massive power failure

[Somewhereinba]

My goodness! Ok, I’m going to be as polite as I can because there is no reason for you to know it. It means they confirmed it according to the law of this country because they didn’t Asserted that it is false or unaccurate.

FYI MM is worst than CFk in everything besides money flight.

LOL at ignoring everything. Did the K regime also use the law of this country to produce INDEC statistics on inflation lol... This guy...

 

[ben]

As I said I don't live in Buenos Aires and I can tell you without doubt that electricity is way way more stable now than with the K's. It's day and night.

Those of use who do live in BsAs remember much the same. But that begs the question:

Who do you believe, bajo or your own lying eyes?

Not to mention that his own numbers indicate that blackouts are down significantly in the last few years. But that’s not even the point.
The point is that this explains the arrogance of the massive fraud that went on at INDEC, and the comic relief of telling you there’s less poverty here than Germany, and “no hay cepo cambiario”, and everything else. These are people who can shove numbers in your face, and expect you to disregard everything you see around you.

Macri and his government are no angels, no question about that. But then these guys pop up and remind you of the alternative.

 

[sts7049]

It means they confirmed it according to the law of this country because they didn’t Asserted that it is false or unaccurate.

for the life of me i can't understand what you mean by this.

 

[steveinbsas]

First, as a person who works with numbers...Let's take an example. An average home might use 1,000 Kwh (kilowatt hours) per month. Let's say that in 2014, the total cost of 1,000 Kwh was $1.000 pesos. In that year, the government paid 50% through subsidies and the consumer paid 50% from their pocket. So each party paid $500 pesos to the ulitity for 1.000 Kwh in a month. In 2016, Macri removes half the subsidy; he takes the government's share from 50% to 25%, so the consumer now pays 75% of cost. Immediately, the consumer's bill rockets from $500 pesos per month to $750 pesos per month.

Now, let's account for inflation. Same example as above: 1.000 Kwh for $1.000 pesos. Macri cuts the subsidy from 50% to 25%. Consumer share goes from 50% to 75%. But the monthly bill for 1.000 Kwh goes from $1.000 pesos per month to $1.400 pesos per month, in the face of 40% inflation. Let's look what happens to the monthly bills. The government's subsidy at 25% goes from $250 pesos per month to $350 per month (up 40%). The consumer's share goes from $750 pesos per month to $1.050 per month (up 40% also)!

Look at it from the consumer side. The consumer was paying $500 pesos per month. Now with the removal of subsidies plus inflation, the consumer pays $1.050 per month. Electricity bills for consumers have more than doubled, but with removal of subsidies and inflation, the electric operator is getting the same revenue. Now, consider this go-nowhere treadmill with 3 years of inflation.

These figures are are from my own utility bills for the same two month period (Feb-March) from 2014 through 2019 except for 2013 (April-May):.

Year/total bill/amount actually paid per Kwh /exchange rate (approx)

With subsidy:

2012: $195 ARS 389 Kwh = $0,50 per Kwh Exchange rate: 6/1(?)
2013: $307 ARS 395 Kwh = $0,79 per Kwh Exchange rate: 7.6/1
2014: $351 ARS 351 Kwh = $0,86 per Kwh Exchange rate: 10/1
2015: $284 ARS 285 Kwh = $0,99 per Kwh Exchange rate: 11.5/1

Without subsidy:

2016: $288 ARS 279 Kwh = $1,03 per Kwh Exchange rate: 15/1
2017: $551 ARS 219 Kwh = $2,51 per Kwh Exchange rate: 15/1
2018: $878 ARS 142 Kwh = $6,18 per Kwh Exchange rate 19/1
2019: $918 ARS 60 Kwh = $15,30 per Kwh Exchange rate: 38/1

I was surprise to discover that my bill barely increased in the same two month period one year after the subsidy was eliminated. The usage was almost identical


Here are more detailed statistics. I did not itemize the taxes and other small fees which are added to the electric bills.


In 2012 my electric bill was $195 pesos for 389 KhH The gross price I paid per Kwh was $50.ARS

The charge for the electricity used was $210 ARS

The subsidy was $122 ARS, reduced what would have been the total bill by almost 50%.

Without the subsidy, the bill would have been $317 pesos or $0,81 ARS per Kwh

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $9,86

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $62

In 2013 my electric bill was $307 pesos for 395 KhH The gross price I paid per Kwh was $79 ARS

The charge for the electricity used was $225ARS

The subsidy was $124 ARS, reduced what would have been the total bill by about 25%.

Without the subsidy, the bill would have been $431 pesos or $1,10 ARS per Kwh

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $9,86

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $45,20


In 2014 my electric bill was $303 pesos for 351 KhH The gross price I paid per Kwh was $ 0,86 ARS

The charge for the electricity used was $200

The subsidy was $110 ARS, reducing what would have been the total bill by about 25%

Without the subsidy, the bill would have been $413 ARS or $1,176 ARS per Kwh

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $10,74

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $62


In 2015 my electric bill was $284 pesos for 285 KwH The gross price per Kwh was $0,99 ARS

The charge for the electricity consumed was $161 ARS

The subsidy was $89 ARS, reducing the cost of the electricity by about 56%

Without the subsidy, the bill would have been $373,71 ARS or $1,31 ARS per Kwh

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $10.74

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $62


In 2016 my electric bill was $288 pesos for 279Kwh The gross price per Kwh was $1,03 ARS

The cost of the electricity consumed was $94 pesos (without subsidy).

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $10,74

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $30,96


In 2017 my electric bill was $551 pesos for 219Kwh The gross price per Kwh was $2.51 ARS

The charge for the electricity used was $ 173 (without subsidy)

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $10.74

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $33.44


In 2018 my electric bill was $878 pesos for 142Kwh The gross price per Kwh was $6.18 ARS

The cost of the electricity used was $142 pesos (without subsidy).

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $172.88

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $160


In 2019 my electric bill was $918 pesos for 60Kwh The gross price per Kwh was $.15.30 ARS

The cost of the electricity used was $94 pesos (without subsidy).

The bill included a cargo fijo (fixed charge even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $228

and a fixed tasa de alumbrado (charged even if the electricity consumed was zero) of $300

Electricity provision in Argentina will always be unreliable until consumers are willing to pay the cost of production plus an increment for upgrade/modernization. That would likely mean monthly utility bills on par with the western world, say $100US per month.

It would be interesting to know how much I would pay per month in the USA for 60 to 100 Kwh.

I'm not complaining about paying what now is only about ten US dollars per month for the electricity I am using, but I realize an "average" Argentine family could not get by using only 30 Kwh per month and a huge segment of the population is in no position to pay anywhere near that amount.

 

[Pensador]

I'm not complaining about paying what now is only about ten US dollars per month for the electricity I am using, but I realize an "average" Argentine family could not get by using only 30 Kwh per month and a huge segment of the population is in no position to pay anywhere near that amount.

I can tell you this Uruguay is far more expensive when it comes to power and everything else.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

for the life of me i can't understand what you mean by this.

It means they confessed the info is true.

 

[TheDonald]

Rreflecting on Steve's post, a sane person might ask, "How is a business supposed to operate with such unpredictability of cost? How is a family supposed to sleep at night with such unpredictability of cost?" Somehow, Argentine life, both business and personal, continues in this environment. But the unpredictability undermines stability and makes planning nearly impossible.

In this thread, we have been talking mostly about symptoms. The root of the problem with electricity reliability in Argentina is the fact that the industry is nationalized, i.e. socialized. There are two ostensible providers of electricity in Argentina, but the grid and much of its operation are run by the Argentine state. From a standard of living and competitive perspective, socialism always produces poor results. This is one more example.

In the US, we have highly reliable electricity. How much does the federal government spend on electricity provision? $0. Except for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a throwback to the 1930s, the US federal government's only involvement in electricity provision is regulatory.

I believe that Macri's ultimate goal was to completely eliminate electricity subsidies and privatize the electricity industry in Argentina. This would have produced three results. First, executives would have been compensated partly based on electricity reliability. If the people suffer a blackout, executives suffer reduced compensation. Second, overall company performance would have been monitored by shareholders. If an electric utility did not perform, executives would have been fired (this just happened at PG&E in California). Third, the utility would have modernized and upgraded the grid. I'm pretty sure this was Macri's distant hope and dream.

Unfortunately, hard economics thwarted that plan. But if I had to choose between Macri's vision which fell short and Cristina's socialist corruption and incompetence, the latter of which provides no hope, I choose the former.

 

[Somewhereinba]

Unfortunately, hard economics thwarted that plan. But if I had to choose between Macri's vision which fell short and Cristina's socialist corruption and incompetence, the latter of which provides no hope, I choose the former.

It's scary that there are so many Argentines that still believe the Socialist corrupt system of the K's offers a brighter future than a more capitalist leaning society. You would think a decade under the K's would teach them something - unfortunately this is not the case and as they say - love is blind. The premise of socialist policies are great - the reality is they do not function well in real life unless you have a very rich nation (mainly natural resources eg Norway). I believe we should be teaching people to fish and be self sufficient instead of looking for handouts and Government sponsorship. That should be reserved to the small % of the population that actually need it (eg disabled, elderly who have worked their whole life).

 

[Ries]

Rreflecting on Steve's post, a sane person might ask, "How is a business supposed to operate with such unpredictability of cost? How is a family supposed to sleep at night with such unpredictability of cost?" Somehow, Argentine life, both business and personal, continues in this environment. But the unpredictability undermines stability and makes planning nearly impossible.

In this thread, we have been talking mostly about symptoms. The root of the problem with electricity reliability in Argentina is the fact that the industry is nationalized, i.e. socialized. There are two ostensible providers of electricity in Argentina, but the grid and much of its operation are run by the Argentine state. From a standard of living and competitive perspective, socialism always produces poor results. This is one more example.

In the US, we have highly reliable electricity. How much does the federal government spend on electricity provision? $0. Except for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is a throwback to the 1930s, the US federal government's only involvement in electricity provision is regulatory.

I believe that Macri's ultimate goal was to completely eliminate electricity subsidies and privatize the electricity industry in Argentina. This would have produced three results. First, executives would have been compensated partly based on electricity reliability. If the people suffer a blackout, executives suffer reduced compensation. Second, overall company performance would have been monitored by shareholders. If an electric utility did not perform, executives would have been fired (this just happened at PG&E in California). Third, the utility would have modernized and upgraded the grid. I'm pretty sure this was Macri's distant hope and dream.

Unfortunately, hard economics thwarted that plan. But if I had to choose between Macri's vision which fell short and Cristina's socialist corruption and incompetence, the latter of which provides no hope, I choose the former.

You may be ideologically opposed to government utilities- but they work very well in many places.
The TVA serves portions of 8 states.
The BPA serves portions of another 8 states in the West.
There are another 2000 plus publicly owned government electric utilities in the USA, approximately half the total of such utilities.
So, far from zero, somewhere close to half of the electric power in the US is handled by government (what you call socialized) utilities. And, somehow, it works quite well.
I lived in Seattle for over 20 years, and the socialized power company there is quite good, except for the time they gambled with enron, the private company. I lived in LA, and the DWP does just fine generating and transmitting power.
Not to mention the government utilities in dozens of other countries, including large amounts of europe.

So, a good 100 years of global experience has proven that there is nothing inherently wrong with "socialized" utilities, and they can function without blackouts, or "poor results".

The problems with Argentina are much more about direct insider connections between the government, and its lax oversight of the ogliarchs who run the power companies here.

You seem to assume that if the rates go up, the executives will naturally spend more on infrastructure- but in the USA, that has certainly not followed, with private power companies- instead, salaries and compensation go up. Its less likely to happen here without government enforcement.

The executives you mention at PG&E are not being "fired"- they are retiring with full benefits and stock options. The CEO, Geisha Williams, is getting a $2.5 Million severance package. That will teach her not to "perform".

There are serious problems with the Argentine grid. But, given the history of the wealthy stripping assets from Argentina and investing them in Miami, I am far from convinced that privatization is going to magically solve them.

 

[TheDonald]

You may be ideologically opposed to government utilities- but they work very well in many places.
The TVA serves portions of 8 states.
The BPA serves portions of another 8 states in the West.
There are another 2000 plus publicly owned government electric utilities in the USA, approximately half the total of such utilities.
So, far from zero, somewhere close to half of the electric power in the US is handled by government (what you call socialized) utilities. And, somehow, it works quite well.
I lived in Seattle for over 20 years, and the socialized power company there is quite good, except for the time they gambled with enron, the private company. I lived in LA, and the DWP does just fine generating and transmitting power.
Not to mention the government utilities in dozens of other countries, including large amounts of europe.

So, a good 100 years of global experience has proven that there is nothing inherently wrong with "socialized" utilities, and they can function without blackouts, or "poor results".

The problems with Argentina are much more about direct insider connections between the government, and its lax oversight of the ogliarchs who run the power companies here.

You seem to assume that if the rates go up, the executives will naturally spend more on infrastructure- but in the USA, that has certainly not followed, with private power companies- instead, salaries and compensation go up. Its less likely to happen here without government enforcement.

The executives you mention at PG&E are not being "fired"- they are retiring with full benefits and stock options. The CEO, Geisha Williams, is getting a $2.5 Million severance package. That will teach her not to "perform".

There are serious problems with the Argentine grid. But, given the history of the wealthy stripping assets from Argentina and investing them in Miami, I am far from convinced that privatization is going to magically solve them.

Thank you for your contribution, but your comparisons are not apt. Let's take some math. After the apagon, the Argentine government revealed that it spent $9.5 billion, that's $9,500,000,000 dollars, every year in electricity subsidies. There are 45 million people in Argentina. So the Argentine federal government spends $211US dollars per year for every man, woman and child in this country. Consider more math: Argentine GDP in 2018 was around $625US billion. So the Argentine government spends 1.5% of GDP every year, subsidizing electricity provision. That's a very large sum, relative to GDP. It's almost twice as much as Argentina spends on the military.

Although you label parts of the electricity industry in the US "socialized," there is no economic arrangement similar in the US. There is nothing even close. The entities you speak of are OWNED by the US federal government, but they are not SUBSIDIZED by the US federal government. This is an enormous difference. The entities you mention are economically self-sufficient: they buy inputs at a market price, sell product at a market price. They provide adequate service to ratepayers. They receive no direct subsidies from the US federal government. The fact that they are owned by the federal government does not make the electric industry in the US "socialized." If they were corrupt, inefficient, incompetent, subsidized, used as political footballs, and forced to change policy based on administrations, as in Argentina, they could more easily be labelled socialist. In the US, they are not so it is inaccurate to label them "socialist."

Your other comments purport to refute some of my ideas, but they don't directly address what I wrote. Please read carefully. For example, I wrote, "If an electric utility did not perform, executives would have been fired (this just happened at PG&E in California)." You refute that by writing about Mrs. Williams' retirement. My statement, that numerous PG&E executives have recently been fired, is a statement of fact. It is true. It is not refutable. So to argue that it is false because one, the CEO, was forced to retire, is incoherent.

I don't have time to address the other incoherences. For the benefit of everyone on this thread, please read what people write carefully, and respond appropriately.