Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

AltaGas Ltd T.ALA

Alternate Symbol(s):  ATGFF | T.ALA.PR.A | ATGPF | T.ALA.PR.B | T.ALA.PR.G | ATGAF

AltaGas Ltd. is a Canada-based energy infrastructure company that connects natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) to domestic and global markets. The Company’s segments include Utilities and Midstream. Its Utilities segment owns and operates franchised, rate-regulated natural gas distribution and storage utilities, which includes four utilities that operate across five United States jurisdictions. It Utilities segment also includes storage facilities and contracts for interstate natural gas transportation and storage services, as well as the affiliated retail energy marketing business. Its Midstream segment includes global exports, which includes its two LPG export terminals; natural gas gathering and extraction, and fractionation and liquids handling. Its Midstream segment also consists of natural gas and NGL marketing business, domestic logistics, trucking and rail terminals, and liquid storage capability. Its subsidiaries include Wrangler 1 LLC, WGL Holdings, Inc. and others.


TSX:ALA - Post by User

Comment by Capharnaumon Feb 19, 2021 11:59pm
180 Views
Post# 32617534

RE:RE:RE:Texas Grid Failure

RE:RE:RE:Texas Grid Failure
yggdrasill wrote: You say the cost would have been too high to winterize the plants and I believe you. But that's why you need a strong regulating body to force these changes. You can't leave it up to the generators because obviously the cost to them is great, and they only need to think about their own bottom line. However this crisis hasn't just affected their own bottom line. It's affected all business in Texas to the tune of billions, and it has cost lives on top of that. So you need a strong regulating body to think about the risk and cost to the entire state. The bottom line of energy generators becomes a non-factor.

Texas needs to winterize their plants one way or another. Whether generators are made to assume all the costs of that or if state subsidies are needed can be discussed, but winterization is essential and urgent. Every other state has managed to do it, so I'm sure Texas can too.


Like I said before, I don't know the particularities of Texas energy distribution (that's my disclaimer, as they could have specific flaws in their system that means the following wouldn't apply to them).

However, you'd be surprised that regulators are often the ones putting the breaks on extra investments in supply (to improve network responses and reliability when facing extreme weather conditions). Consumer groups often advocate that the expense (which would result in a raise of rates for consumers) is unnecessary. I know energy companies that have put forward plans to add peak capacity and redundancy to their system to face potential cold waves that were shot down by the regulator. Here, we need to file for approval for any spending (even 5k... on overall expenses of over $1B) if we buy power in excess of what the regulator deems sufficient. If we have a polar vortex, we'll have to shutdown customers because our system can't support that, but it's out of our hands as the regulator wouldn't approve the required spendings.

From what I've read about Texas, the equipment on their grid can't even support the required loads based on the weather. So, even if they had the peak power to supply the load, the grid wouldn't support it. That's a lot of investments to reinforce the grid. Then, you need to have backup power for all the wind power. While wind power can work in winter conditions, it's not a suitable peak power management source as they are providing irregular loads even when working fully. Putting backup contracts in place for peak power to replace the wind farms is costly. Nat gas power plant should definately be winterized, overall that shouldn't be a huge cost. All those investments will show up on customer's bills.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>