That should say "Revisiting" instead of "Rethinking"

Can you expand on this?

If years left pre-tenure are greater than years of eligibility remaining, seems better to wait?

Due to the lower wholesale prices, seems like it would slightly increase the cost of other procurement. So the effect on the mix depends if you think the additional cost would change the quantity procured in those auctions.

I think the 6 GW is probably irrelevant in this case--need to know what was available specifically in zone 6 on this map. I agree that the system should be planned in a way that enables operation without both nuclear plants, but I think we'll need to wait for the MISO report to learn more.

Still accurate to say they “played a role,” since their absence almost certainly contributed to reserve shortage in that zone.

Do you have data on LCOE for balcony solar? Seems like it might be competitive.

The basic idea is summarized in the abstract here:

I think it makes sense for the dual to be zero if non-binding or the penalty if binding. If that doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the penalty, could model piecewise constant or piecewise linear slacks to get a smoother price outcome.

Yep, the tax is embedded in the offers of emitting suppliers.

What are they assuming the differences would be between "Public SMR" and "Private SMR"?

I'm about to start a project on reserve deliverability, reading recommendations are welcome.

Unfortunately we're having some trouble there as well: www.utilitydive.com/news/nyserda...

Framing it slightly differently, what’s the cost multiplier for a nuke (or anything, really) sited in downstate New York as opposed to, e.g., Georgia?

But there are related modeling challenges that are not easy to address, e.g., fuel inventory for dual-fuel units.

I don't think anyone explicitly separates fuel delivery issues from other causes of generator unavailability. With decent methodology (e.g. PJM after recent reforms) it gets incorporated to the extent it shows up in historical data.

Agreed that it's hard to argue with in principle, but I am not familiar enough with the details of implementation to say how effective they have been in practice.

Right--@electronecon.bsky.social is referring to U.S. utilities with fuel adjustment clauses that shield the utility from fuel price volatility, necessitating regulatory intervention if you want to try to restore better incentives for hedging.