that the situation > So the grid has to pay them for electricity, even if they can’t use it. is anything other than an economic loss. |