The very first table of MISO capacity values for planning year 2024-2025 are nothing more than seasonal averages, except maybe solar is too high in spring through autumn. In other words these planning values are based on the hope that averages means something when operation is moment by moment. As I stated in some PSC testimony in February 2023 these average values are composed of days when the wind plant produces 35% and days when it produces just about as close to zero as anyone would fear, just as Pau says nearby. I pull plots of weekly generation throughout the year to show there is no season that doesn't display this sort of behavior -- and even in Wyoming where everyone talks about the terrible wind.
Under additional questioning in this hearing the utility admitted that the wind plant they are planning may actually produce only 10-20% of nameplate and contributes almost nothing to their looming adequacy gap but expense. They know. The PSC, though, didn't seem to tumble to the problem. The problem with the EPA might be they don't really tumble to it either; or it may be ideology.
The reason we have gotten by, so far, is that many regions still have quite a lot of excess coal and gas, while wind and solar have penetrated only about 20% into the grid supply. MISO's own analyses shows that things can go on smoothly until about 30% wind/solar and then operation of the grid changes markedly. Time will tell.
Over reliance on natural gas will re-create the supply issues of the 1970s (when over-reliance on petroleum liquids was a problem), and will raise utility bills because natural gas prices are volatile. But, in the longer run folks are planning on 100% wind/solar + magic.
You are absolutely right with regard to over reliance on natural gas. This is the situation now in the northeast. That region has decommissioned all of its coal fired capacity and operates with an undersized natural gas pipeline network. They purchase liquefied natural gas on the international market and run many dual fuel natural gas petroleum power plants. It is no wonder that states like Connecticut compete with California for the highest electricity rates in the nation.
I have an acquaintance who is a California escapee now living in Meridian idaho. Her daughter moved to Connecticut and heats her old home with fuel oil. Costs $1,200 every three weeks in the dead of winter -- a holdover from the bad old days of petroleum liquids now, at least with regard to cost, is right up to date! Things may have to get dodgy for us all before sanity returns in the halls of the political elite.
I worked for a big consulting company for a couple of years. You don’t get hired to think, you get paid to put your name on whatever bullshit the client wants to peddle.
I can share the link if anyone is interested. Here in the UK we have around 30gw of wind capacity, half offshore and half onshore. Yesterday we had much of the day below 600mw of generation. It dropped as low as 219mw at one point.
Everywhere in the world wind/solar display behavior like this. Unfortunately those in charge are prone to not understand what this means. By "those in charge" I mean ultimately the voters who have approved the renewable portfolio standards in many states. The regulators are too dominated by lawyers with not enough interest in technical details. Then the utilities say, as they did in one hearing I attended, "we know more about the operation of the grid than anyone in this room". This may be so, but they have to be sensitive to the voters and PSC, which impacts their behavior and thinking unproductively.
Did I read correctly that they rated solar at 55%? feels a stretch given the ordinary daily cycles of day and night, but then I am not an EPA analyst, so perhaps don't understand how the whole earth rotational thing works properly. and of course, that doesn't take into account rainy days!
Capacity value is different from capacity factors. CV is a measurement of performance during periods of peak demand and miso is currently a summer peaking system where demand peaks during the day. Capacity factor is just a mutate of productivity.
Based on what I read, capacity value is the value solar brings during peak periods of electric demand. That would of course be during the day. Like anything else, the “peak period or peak hours” can be gamed a bit by using a short time frame during the middle of the day vs. a longer window. If you look at the picture here you will see how PV and peak hours line up.
USING WIND AND SOLAR TO RELIABLY MEET ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Apparently there are multiple ways to calculate capacity value. Go figure. Some methods require a lot of data over a number of years and hence are much more costly to calculate, but more accurate. Some use much simpler estimation techniques, and therefore they are less accurate. The following paper says:
Enhancing Photovoltaic Farm Capacity Estimation: A Comprehensive Analysis with a Novel Approach
“Various methods have been proposed to estimate capacity value, with outcomes ranging from 5% to 95% of maximum generation capacity. This wide variance in results high-lights a key challenge with existing capacity value calculation techniques. While accurate methods like ELCC provide detailed reliability information, their extensive data requirements lead to impractical implementation complexity. Approximation methods like Garver and Z enable more straightforward computation but lack precision in modeling variable PV generation”
A range of 5% to 95% of maximum generation suggests you can have any number you want.
This paper also talks about methods.
Comparison of Capacity Value Methods for Photovoltaics in the Western United States (NREL)
Ues, and it all seems to be based on using estimations of capcity values under current conditions, and then misunderstanding that this new types don't have the *same* capacity values when penetraion increases...
Put in a Generac a while back, at that time is was for backup to protect our kennel operations to ensure we had water, and HVAC. Now it seems it might become more important to. That is sadly due to poor decisions. Keep up the good work, just joined as a payer a few weeks ago.
Only a matter of time before some greenie will want to terminate your Generacs fossils fuel source and replace it will solar or wind power. Remember the ignorance and stupidity of these people have no bounds.
Why bother yourself with reliability when you work in a small grey cubicle in a drab mold infested office building in Washington, DC that wouldn’t know an electron if it you from 110 outlet. You and your colleagues spend your lunch hours putting your tongues on 9 volt batteries and see who can last the longest.
But it will come to a head, the minute Jeff Bezos finds out he cannot have enough electrical power and cogenerated cooling for his newest cloud serving mega storage facility which requires 500mw’s of base load for both power and cooling, the EPA and politicians in Foggy Bottom will be paid a visit and then of course there will be exceptions to the rule….you peons out there? Freeze in the cold and dark. The EPA has work to do from home and a Zoom call to run to.
Next comes lying about battery degradation and the amount of rare earths needed to make said batteries to massage the numbers and refute intermittency.
I've been studying for quite a while - long enough that I'm trying to write a guide for a person whose only interaction with electricity is getting the bill.
This sort of simplistic ELCC usage seems to be driven by a lack of understanding statistics.
For the old grid analysis, we had basically the same thing with a few critical differences.
Like this, we took the *average* availability of each source and called that some sort of capacity value and did grid planning based in that. They even added o now *average at the highest demand hour of the day, during the season in question*, recognizing there are some daily patterns in the variable resources.
But the old system worked because the availability of dozens of thermal plants was unocreleated, and by the central limit theorm and considering availability as following some sort of binomial distribution, we can approximate the actual availability as a fairly narrow nor Al distribution, and without much time of day or other conditions dependency. We probably shod have used an explicit +X standard deviations factor, but we just said essentially "if we add 10% for contingency that's wide enougj to cover the distribution" and it was sime and easy to regulate.
Now, we are using highly correlated resources, with enougj variability that +/- SD basically covers 0 to 100%, let alone enough SD for statistical reliability.
There is no substantial improvement with more facilities as the broad correlations are very geographically widespread, and there are enormous weather and time of day dependencies.
In particular, averaging say every 5PM doesn't help if there are certain weather patterns that both drive demand and tend to reduce output. Averaging that with other weather systems doesn't help at all!
Anyway the implicit statistically underpinning of the old way of analyzing it depended on unxorrelated availability between facilities even within the same resource type, and that availability was not correlated with demand or other particular systematic issues. With both of those assumptions broken, the old and simple methods are counterproductive.
You are correct that wind and solar can be substantially correlated. So, the old tale of wind balances solar might actually be true at times, times at which the advocates will promote wind/solar, but is most definitely not true in general.
The ELCC values most commonly quoted are around 10%, but IPCO (Idaho Power) who actually put ELCC values in their IRP give solar, without backup, an 11% value. Not bad you say. Then they optimistically give it an 87.5% value with 8 hours of storage backup. Eight hours does not get through a winter night. The engineer in charge of this report (IRP) said this optimism is warranted because Idaho Power has so much excess hydro at present. Yet, Oregon citizens are voting to take away dams on the lower Snake River on the Oregon/Idaho border. These utopian ideas are like a crowd of people with untied shoes stepping on one another's laces.
Right, the challenge here is it may be true *right now* at the current supply mix and demand profile, but it does not generalize to higher penetrations.
Where say a OCGT ELCC is pretty much always the same no matter the penetration level, as they are uncorrelated to each other, and to (most) weather conditions.
The ignorance…. Combined with the arrogance of the true bureaucrat! Bad combination. This is in the same league with Mark Jacobsen, but much more dangerous.
I already have my generators. The assignment of a 100% capacity factor to battery energy storage systems is ludicrous, because of the current short time availability of BESS, currently about 4 hours. The only way to ensure 100% availability is to greatly overbuild BESS capacity.
Why are people still talking about pumped hydro and battery storage?
Where in the world is a pumped hydro scheme running year-round on wind and solar power?
As for batteries, do the math. In the SE Australian grid the amount of power required to get through windless night without coal is in the order of 300GWh. The capacity of all the battery projects in the pipeline amount to some 60GWh and the batteries at work in the system at present can deliver 3GWh.
Count the cost of installing the extra batteries required at (say) Australian $500,000 per MWh (x1000 for GWh>)
You are right, Rafe. There are almost no locations suitable for the sort of pump-storage required. By adequate I mean continental scale storage -- Hoover dam and Lake Mead. And local environmentalists would fight it to a halt even if it did exist.
"The capacity values of these power plants, often measured in megawatts (MW) or gigawatts (GW), are multiplied by the capacity value percentage to get an estimate of the total amount of reliable capacity the plant is contributing to the grid."
The situation is a great deal worse than the MISO capacity values indicate because between sunset and sunrise when there is little or no wind the capacity value is effectively zero, That cannot be rectified by any amount of over-building. Nor is there any feasible storage technology in sight to ride through wind droughts that can last for days in Australia and the US and weeks in the case of the European Dunkelflautes.
The point is that demand has to met continuously because the grid does not operate on averages, it operates from nanasecond to nanasecond. Given this understanding, plus awareness of wind droughts, and the lack of grid-scale storage, it is clear that the green energy project has hit the wall.
It just remains to be seen how much damage will be done as the ponzi scheme falls over and how we will get cheap and reliable power again.
Nuclear power will help but the regulators have the same mindset as the EPA.
Perhaps by the time nuclear power is a major contributor the climate alarmism bubble will burst and we can burn coal without shame. The green plants will love that!
We aren't going to have cheap power. The investments needed to "firm-up" wind/solar with any type of storage are very large. In no event can we ever get below $300 per kWhr. Thus, what is going to happen is that capital investment per ratepayer will rise to perhaps ten times what it is now or more. It won't be affordable under the present model of ownership and reliability which leaves us all with some unpleasant options...
Revision to the mean - wind and solar have issues those who never took stats 101 just don’t get.
I note that a more prudent mixing of energy source can reduce the greenhouse emissions but it would require embracing micro-nuclear and supporting existing nuclear operations.
Thanks for offering alternative ideas and links to the EPA materials.
Thanks for providing feedback on the EPA study in a professional way. People worry about the government transparency. To many inconsistent messages from different organizations that do not reflect reality and then they blame the operators when reality comes to bear.
What constitutes “new hydro” in the EPA accreditation analysis? Is it merely upgrades/expansion to existing hydro, adding generators to existing dams that lack them, or is it really new hydro?
This is the link to the MISO operations dashboard that shows the current capacity in the region served by the ISO.
I strongly encourage anyone who hasn't already done so to have a look at the MISO website. It is a great resource and very helpful in understanding where our energy comes from. What you will find is that the region has a very well balanced energy portfolio - and states like Michigan where I happen to live even have generous storage for natural gas - somewhere between 20 and 30 BCM depending on whose numbers you believe. It is important for the public to know what is at stake if we allow the reckless decision making of a political class that struggles to even read a residential utility bill.
The very first table of MISO capacity values for planning year 2024-2025 are nothing more than seasonal averages, except maybe solar is too high in spring through autumn. In other words these planning values are based on the hope that averages means something when operation is moment by moment. As I stated in some PSC testimony in February 2023 these average values are composed of days when the wind plant produces 35% and days when it produces just about as close to zero as anyone would fear, just as Pau says nearby. I pull plots of weekly generation throughout the year to show there is no season that doesn't display this sort of behavior -- and even in Wyoming where everyone talks about the terrible wind.
Under additional questioning in this hearing the utility admitted that the wind plant they are planning may actually produce only 10-20% of nameplate and contributes almost nothing to their looming adequacy gap but expense. They know. The PSC, though, didn't seem to tumble to the problem. The problem with the EPA might be they don't really tumble to it either; or it may be ideology.
The reason we have gotten by, so far, is that many regions still have quite a lot of excess coal and gas, while wind and solar have penetrated only about 20% into the grid supply. MISO's own analyses shows that things can go on smoothly until about 30% wind/solar and then operation of the grid changes markedly. Time will tell.
Over reliance on natural gas will re-create the supply issues of the 1970s (when over-reliance on petroleum liquids was a problem), and will raise utility bills because natural gas prices are volatile. But, in the longer run folks are planning on 100% wind/solar + magic.
You are absolutely right with regard to over reliance on natural gas. This is the situation now in the northeast. That region has decommissioned all of its coal fired capacity and operates with an undersized natural gas pipeline network. They purchase liquefied natural gas on the international market and run many dual fuel natural gas petroleum power plants. It is no wonder that states like Connecticut compete with California for the highest electricity rates in the nation.
I have an acquaintance who is a California escapee now living in Meridian idaho. Her daughter moved to Connecticut and heats her old home with fuel oil. Costs $1,200 every three weeks in the dead of winter -- a holdover from the bad old days of petroleum liquids now, at least with regard to cost, is right up to date! Things may have to get dodgy for us all before sanity returns in the halls of the political elite.
This “analysis” seems to consist of averages built on averages, when the grid cares nothing about averages, only instantaneous values.
How nice it must be to have this lack of understanding and still keep your job.
What’s worse is the fact that ICF consulting is hired to run the integrated planning model and they churn out stuff this laughably stupid.
Texas gets too much electricity from wind—that’s why 900k homes are without power in Houston metro. 😂 😝 😆
I worked for a big consulting company for a couple of years. You don’t get hired to think, you get paid to put your name on whatever bullshit the client wants to peddle.
I can share the link if anyone is interested. Here in the UK we have around 30gw of wind capacity, half offshore and half onshore. Yesterday we had much of the day below 600mw of generation. It dropped as low as 219mw at one point.
Everywhere in the world wind/solar display behavior like this. Unfortunately those in charge are prone to not understand what this means. By "those in charge" I mean ultimately the voters who have approved the renewable portfolio standards in many states. The regulators are too dominated by lawyers with not enough interest in technical details. Then the utilities say, as they did in one hearing I attended, "we know more about the operation of the grid than anyone in this room". This may be so, but they have to be sensitive to the voters and PSC, which impacts their behavior and thinking unproductively.
Sharing the link would be much appreciated. Thanks!
C
Did I read correctly that they rated solar at 55%? feels a stretch given the ordinary daily cycles of day and night, but then I am not an EPA analyst, so perhaps don't understand how the whole earth rotational thing works properly. and of course, that doesn't take into account rainy days!
Hi Andy,
Capacity value is different from capacity factors. CV is a measurement of performance during periods of peak demand and miso is currently a summer peaking system where demand peaks during the day. Capacity factor is just a mutate of productivity.
Thank you for the clarification
Based on what I read, capacity value is the value solar brings during peak periods of electric demand. That would of course be during the day. Like anything else, the “peak period or peak hours” can be gamed a bit by using a short time frame during the middle of the day vs. a longer window. If you look at the picture here you will see how PV and peak hours line up.
USING WIND AND SOLAR TO RELIABLY MEET ELECTRICITY DEMAND
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63038.pdf
Apparently there are multiple ways to calculate capacity value. Go figure. Some methods require a lot of data over a number of years and hence are much more costly to calculate, but more accurate. Some use much simpler estimation techniques, and therefore they are less accurate. The following paper says:
Enhancing Photovoltaic Farm Capacity Estimation: A Comprehensive Analysis with a Novel Approach
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ente.202301294
“Various methods have been proposed to estimate capacity value, with outcomes ranging from 5% to 95% of maximum generation capacity. This wide variance in results high-lights a key challenge with existing capacity value calculation techniques. While accurate methods like ELCC provide detailed reliability information, their extensive data requirements lead to impractical implementation complexity. Approximation methods like Garver and Z enable more straightforward computation but lack precision in modeling variable PV generation”
A range of 5% to 95% of maximum generation suggests you can have any number you want.
This paper also talks about methods.
Comparison of Capacity Value Methods for Photovoltaics in the Western United States (NREL)
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54704.pdf
Ues, and it all seems to be based on using estimations of capcity values under current conditions, and then misunderstanding that this new types don't have the *same* capacity values when penetraion increases...
Put in a Generac a while back, at that time is was for backup to protect our kennel operations to ensure we had water, and HVAC. Now it seems it might become more important to. That is sadly due to poor decisions. Keep up the good work, just joined as a payer a few weeks ago.
Thanks, Dave!
Only a matter of time before some greenie will want to terminate your Generacs fossils fuel source and replace it will solar or wind power. Remember the ignorance and stupidity of these people have no bounds.
Dave, if they electrify the gas network compression then your gas supply is tied to the electrical grid reliability.
Unless you plan for some LNG STORAGE vessels in your yard.
Why bother yourself with reliability when you work in a small grey cubicle in a drab mold infested office building in Washington, DC that wouldn’t know an electron if it you from 110 outlet. You and your colleagues spend your lunch hours putting your tongues on 9 volt batteries and see who can last the longest.
But it will come to a head, the minute Jeff Bezos finds out he cannot have enough electrical power and cogenerated cooling for his newest cloud serving mega storage facility which requires 500mw’s of base load for both power and cooling, the EPA and politicians in Foggy Bottom will be paid a visit and then of course there will be exceptions to the rule….you peons out there? Freeze in the cold and dark. The EPA has work to do from home and a Zoom call to run to.
Those are pretty high floors to clear for capacity factors, particularly if those hydro dams are multi-purpose and need to store water.
This is one-hundred percent a push to hit required numbers, fiddling the parameters to make the model say what you want.
Exactly
Next comes lying about battery degradation and the amount of rare earths needed to make said batteries to massage the numbers and refute intermittency.
This observation makes you more professional than amateur!
I've been studying for quite a while - long enough that I'm trying to write a guide for a person whose only interaction with electricity is getting the bill.
https://argomend.substack.com/p/the-laymans-guide-to-electricity-4ef (latest part)
This sort of simplistic ELCC usage seems to be driven by a lack of understanding statistics.
For the old grid analysis, we had basically the same thing with a few critical differences.
Like this, we took the *average* availability of each source and called that some sort of capacity value and did grid planning based in that. They even added o now *average at the highest demand hour of the day, during the season in question*, recognizing there are some daily patterns in the variable resources.
But the old system worked because the availability of dozens of thermal plants was unocreleated, and by the central limit theorm and considering availability as following some sort of binomial distribution, we can approximate the actual availability as a fairly narrow nor Al distribution, and without much time of day or other conditions dependency. We probably shod have used an explicit +X standard deviations factor, but we just said essentially "if we add 10% for contingency that's wide enougj to cover the distribution" and it was sime and easy to regulate.
Now, we are using highly correlated resources, with enougj variability that +/- SD basically covers 0 to 100%, let alone enough SD for statistical reliability.
There is no substantial improvement with more facilities as the broad correlations are very geographically widespread, and there are enormous weather and time of day dependencies.
In particular, averaging say every 5PM doesn't help if there are certain weather patterns that both drive demand and tend to reduce output. Averaging that with other weather systems doesn't help at all!
Anyway the implicit statistically underpinning of the old way of analyzing it depended on unxorrelated availability between facilities even within the same resource type, and that availability was not correlated with demand or other particular systematic issues. With both of those assumptions broken, the old and simple methods are counterproductive.
Totally agree. The old system worked for dispatchable plants but not non-dispatchable ones.
You are correct that wind and solar can be substantially correlated. So, the old tale of wind balances solar might actually be true at times, times at which the advocates will promote wind/solar, but is most definitely not true in general.
The ELCC values most commonly quoted are around 10%, but IPCO (Idaho Power) who actually put ELCC values in their IRP give solar, without backup, an 11% value. Not bad you say. Then they optimistically give it an 87.5% value with 8 hours of storage backup. Eight hours does not get through a winter night. The engineer in charge of this report (IRP) said this optimism is warranted because Idaho Power has so much excess hydro at present. Yet, Oregon citizens are voting to take away dams on the lower Snake River on the Oregon/Idaho border. These utopian ideas are like a crowd of people with untied shoes stepping on one another's laces.
Right, the challenge here is it may be true *right now* at the current supply mix and demand profile, but it does not generalize to higher penetrations.
Where say a OCGT ELCC is pretty much always the same no matter the penetration level, as they are uncorrelated to each other, and to (most) weather conditions.
The ignorance…. Combined with the arrogance of the true bureaucrat! Bad combination. This is in the same league with Mark Jacobsen, but much more dangerous.
I already have my generators. The assignment of a 100% capacity factor to battery energy storage systems is ludicrous, because of the current short time availability of BESS, currently about 4 hours. The only way to ensure 100% availability is to greatly overbuild BESS capacity.
I think the same applies to pumped storage.
Why are people still talking about pumped hydro and battery storage?
Where in the world is a pumped hydro scheme running year-round on wind and solar power?
As for batteries, do the math. In the SE Australian grid the amount of power required to get through windless night without coal is in the order of 300GWh. The capacity of all the battery projects in the pipeline amount to some 60GWh and the batteries at work in the system at present can deliver 3GWh.
Count the cost of installing the extra batteries required at (say) Australian $500,000 per MWh (x1000 for GWh>)
You are right, Rafe. There are almost no locations suitable for the sort of pump-storage required. By adequate I mean continental scale storage -- Hoover dam and Lake Mead. And local environmentalists would fight it to a halt even if it did exist.
And how would you charge them all?
yet another good point.
"The capacity values of these power plants, often measured in megawatts (MW) or gigawatts (GW), are multiplied by the capacity value percentage to get an estimate of the total amount of reliable capacity the plant is contributing to the grid."
The situation is a great deal worse than the MISO capacity values indicate because between sunset and sunrise when there is little or no wind the capacity value is effectively zero, That cannot be rectified by any amount of over-building. Nor is there any feasible storage technology in sight to ride through wind droughts that can last for days in Australia and the US and weeks in the case of the European Dunkelflautes.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
Agreed. Giving wind a capacity value is wild. Solar quickly eats into its own value
The point is that demand has to met continuously because the grid does not operate on averages, it operates from nanasecond to nanasecond. Given this understanding, plus awareness of wind droughts, and the lack of grid-scale storage, it is clear that the green energy project has hit the wall.
It just remains to be seen how much damage will be done as the ponzi scheme falls over and how we will get cheap and reliable power again.
Nuclear power will help but the regulators have the same mindset as the EPA.
Perhaps by the time nuclear power is a major contributor the climate alarmism bubble will burst and we can burn coal without shame. The green plants will love that!
We aren't going to have cheap power. The investments needed to "firm-up" wind/solar with any type of storage are very large. In no event can we ever get below $300 per kWhr. Thus, what is going to happen is that capital investment per ratepayer will rise to perhaps ten times what it is now or more. It won't be affordable under the present model of ownership and reliability which leaves us all with some unpleasant options...
Revision to the mean - wind and solar have issues those who never took stats 101 just don’t get.
I note that a more prudent mixing of energy source can reduce the greenhouse emissions but it would require embracing micro-nuclear and supporting existing nuclear operations.
Thanks for offering alternative ideas and links to the EPA materials.
Thanks for providing feedback on the EPA study in a professional way. People worry about the government transparency. To many inconsistent messages from different organizations that do not reflect reality and then they blame the operators when reality comes to bear.
What constitutes “new hydro” in the EPA accreditation analysis? Is it merely upgrades/expansion to existing hydro, adding generators to existing dams that lack them, or is it really new hydro?
That’s a good question. EPA lists this stuff in spreadsheets and doesn’t necessarily spell out what they mean.
EPA uses the same math book that turned a bundle of 10,000 BBB-rated mortgages into one AAA-rated Mortgage Backed Security.
https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/operations-displays/
This is the link to the MISO operations dashboard that shows the current capacity in the region served by the ISO.
I strongly encourage anyone who hasn't already done so to have a look at the MISO website. It is a great resource and very helpful in understanding where our energy comes from. What you will find is that the region has a very well balanced energy portfolio - and states like Michigan where I happen to live even have generous storage for natural gas - somewhere between 20 and 30 BCM depending on whose numbers you believe. It is important for the public to know what is at stake if we allow the reckless decision making of a political class that struggles to even read a residential utility bill.
It seems to me that the standard deviation would be an even more important metric for capacity.