本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
他们向你兜售的未来是AI会让你变得过时或无足轻重。
You're being sold an AI future where you're obsolete or irrelevant.
这种愿景是错误的。
That vision is wrong.
在Palantir，他们正在构建帮助工人并释放其全部潜能的AI。
At Palantir, they're building AI that helps workers and unlocks their full potential.
美国工人是我们国家最伟大的力量。
American workers are our nation's greatest strength.
AI不应该淘汰他们。
AI shouldn't eliminate them.
而应该提升他们。
It should elevate them.
Palantir在此讲述他们的故事。
Palantir is here to tell their stories.
从工厂到医院，AI正在将人们从苦差中解放出来，让他们做人类最擅长的事——创造、解决、建设。
From factories to hospitals, AI is freeing people from drudgery, letting them do what humans do best, create, solve, build.
Palantir，让美国人变得不可替代。
Palantir, making Americans irreplaceable.
我是Jennifer Zabasaja，这里是《下一个非洲》播客，彭博社每周探讨塑造这个全球最年轻、增长最快大陆未来的故事。
I'm Jennifer Zabasaja, and this is the Next Africa podcast, Bloomberg's weekly show about the stories shaping the future of the world's youngest, fastest growing continent.
每周五，《下一个非洲》播客将带您深入头条背后——从可能引发地区对峙的埃塞俄比亚巨型水电站，到博茨瓦纳努力摆脱钻石依赖的转型，再到重塑非洲创意经济的音乐节。
Every Friday, the Next Africa podcast goes deeper than the headlines from Ethiopia's giant hydroelectric dam that could spark a regional showdown to Botswana's struggle to move beyond diamonds to music festivals transforming Africa's creative economy.
我们揭示推动整个大陆变革的思想、冲突与机遇。
We uncover the ideas, conflicts, and opportunities driving change across the continent.
通过彭博驻拉各斯、开罗、约翰内斯堡等地的记者，您将获得独家的深度解析：十三亿人如何重新定义全球市场、文化与权力格局。
With Bloomberg journalists on the ground in Lagos, Cairo, Johannesburg, and beyond, you'll get the context you won't find anywhere else, how 1,300,000,000 people are redefining global markets, culture, and power.
彭博社出品《下一个非洲》播客。
The Next Africa podcast from Bloomberg.
权力、政策与繁荣，尽在此处。
Power, policy, and prosperity all in one place.
立即订阅《下一个非洲》播客，每周五在Apple Podcasts、Spotify或您收听的任何平台与我们相约。
Follow the Next Africa podcast now and join us every Friday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
彭博音频工作室
Bloomberg Audio Studios.
播客
Podcasts.
广播
Radio.
新闻
News.
大家好，欢迎收听新一期的《大宗商品》播客
Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast.
我是乔·维森塔尔
I'm Joe Wiesenthal.
我是特蕾西·阿洛韦
And I'm Tracy Alloway.
特蕾西，我们太久没做关于电网的节目了
Tracy, it's been too long since we've done an electricity grid episode.
我是故意回避这个话题的，乔。
I've been avoiding it on purpose, Joe.
老实说，我真的觉得这个市场/议题特别难讨论，因为根本无法泛泛而谈。
I in all honesty, I I really find this particular market slash issue a difficult one to talk about because it's impossible to talk about it in broad terms.
而且我知道在OddLots节目里，我们通常都尽量避免这样做。
And I know on OddLots, we try to avoid doing that generally.
但即便是一小时的播客，就算做很多期节目，我们给美国每个电力市场都做一期，可能也只是触及皮毛。
But even in an hour long podcast, even with multiple episodes, we could do an episode for each electricity market in The United States and still only scratch the surface.
对吧？
Right?
比如你得讨论受监管的垄断与竞争性市场，然后还得解释什么是独立系统运营商，以及...德州算怎么回事？
Like, you have to talk about regulated monopolies versus competitive markets, and then you have to talk about what's an independent system operator and what's, like well, what's Texas?
那完全是另
That's a whole other
一回事。
issue.
德克萨斯是什么？
Is What is Texas?
德克萨斯是什么？这个话题可以单独做一期节目。
What is Texas Would be its own episode.
不过，没错，确实如此。
But, yeah, that's right.
你向电网专家提问时，他们首先会反问：等等——
You ask a question to a grid expert, and they're first they're like, wait.
你指的是竞争性市场还是受监管的市场？
Are you talking about a competitive market or a regulated market here?
这似乎总是
That always seems
基于或未计量或
to basis or unmetered or
我...我不知道。
I I don't know.
是啊。
Yeah.
电表后端之类的。
Behind the meter, etcetera.
没错。
Yeah.
但无论如何，显然，就像我们最近请到的哈德逊河交易公司的伊恩·邓宁所说，他提到电力是他们面临的主要制约因素。
But, anyway, obviously, with the sort of Ian Dunning, who we recently had Hudson River Trading, he was talking about how their main constraint is power.
而这在整体AI服务用户中只是非常小的一部分。
And that's just a small a very small, in the grand scheme of things, user of AI services.
我们讨论过AI在高频交易中的应用，他表示比起芯片短缺，电力限制才是他们当前最大的制约因素。
We were talking about using AI in high frequency trading, and he said even more than chips that the power constraints are their biggest constraints right now.
因此我认为必须考虑的一个问题是：这次AI热潮能持续多久？要让所有这些AI活动接入电网需要付出什么代价？
And so I do think that one thing we have to think about is, especially how long can this AI boom go on, is what's it gonna take to get all of this AI activity on the grid?
比如，电网的承载能力有多紧张？
Like, how constrained is it?
没错。
That's right.
我们还录制了与Sagar和Jetty的那期节目，讨论了围绕AI的政治争议。
And we also recorded that episode with Sagar and Jetty, and we were talking about the political controversy surrounding AI.
显然，电力消耗是其中的一大问题。
And, obviously, power consumption is a big one of those.
在电价已经普遍上涨的时期，AI是否会进一步推高电价？
At a time when electricity prices have all already been rising, is AI only gonna drive them up further?
不过话说回来，你甚至不能说电价一直在上涨，因为在某些州，经通胀调整后电价实际上是在下降的。
Although that said, you can't even say that electricity prices have been rising because in certain states, they've actually been going down on an inflation adjusted basis.
所以即便是这个问题也存在细微差别。
So even that is a nuanced picture.
但总体而言，尤其是疫情以来，我们确实看到了电价涨幅高于常态的情况，再加上AI这个重大课题。
But by and large, especially since the pandemic really, by and large, we have seen faster than normal increase in electricity price inflation, and we have the big AI question.
因此我们必须弄清楚：第一，所有这些新增数据中心容量将如何进入市场？
So we really have to figure out, A, how is all of this new data center capacity going to come on to the market?
谁来提供发电支持？
Who's going to supply the generation?
然后由谁来承担这部分成本？
And then who is going to bear that cost?
是否要由那些已经在多个市场中普遍面临账单上涨的消费者来承担？
Is it going to be the consumers who are already, generally speaking across several markets, seeing their bills go up.
如果我们要讨论这个橡皮筋球市场，那我至少庆幸我们请到了最合适的嘉宾来
If we have to talk about this rubber band ball market, then I'm glad we at least have the perfect guest to
探讨这个问题。
do it.
我就说这么多。
We That's all I'm gonna say.
事实上，我们确实请到了最合适的嘉宾。
We do, in fact, have the perfect guest.
非常激动地宣布，我们将与我一直想邀请上节目的Travis Cavulla进行对话。
Very excited to say we're gonna be speaking out with someone I've been trying to get on the podcast for a little while, Travis Cavulla.
他是NRG能源公司的监管副总裁。
He is a VP of regulation at NRG Energy.
他曾在蒙大拿州的公共委员会任职，因此了解监管垄断市场中价格设定的业务层面。
He's also been on a public commission in Montana, so he knows that side of the business in terms of how prices are set in those regulated monopoly markets.
他还是一位学者。
He's also an academic.
特拉维斯，非常感谢你来到OddLots节目。
Travis, thank you so much for coming on OddLots.
很高兴来到这里。
It's great to be here.
谢谢。
Thank you.
我们对这次对话非常期待，因为有太多问题了。
We're really excited about this one because there are so many questions.
我们为什么要采访你？
Why are we talking to you?
不如你先简单介绍一下你的工作和背景，让听众明白为什么你是最合适的嘉宾人选。
Why don't you give us the sort of brief intro of what you do and what your background is so that our audience has some idea of why you're the perfect guest.
好的。
Sure.
我在NRG公司负责监管事务方面的工作。
So I spend my time on regulatory affairs at a company NRG.
我们是一家大型电力生产商。
We're a big producer of power.
在法律允许、电力与天然气市场存在竞争的地区，我们会向终端用户销售电力。
We sell power to end use customers where that's permitted by law, where competition exists in the power and gas markets.
我们目前拥有约800万终端用户。
So we've got about 8,000,000 end use customers.
在此之前，我曾担任蒙大拿州公共服务委员会主席，该机构负责制定该州公用事业的费率。
And previously, I was the head of the Montana Public Service Commission, the rate setting body for regulated utilities in the state.
我还领导过一个代表各州公用事业委员会的国家级组织NARUC，同时我在芝加哥大学哈里斯公共政策学院兼职教授一门关于公用事业监管与电力市场的课程。
I headed up an organization that represents state utility commissions at the national level called NARUC, and I teach a little bit on the side at University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, a course on utility regulation and electricity markets.
所以我花了很多时间思考客户账单的构成，包括我们作为供应商可以控制的部分，以及那些出现在我们公司账单上的上游销售成本，比如那些最终计入用户账单的输电线路费用。
So I spend my time thinking a lot about what goes into customer bills, both the stuff that we can control, being a company that is a provider, and also stuff that are sort of upstream cost of goods sold that that appear on my company's bills, the sort of poles and wires charges that go in into people's bills.
基本上，你知道，人们的账单分为两部分：商品费用和将商品送达的受监管电网费用，这两者在电力行业都受到某种形式的监管。
So bay basically, you know, there's two parts of people's bills, the commodity and the regulated grid charges that get the commodity to you, and both of those are subject to some form of regulation in this industry.
是啊。
Yeah.
特蕾西，我们最近在芝加哥做现场节目时，我遇到了特拉维斯的一个学生，他说你一定要和特拉维斯聊聊。
Tracy, when we were in Chicago recently for a live episode, I met one of Travis's students there, and he was like, you gotta talk to Travis.
特拉维斯就是能解释所有这些事情的人。
Travis is the man that will explain all these things.
真高兴我们终于实现了这次对话。
So glad we're finally making this happen.
我很高兴我
I'm glad I have
在学生中获得了很高的评价。
a high rating from from the students.
这很重要。
That's important.
来自教授评分。
From rate by professor.
没错。
That's right.
好的。
Okay.
所以别紧张，Travis。
So no pressure, Travis.
好吧。
Alright.
你刚才在讲通过电线和电杆传输的批发成本那些事。
So you were talking about the wholesale cost of the thing that goes across the wires and the poles and all of that.
所以这是电力本身与实际的传输系统的区别。
So that's electricity versus the actual transmission system.
每当这个话题出现时，我们常听到一种说法：问题并不完全在于电力的批发成本。
One thing that we hear whenever this topic comes up is it's not necessarily about the wholesale cost of electricity.
真正的问题在于电网的实际维护和扩建成本。
It's the cost of actually maintaining and expanding the grid.
这种说法有多少真实性？
How much truth is there to that?
如果要指出当前电价上涨的主导因素，究竟是批发价格还是实际的输电成本？
If you're gonna pinpoint the dominant factor behind higher electricity prices right now, is it the wholesale price or the actual tran cost of transmission?
是的。
Yeah.
这取决于你选择评估的时间范围。
It's kind of the scope of time that you choose to evaluate.
不过，为了给你一个基准参考——以新英格兰电力市场为例，过去二十年见证了行业重组和市场竞争的引入。经通胀调整后，实际商品成本下降了约50%，而同期输电成本却增长了约900%。
But, you know, just to give you kind of a benchmarking, you know, if you looked at, say, the New England power market over the last twenty years, which sort of is the beginning point of the the restructuring of the industry and the introduction of competition in a place like New England, the actual commodity cost would have fallen by about 50% on an inflation adjusted basis, whereas on the same basis, transmission costs would have increased something like 900%.
当然，这是从非常低的基数增长到了一个更显著的水平。
Now from a very low level to a much more substantial level.
但如果你在另一个市场进行这种比较，比如大西洋中部地区，在更短的时间跨度内，比如逐年比较，电网成本在一年内不会大幅上涨，但电价会。
But then if you drew that comparison in another market, say the Mid Atlantic, over a shorter period of time, like year over year, you know, the grid costs would not have risen substantially in a year, but power prices would have.
这其实只是因为商品运作更基于基本的供需平衡关系。
And that's really just because the commodity works on more fundamental kind of supply and demand balance.
你知道，短缺会相对快速地推高价格，而当市场重新趋向平衡时出现的供应过剩又会迅速压低价格。
You know, scarcity will drive up prices relatively rapidly, and then an oversupply that occurs when the market is moving back toward equilibrium will drive prices down rapidly.
而输电和配电系统相关的那些受监管的成本，这些仍然是成本加成型的受监管行业，它们有个有趣的特点就是长期来看只会单向上涨。
Whereas those regulated set of costs that attach to the transmission and distribution systems, you know, those are still cost plus regulated industries, and they have a funny way of working mono directionally up over the course of time.
但这两者之间存在此消彼长的关系。
But these two things trade up trade off against one one another.
要知道，为了保障电力高效输送，必须投资输电设施。
You know, you need to invest in transmission in order to facilitate the efficient delivery of electricity.
为了开发低成本可再生能源生产区域，也需要进行输电投资。
You need to invest in it in order to open up regions for low cost renewable energy production.
因此它们确实存在相互影响，但监管方式却大不相同，最终这些成本都会转嫁到消费者的账单上。
So they do have an interactive effect, but they're regulated in a very different way, and both of those land on consumers' bills.
我认为理解这个问题最简单的方式是，消费者某种程度上可能就像温水煮青蛙一样，逐渐适应了这些监管费用。
I I think the easiest way to understand this is that, you know, consumers, in a sense, had maybe been, as a result of the regulated charges, the proverbial frog and gradually warming water.
而当你最终进入商品超级周期时，人们会突然感觉，哇，好像有人突然把这锅水的火开大了。
And then when you finally enter a commodity super cycle, people can have the sense that, oh, wow, someone just ratcheted up the heat on this pot.
但这两者都是影响因素，需要采取不同的结构性方法来应对。
But both of those are contributing factors, and they require sort of different structural approaches in order to reckon with them.
乔，这是我讨论美国电价和电力系统时永恒的挫败感——你根本无法泛泛而谈。
Joe, this is my perennial frustration talking about electricity prices and the electricity system in The US, which is you cannot talk in generalities.
对吧？
Right?
不同实体适用不同类型的监管规定。
There are different types of regulations for different entities.
基本上每个州都有不同的监管法规。
There are different regulations for each state, basically.
你看，有新英格兰体系，有西海岸体系，还有德州——它本身就是个特殊存在。
There's, you know, the New England system, then there's the West Coast, and then there's Texas, which is its own special ent entity.
你几乎得单独讨论每一个市场，即便是在长达一小时的播客里也很难做到。
You kinda have to talk about every single market in isolation, which is difficult even on hour long podcasts.
所以我认为这将是贯穿整个对话的注意事项。
So that's gonna be the caveat throughout this conversation, I think.
这很特殊。
It's idiosyncratic.
有趣的是，当这个行业引入重组和竞争机制的同时，电信等行业也在发生同样的事。
And it's funny because at the same time restructuring and competition was introduced into this industry, it was also occurring in things like telecom.
要知道，电信行业也基本在同一时期实现了去管制化和联邦化。
Telecom, you know, was substantially deregulated and federalized at the same time.
然而各州在电力领域可以自主决策。
States, however, were left to make their own decisions about the power sector.
因此最终形成了州与联邦法规的拼凑体系，以及不同的产业模式。
And as a result, you really have a huge patchwork quilt of state and federal regulation and different industry models.
确实如此。
It's true.
我还有个非常基础的问题想问。
I have a really another really rudimentary question, I guess.
当我们谈论电力竞争时，到底在讨论什么？
What are we even talking about when we talk about competition in electricity?
要知道，我无法选择接入哪条电线。
You know, I don't get to choose which wire I get into.
我只能选择一家电力公司。
There's one utility I have the option from.
有时街上会有人推销，说什么'签约使用清洁能源'之类的。
Sometimes there are these people on the street, and they're like, oh, sign will you sign up for clean power or something like that?
他们试图让我办理业务。
And they try to get me to do something.
但我实在不明白这怎么运作的，因为我不懂电子怎么被定向输送到特定家庭，所以总是很怀疑。
But I don't really understand how that works because I don't understand how electrons can be directed to anyone's home, so I'm always very skeptical of that.
当人们谈论竞争性市场时，究竟指的是什么？
What are we talking about when people talk about a competitive market?
是啊。
Yeah.
可以把电力系统想象成一条链条。
So think of the electricity system as sort of a chain of links.
上游是发电厂，之后是高压输电系统。
Upstream, you've got the power generators, and then after that, you've got the high voltage transmission system.
它接入变电站将电压降至较低水平。
It patches into a substation that steps down the voltage to a lower level.
这就是我们所说的配电系统。
That's what we would call the distribution system.
然后你家外墙会挂着一个电表，电表之后就是用电终端了。
And then there's a meter hanging on the side of your home, and beyond that meter, you are the consumer of electricity.
在最上游的发电环节和最下游的零售环节，某些州已经开放了市场竞争。
The most upstream, the generation, and the most downstream retailing have been opened in some states to competition.
我觉得发电环节的市场化含义相当直观。
And I think it's fairly intuitive what that means for generation.
发电厂由私人投资者所有，他们进行投资建设。
Power plants are owned by private investors who make investments in them.
这些发电厂在电力拍卖中相互竞争，将电力出售给批发承购商。
Those power plants compete against one another in auctions for electricity and to sell their power to wholesale off takers.
其中一些承购商就是电力零售商，他们购买上游电力供应，然后使用受监管的输电网络，按监管费率将电力输送到您家中。
Some of those off takers then are the retailers of electricity who sort of buy an upstream supply of goods and then use the regulated poles and wires and pay regulated rates to deliver that commodity to you at your home.
因此，在竞争性市场中，您作为潜在零售客户所体验到的部分价值主张就是产品选择。
So some of the value proposition of what you're experiencing as a potential retail customer in a competitive market is your product selection.
举个例子，去年有家零售商向我推销五年固定电价合约。
I mean, to give an example, a retailer came to me and marketed me a five year fixed price for electricity last year.
我购买了它。
I bought it.
我锁定了电价。
I locked in a rate.
因此我可以免受上游批发市场价格波动的冲击。
I'm insulated from upstream, you know, changes in wholesale market volatility as a result.
这大体上是竞争性零售的价值主张，不过在德克萨斯等地，你还会看到产品差异化，带有电信和数据竞争的影子，就像零售电力供应服务中包含了更多应用。
That's generally the value proposition of competitive retail, though in places like Texas, you're also seeing product differentiation that has a ring of telecommunications and data competition, sort of like more apps as part of your retail electric supply service.
有人向你推销智能恒温器或住宅电池，这些可以打包进你的零售电力供应计划，向电网回售电力，帮助管理上游成本以稳定价格。
People selling you smart thermostats or residential batteries that can be packaged onto your retail electricity supply plan to sell back to the grid, help manage your costs upstream to stabilize pricing.
但这就是该领域的竞争范式。
But that's the paradigm of competition in this space.
这是一个中间受监管、边缘有竞争的系统。
It's a regulated system in the middle with competition on the edges.
我们能稍微退一步，回到那个市场大重组的话题吗？
Can we back up for a second and go back to that big restructuring of the market?
因为我感觉这能帮助我们理解当前的情况。
Because I I have a feeling this will help us understand our current situation.
但当时我们试图解决的是什么问题呢？
But what was the problem that we were trying to solve back then?
要知道，人们的记忆都很短暂。
You know, people have short memories.
很多人会说我们当前的电力系统有其特殊问题，但他们忘记了这个系统原本是为了解决之前存在的问题而建立的。
A lot of people would say that our electricity system right now has its own special problems, and they would forget that there were previous problems that this system was meant to address.
是啊。
Yeah.
我是说，这有点令人不安。
I mean, it's kind of haunting.
你问这个问题很有意思，因为当初要解决的问题是：那些原本以垂直一体化方式拥有整个产业链的受监管公用事业公司，对行业需求增长的预测出现了严重失误。
It's funny you should ask that question because the problem it was meant to address is that regulated utilities, which used to own this whole chain of links on a consolidated, vertically integrated basis, bet wrong very badly on the amount of demand growth in the sector.
他们大举兴建发电厂，打算将这些资产计入所谓的费率基础，从中获取回报，并将成本转嫁给被锁定的客户群体。
And they put themselves out there building power plants that were intended to be included in what's called their rate base on which they earn a return and are able to charge off those costs to a captive set of customers.
当他们对系统最终实现的需求预测出错时，发现自己已建或在建的发电量远远超出实际需求。
When they bet wrong on the demand that would ultimately materialize on the system, they found themselves well over their skis in the amount of power generation that they either had built or were in the process of building.
受监管公用事业经济的核心在于这个分配问题：整个系统的固定成本作为分子，除以吞吐量这个分母。
At the heart of regulated utility economics is this division problem where kind of a total system of fixed costs is the numerator divided by the denominator of throughput.
所以这些受监管公用事业公司当时正在大幅增加分子端的数值。
So these regulated utilities were adding handsomely to the numerator.
分母未能支撑这一局面，结果就是那个除法问题导致价格不断攀升。
The denominator wasn't propping up that, and the result was that division problem spitting out a price that was escalating higher and higher.
当时一些公用事业公司的州监管机构表示，你们太不谨慎了。
Some utilities at that point, their state regulators said, you've been imprudent.
我们不会允许你们进行成本回收，因为你们太不谨慎了。
We're going to not allow you cost recovery because you've been imprudent.
它们破产了。
They went bankrupt.
但这只是例外情况。
But that was the exception to the rule.
大多数公司还是允许从受控客户群体中回收这些成本，但有些州也通过了法律表示：我们再也不这么干了。
Most of them allowed those costs to be recovered from a captive customer base, but some of those states also passed laws that said, let's never do this again.
我们完全应该让电力投资根据市场需求水平，成为投资者在市场上竞争性押注的结果。
There's no reason why we shouldn't have power generation invested in to meet the levels of demand needed on the system be a function of investors' competitive bets in the market.
所以在约三分之一的州（但占全美电力销售半数以上），这就是现在的商业模式——像我们这样的公司需要预测需求，并争取让客户自愿与我们签订合同，为我们可能投资的发电项目创造收入。
And so in about, you know, call it a third of the states, but accounting for more than half of the power sold, that's now the business model where companies like mine are you know, have to make guesses about what the demand is going to be and try to volunteer sign up customers to voluntarily contract with us to produce revenue for the power generation we might invest in.
而在美国其他地区，这套机制依然运行着——就像我这样戴着前公用事业委员会主席帽子的人，通过预测未来走向，并将这些预测成本转嫁给垄断的客户群体。
And for the rest of the country, it still works by, you know, people like me wearing my former hat, you know, as a as the chairman of the utility commission, like guessing what the future is going to be and charging off the cost of those guesses to a monopolized customer base.
硅谷正在向你兜售一个未来，在那里你将被淘汰，或者更糟——变得千篇一律。
Silicon Valley is selling you a future where you're obsolete or worse identical.
在Palantir，他们见证着截然不同且革命性的变革：从国防基地的再工业化，到造船工人效率的提升，再到一线员工生产力的飞跃，人工智能正在重塑全国的工作方式。
At Palantir they're witnessing something different and revolutionary From re industrializing the nation's defense base to shipyard workers building faster and frontline workers boosting productivity, AI is transforming work across the nation.
人工智能并非要取代美国工人，也不是要将他们同质化。
AI is not replacing American workers or flattening them into conformity.
它正在释放每个人不可替代的特质——他们的判断力、工艺水平和创造力。
It's unleashing what makes each one irreplaceable their judgment, their craft, their creativity.
当美国工人更强大地做回自己时，他们就掌握了未来。
When American workers become more powerfully themselves, they own the future.
Palantir，让美国人不可替代。
Palantir, making Americans irreplaceable.
大家好，欢迎光临。
Hello, and welcome.
这里是米歇尔·侯赛因秀。
This is the Michelle Hussein Show.
我是米歇尔·侯赛因。
I'm Michelle Hussein.
我曾与埃隆·马斯克这样的人对话，我想我已经做得够多了。
I speak with people like Elon Musk I think I've done enough.
还有珊达·莱梅斯。
And Shonda Rhimes.
真可爱。
That's so cute.
这里将成为每个周末你都能信赖的地方，通过一场关键对话来理解这个世界。
This will be a place where every weekend, you can count on one essential conversation to help make sense of the world.
所以请加入我，收听并订阅彭博周末频道的米歇尔·侯赛因秀，无论你在哪里获取播客。
So please join me, listen, and subscribe to the Michelle Hussain Show from Bloomberg weekend, wherever you get your podcasts.
你确实提出了有趣的问题。
You certainly ask interesting questions.
我们来聊聊你之前的职位，因为常听到的一种说法是，公用事业公司存在过度投资的动机，因为这可能决定他们未来被允许收取的费用标准。
Let's talk about your former hat because one of the things you hear about is that the utilities have this incentive to overinvest because that might help determine what they're allowed to charge on a going forward basis.
但不如先谈谈你之前的角色，你扮演的基本职能，你如何思考决策过程，以及我们该如何从监管委员会成员的视角来理解这个世界的运作？
But why don't you sort of talk about your former hat and the basic role you played, how you thought about decision making, and how we are to understand what the world looks like from the standpoint of someone sitting on that regulatory commission?
是的。
Yeah.
首先，你完全说中了其中起作用的激励机制。
Well, you're number one, you're absolutely correct about the incentives at play.
在美国普遍采用的经济监管模式下——这种模式毫无例外地用于监管公用事业领域的垄断行业——企业的回报率是由州或联邦经济监管机构预先公布的，基于他们在系统中投入的资本量。
Under the style of economic regulation that is widely used really without exception in The United States to regulate the monopoly industries in the utility sector, the companies earn a return that is sort of announced in advance by their state or federal economic regulators based on the amount of capital they've invested in the system.
所以'投入越多，赚得越多'会产生一些悖论效应：公用事业公司从某项资产获得的最大利润往往是在拥有它的第一年，而当他们完全拥有这项资产后，实际上利润就归零了。
So spend more, make more has some paradoxical effects where the most amount of profit a utility will ever make is in the first year that it owns a particular asset, and then when they own it free and clear, they actually earn zero profit.
这与竞争性企业预期的现金流模式形成了某种倒置。
So it's sort of an inversion of the cash flow paradigm that you would expect out of competitive businesses.
监管机构还会为受监管资产设定折旧年限以用于费率制定，这对上述模型会产生一些交互影响。
Regulators also establish the depreciation lifespan for rate making purposes of regulated assets, which has some interactive effects with that model.
所以这基本上就是州公共事业监管委员会日常工作的核心内容。
So that that's basically the grist in the mill of what state regulatory utility commissions do.
他们决定公用事业公司资本投资中哪些部分算是'用于服务客户'且'有效使用'的金额。
They determine the amount that is quote, unquote used and useful in service to customers of the capital investments that utilities have made.
他们还会为所谓的'审慎发生费用'（即系统的运营维护成本）设立补贴额度，公用事业公司这部分没有利润空间，只能收回成本。
They also establish an allowance for so called prudently incurred expenses, the o and m on the system, around which the utility earns no margin, just gets a recovery of those costs.
这还产生了连锁激励效应：如果我是一家公用事业公司，面对需要解决的问题，我总是倾向于通过资本投资来解决。
And that that also has the knock on incentive of if I'm a utility and I look at a problem that I have to solve, I'll always want to solve it with capital investment.
我绝不会想用运营支出来解决，因为前者能获得回报，后者不能。
I will never want to solve it with opex, you know, and because that one earns return, one does not.
因此在竞争性企业中常见的资本支出与运营支出之间的权衡取舍，在受监管行业往往不会发生。
So ordinary trade offs that would occur in competitive businesses between CapEx and OpEx tend not to occur in the regulated sector.
其他国家采用了不同的方式，试图建立更多基于绩效的监管框架，根据实际成果给予公用事业公司利润。
Other countries have done this a different way and have tried to establish more of performance based framework of regulation that rewards utilities with profits based on outcomes.
但说实话，美国由于种种愚蠢的原因，始终未能实现这种模式。
But, you know, The United States has never got there for a whole variety of, frankly, dumb reasons.
这就是该行业的监管方式。
So that's the way the sector is regulated.
坦白说，一个仍按照二十世纪初标准监管的行业却要服务现代经济，这确实很怪异。
It's it's weird to have a sector that is really regulated according to early twentieth century standards that's trying to serve a modern economy, to be fully candid with you.
是啊。
Yeah.
确实给人这种感觉，对吧？
It does feel that way, doesn't it?
就像我在开场时说的，我对电力市场了解不多。
So, again, I said in the intro, I do not know much about the electricity market.
我感觉自己一直在努力理解它。
I feel like I'm constantly struggling to try to understand it.
但我知道的是，许多电力公司多年来一直在抱怨美国的电力负荷实际上在下降或停滞。
But one thing I do know is that a lot of the electricity companies seem to complain for years and years and years that loads in The US had actually been either declining or stagnant.
现在我们面临的情况是，所有人都在谈论数据中心的兴起，而它们消耗大量电力。
Now we have the situation where everyone is talking about data centers coming on stream, and they use a lot of electricity.
所以用电负荷终于开始上升了。
So loads are finally rising.
这对电力公司来说难道不是好事吗？
Shouldn't this be a good thing for the electricity company?
他们难道不该庆祝现在有额外资金可以投入运营支出，或者资本支出吗？
Shouldn't they be celebrating they have extra money to spend on, if not OpEx, then CapEx?
一般来说，是的。
Generally, yes.
确实，美国大多数电力市场的需求一直相当平稳。
And it's true that for most electricity markets in The United States, it's been fairly flat.
在PJM市场（覆盖宾夕法尼亚、新泽西、马里兰，从华盛顿特区延伸到芝加哥的地区），他们上次记录的用电峰值还是在2006年。
In the PJM, the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland market that stretches from Washington DC to Chicago, they last recorded a record peak demand in 2006.
极有可能在2026年，也就是二十年后，他们会创下新的需求记录。
They'll, in all likelihood, set a new demand next year, twenty years later in 2026.
像德克萨斯州的ERCOT市场这样的少数市场确实在增长，但这绝对是例外情况。
Some markets like Texas's ERCOT market have been growing, but it is definitely the exception to the rule.
这些地区大多数上一次创下用电需求纪录，还是在电力密集型产业离岸外包和去工业化之前。
Most of these people last set a record demand, you know, before the period of offshoring and deindustrialization of industries that use a lot of electricity.
这实际上也促进了从煤炭到天然气再到可再生能源的资本更替，在许多地方都有所体现。
And and that actually facilitated the kind of turnover of capital from coal to gas and to renewables a little bit as well in a lot of these places.
但总体而言，这对总装机容量来说基本持平甚至略有负面影响。
But net of net, you know, that was kind of neutral or even a little bit negative in terms of the total installed generation capacity.
即使在新增发电容量方面也勉强持平。
It was kind of managing to even in terms of generation capacity additions.
至于他们是否应该庆祝这个问题
And then in terms of, like, shouldn't they be celebrating?
是的。
Yes.
毫无疑问。
Definitely.
整个行业，包括我的公司和受监管的公用事业企业，都对增长前景感到兴奋。
Everyone in the sector, my business, and the regulated utilities are excited about the prospect of growth.
他们也对这种增长是否真实以及增长幅度感到紧张。
They're also nervous about whether or not this growth is real and to what magnitude.
令人担忧的部分原因是，通常电力需求增长会是多种终端应用需求增长的复合结果，这样能分散对增长押注的风险。
Part of what makes it a little worrying is that ordinarily, electricity demand growth would be a composite of growing demand from many different end use applications that would kind of diversify the risk of betting on growth.
而这次的情况就像是非此即彼。
Here, it's like a one or a zero.
你明白吗？
You know?
如果剔除数据中心，这个行业在电力需求方面其实相当稳定。
If you take out the data centers, the sector is actually, you know, pretty stable in terms of electricity demand.
如果把数据中心算进去，这个行业确实有望实现大幅增长。
If you add the data centers, the sector is really poised to grow a heck of a lot.
看看电网运营商的预测数据，我举个例子，我之前提到的中大西洋地区PJM市场，目前规模约16万兆瓦。
And when you look at the projections of the grid operators, I mean, just to put some numbers on this, the the market PJM in the Mid Atlantic that I was referring to, it's currently about a 160,000 megawatt market.
预计到2030年将增加4万兆瓦的容量。
It's projecting to add 40,000 megawatts by 2030.
德克萨斯州的ERCOT市场，目前大约是85,000兆瓦。
The ERCOT, Texas market, you know, about 85,000 megawatts right now.
其最新预测显示，到2030年将增长至近140,000兆瓦。
Its latest projection is up to nearly a 140,000 megawatts by 2030.
这意味着五年内德州的电力需求将相当于增加了一个加州的体量。
Now that's like adding a California to Texas in terms of electricity demand in five years.
但这不可能实现，因为根本不具备条件。
And that's not going to happen because it can't.
我的意思是，这实际上根本不可能发生。
It just, I mean, literally could not occur.
而这正是问题所在。
But there therein lies the problem.
关键在于：我们究竟在为何投资？哪些监管政策能从根本上厘清AI实际带来的电力需求规模，从而让资本投资能在供应链中传导，最终满足这些需求。
It's like, what are we actually investing toward, and what are the regulatory policies that can essentially help call the question on the amount of offtake that will actually materialize from AI so that then capital investments can propagate throughout the supply chain to to end up serving them.
这确实是政策制定者、公用事业公司以及像我们这样的竞争性供应商正在努力解决的核心问题。
That that's really the fundamental question that policymakers, utilities, and competitive providers like us are trying to deal with.
这些数字简直令人震惊，短短几年内要在德克萨斯州新增相当于加利福尼亚州规模的电力需求。
Those numbers are absolutely staggering, the idea of adding California size demand to Texas in just a standpoint of a few years.
你说你认为这些数字不可能实现，那么制约因素是什么？
When you say you don't think those numbers can happen, what is the constraint?
是像德克萨斯州这样的市场在发电侧受限，还是说我们讨论的是其他任何地区？
Is it on the generation side in a market like Texas or if we're talking about any other region?
因为我觉得建设太阳能农场之类的设施应该相当容易。
Because I think it's pretty easy to set up, you know, solar farms or whatever.
德克萨斯州对接入电网的限制看起来相当宽松。
Texas seems pretty liberal with what kind how easy it is to plug into the grid.
还是说在那种州，即使你能建立发电设施，输电容量也不够？
Or is it in a state like that, there isn't the transmission capacity even if you can stand up the production?
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，各方面因素都有一点。
It's I mean, it's a little bit of everything.
从电力行业围栏之外的一切说起，包括实际建设数据中心的能力，以及支撑它们的芯片和光纤等。
Everything from stuff that isn't, you know, on the power sector side of the fence line in terms of actually being able to construct data centers and, you know, their chips and the fiber optics that would back them up.
而在我们这一侧，你说得对，需要通过并网接入电网，获取接入电网所需的所有设备。
And then on our side of the fence, you're right, getting access to the grid through interconnection, getting all the equipment that you would need to tap into the grid.
我们讨论的是电网升压、发电机升压变压器之类的东西。
We're talking about, you know, kinda grid step up, generator step up transformers, and stuff like that.
乔，我知道这是你多年来听播客时最关心的话题之一。
Joe, I know that's a topic near and dear to you from listening to the pod over the years.
还有就是电力设备方面的问题，比如燃气轮机的可用性。
And then it is the power equipment in terms of, like, gas turbine availability.
要知道，考虑到这些数据中心对持续稳定电力生产的需求，太阳能电池板可能无法满足要求，但它们确实能起到辅助作用。
You know, solar panels probably aren't going to do it for you given the demand for, you know, kind of consistent power production off of these data centers, but they are helpful.
所以问题的关键在于规模实在太大，这确实是个两难困境。
So it's just the magnitude there is a dilemma.
而且，你知道，就现在来说，如果我要订购像升压变压器这样的设备，在疫情前可能只需要12到18个月就能交货。
And, you know, right now, if I were to place an order for something like, you know, a generator step up transformer, You know, pre COVID, it would have been maybe, like, twelve to eighteen months.
现在我们谈论的是需要三到四年才能获得的定制设备，其规格只有在当地电力公司（线路杆塔公司）告知我关于电网可用性及我们系统连接的互联研究结果后，才能确定。
Now we're talking about three to four years for a bespoke piece of equipment whose specifications are only available to me after the local utility, the poles and wires company, tells me what my interconnection study looks like in terms of grid availability and our connection to the system.
所以这是第一点。
So that that's one.
要知道，NRG很幸运已经预定了一些燃气轮机，将在本十年晚些时候交付，因此我们能够推动部分这类投资。
You know, NRG is lucky enough to have some gas turbines lined up for delivery, you know, later in this decade, so we would be able to facilitate some of this investment.
但如果你现在才开始排队，那同样将是一个需要数年的过程。
But if you were going to get in line right now, that too would be a process that would take several years.
部分原因是设备供应紧张，部分原因是这类准监管流程中项目上线的各阶段存在自然间隔。
Some of it's the availability of equipment, and some of it is a natural pacing of steps in the kind of quasi regulatory process to get projects online.
更好的思路是：当前一项有趣的政策创新是建立某种市场机制，在不触发大量线路杆塔资本投入的前提下，从电网互联角度充分利用系统中稀缺的剩余容量空间。
It would be better think one of the interesting policy innovations that's out there is if you had kind of more of a market to make use of the scarce remaining headroom in our system from sort of a grid interconnection point of view without tripping into having to build a bunch of capital investments in poles and wires.
但你知道，现行监管模式并非这样运作的。
But, you know, that's not the way the regulatory model is set up.
目前的情况是：作为发电企业，我需要先敲开当地电力公司的门说‘你好’
You know, right now, we have a paradigm where if I'm a power generator, I kinda knock on the door of the local utility and say, hey.
我想在这个地方建一个电力项目。
You know, I wanna build a power project at this place.
你能为了并网而研究一下这个项目吗？
Can you can you study it for the sake of its interconnection to the grid?
他们提交研究报告后，我对数据不满意。
They come back with a study, and I don't like the number.
我对技术规格也不满意，于是又提交了另一份研究报告重申要求。
I don't like the specs, and then I submit another study and reiterate.
因此开发这些项目有时是个耗时的过程，可能需要建立更多连接供需双方的协调渠道。
So it's a time consuming process sometimes to develop these projects, and there there probably needs to be avenues that are more coordinated between the demand and supply side.
即便不——即便确实不应该从功能上重组公用事业商业模式——但电线杆和线路的拥有者与发电方之间确实需要更多协调。
And even if you don't, you know, even if you certainly shouldn't functionally reintegrate the utility business model, but there does need to be more coordination between the people who own the poles and wires and the people who are doing the generation.
这在当前政策环境中算是缺失的一环。
And that's kind of a missing link right now in this policy landscape.
除了纯粹的电力需求总量（我猜是以兆瓦计）外，数据中心对能源是否有特殊要求？比如电力的类型？
Other than sheer volume of power needs, I guess, megawatts, do data centers have specific energy needs in terms of, I don't know, the type of electricity?
我猜一兆瓦就是一兆瓦吧，但我又知道什么呢？
I would assume a megawatt is a megawatt, but what do I know?
但从时间和类似因素考虑，数据中心用电是否有独特的运营考量，不同于工业工厂或我们回家开灯这种情况？
But maybe in terms of timing and things like that, are there sort of operational considerations that are unique to data centers electricity consumption versus, say, an industrial factory or us turning the lights on when we get home?
是的。
Yeah.
所以，最早大规模接触计算技术的经验，基本上都是云服务器，而另一面则是加密货币挖矿设施。
So, I mean, the first experience, you know, at any scale that anyone seemed to have with computing technologies, you know, were kind of, you know, cloud based servers, and then really on the other side, like, crypto mining facilities.
这两者都是数据中心，但差异简直不能再大了。
And both of them data centers, but the two could not be more different.
对吧？
Right?
加密货币在币价跌破某个阈值时就会变得不经济而停止挖矿，所以它是高度灵活的负载，在电力市场紧张时会立即退出系统——我们在德州经常看到这种情况。
I mean, crypto can it becomes uneconomic at a certain strike price for cryptocurrency to continue mining, and so it's a highly flexible load that drops off the system when conditions become tight in an electricity market, and we see that all the time in Texas.
另一方面，提供实时即时托管能力的云服务，它们的用电具有很高的负载系数。
On the other hand, for, you know, cloud services that are providing kind of real time instantaneous hosting capabilities, you know, they they kind of need they have a very high what's called a load factor of their power consumption.
它们以相对稳定的方式从电网获取电力，当然，它们需要具备极高的可靠性。
They're drawing from the system on a relatively consistent basis, and, of course, they need to be highly reliable.
要知道，一旦电力中断就会引发类似CloudFare或AWS服务中断那样的问题。
You know, they can't really be interrupted without having CloudFare or AWS interruption style problems.
这与传统工业客户截然不同——比如铝冶炼厂在进行批次冶炼时负荷系数很高，绝不能中断供电。
So very different, and you can look back to analogs of, you know, other industrial customers, you know, aluminum smelters, high load factor when they were doing the batching of smelting, couldn't be interrupted.
造纸厂或许可以承受电力中断。
Paper mills, maybe you could interrupt them.
因此我们行业从中吸取了一些经验，并建立了围绕需求灵活性的市场机制，试图为电力行业复制七十年代航空业通过重组放松管制后取得的成果——当时航班载客率从极低水平提升到了满载状态。
So we, the industry has some, like, kind of learnings from this, and there have been markets designed around the flexibility of demand to try to do for the power sector what previously happened to say the airline sector, which had used to have, you know, very low load factor.
在某些案例中甚至会出现超售导致乘客改签获得补偿的情况。
And then after restructuring and deregulation in the seventies, suddenly everyone's, you know, everyone's airplanes ended up full, you know, and too full in some cases where, you know, people get bumped and compensated for it.
但电力行业至今仍未实现这种变革，负荷系数仍维持在50%、60%或70%的水平。
So we're we've yet to achieve that, though, in the power sector where load factors continue to be, you know, fifty, sixty, 70%.
这就导致某些时段电力系统有大量冗余容量，而其他时段却几乎没有缓冲空间。
So there's a lot of headroom during certain hours and very little headroom during other hours.
因此，从网络经济学的核心问题来看，如果你最终拥有一批高负载因子的数据中心客户——那些无法中断服务的类型，如何在不因满足他们最后几个百分点的刚性需求时段而触发大量必要资本投入的情况下，将他们接入网络？
So the the kind of the primary question in terms of the network economics is if you end up with a bunch of high load factor data center customers, the type that can't be interrupted, how do you get them online without tripping into a bunch of necessary capital investments to serve that last few percent of hours where their demand needs to be served and firm?
或者能否从系统其他部分获取灵活性，比如住宅空调等资源？
Or can you source flexibility out of the system somewhere else, like from residential air conditioning or something like that?
这个问题同样至关重要，亟待解决。
That's a question, again, that's very important to figure out.
人们已经初步意识到这个问题，但尚未找到任何实质性的解决方案。
People have kind of issue spotted it, but we've really yet to solve in any meaningful way.
像得州这样的市场更倾向于在自由企业原则下解决这个问题。
The markets like Texas are kind of geared towards solving it in more of a free enterprise premise.
其他市场似乎还在艰难探索中。
Other markets seem to be struggling a bit.
您可以通过彭博新闻快讯随时获取最新资讯。
You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now.
我是艾米·莫里斯。
I'm Amy Morris.
我是Karen Moscow，来为您介绍我们全新的点播新闻报告，直接推送至您的播客订阅。
And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed.
《彭博新闻速递》是一档五分钟的短音频节目，为您带来当日头条新闻。
Bloomberg News Now is a short five minute audio report on the day's top stories.
节目全天更新最新资讯和数据，让您随时掌握信息。
Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed.
是的。
Yes.
其他新闻机构也有类似产品，但它们通常是全天重播电台新闻简报。
There are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day.
我们不是这样做的。
That's not what we do.
我们制作独家定制内容，仅在《彭博新闻速递》中播出。
We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now.
而且我们不会拖延一小时才发布突发新闻。
And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news.
当新闻爆发时，我们会在几分钟内将最新节目推送到您的播客订阅中，确保您始终获取最新动态和进展。
When news breaks, we'll have an episode up on your podcast feed within minutes, so you're always getting the latest stories and developments.
获取彭博社遍布全球的3000名记者和分析师带来的专业报道与深度解读。
Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts were all over the world.
现在就在苹果、Spotify或您常用的播客平台收听彭博新闻最新内容。
Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.
想想手机收到提醒的场景还挺有趣的。
It's funny to think about getting an alert on your phone.
就像GPT六号完成了它的交易测试。
It's like g p t six is completing its trading run.
抱歉。
Sorry.
不。
No.
我们现在希望您立即调低空调温度。
We we would like you to turn down your air conditioning right now.
展开剩余字幕（还有 254 条）
我不确定这种情况是否会发生，但人们对数据中心感兴趣的部分原因——嗯，其实有很多原因。
I don't know if that would happen, but part of the reason everyone's interested in data centers, period well, there's a lot of reasons.
但当人们听到这些数字时，他们开始担忧。
But people are worried when they hear these numbers.
他们会想，'哦，作为消费者——比如说我住在德州（我有时确实住那儿）——我会不会以某种方式为数据中心带来的需求激增买单？'
They're like, oh, am I as the consumer let's say, I lived in Texas, which I sometimes have, am I as the consumer going to in some way or another be paying the price for this massive expansion of demand thanks to data centers?
直觉上，感觉似乎不应该这样。
Intuitively, seems like, well, it shouldn't be.
他们可以自己支付电费。
They can pay for their own electricity.
他们可以自己承担升级费用。
They can pay for their own upgrades.
但从普通消费者的角度来看，这种需求的巨大增长会如何影响他们呢？
But how does this massive increase in demand play out from the sort of the rate payer perspective?
是啊。
Yeah.
要回答这个问题，我们需要回到受监管电网成本与商品成本之间的划分。
So we go back to the segmentation between the regulated grid costs and the commodity costs on on in answer to that question.
在商品方面，这往往是一个边际成本定价环境，如果需求增长超过供应增加，系统会变得更紧张，供应曲线会上升以满足需求的最后单位，其边际成本实际上决定了所有需求必须支付的清算价格。
On the commodity side, you know, this tends to be a marginal cost pricing environment where if you have demand growth outstripping supply additions, the system becomes tighter, the supply curve moves up for the kind of last unit that's necessary to serve demand, and its marginal costs in a very real way establish the clearing price that all demand has to pay.
除非并且在某种程度上，他们通过某种对冲工具进行双边合约，而每个人都应该这样做。
Unless, and to the extent to, they are bilaterally contracted with some kind of hedging instruments, which everyone should be.
在理想市场中，没有人应该暴露于那个现货价格，但我们发现很多人出于各种原因确实如此。
No one should be in an ideal market exposed to that spot price, but we find that many people are for a variety of reasons.
所以人们考虑过的一些政策干预是，通常我们会让这些市场自行平衡。
So some policy interventions that people have contemplated is, you know, usually, we would let these markets kind of equilibrate on their own.
我们期望有机增长能够与有机供应增加相匹配。
We would expect sort of organic growth to be met with organic supply additions.
在这里，人们观察到，哇。
Here, people have observed, like, wow.
这种需求增长似乎与市场自然能够实现的规模严重不匹配。
This demand growth seems really out of scale with what the markets have organically been able to achieve.
也许我们应该要求用户自备发电设备。
Maybe we should have a requirement to just bring your own generation.
你知道吗？
You know?
我们不能仅仅依靠远期电力市场交易发出正确信号，然后指望有足够的发电量来满足这种需求——无论是作为社会许可的一部分，还是作为正式的上网监管要求。
We're not gonna let the power markets on a forward traded basis send the right signal and hope that enough generation shows up to serve this demand as sort of part of the social license or even a formalized regulatory requirement for them to get online.
你必须向我们展示你为系统带来的兆瓦级电力。
You gotta show us the megawatts that you bring out of the system.
这就是其中一个争议点。
So that's one of the debates.
在账本的另一边，受监管的成本也可能成为问题。
On the other side of the ledger, the regulated costs, that too can be a problem.
通常来说——这又回到了网络经济学的分配问题——如果你增加系统吞吐量的速度超过了增加固定成本的速度，那么每个人的费率都会下降。
Usually, and again, this division problem of network economics for the regulated costs, if you're adding to that denominator of throughput at a rate that is higher, then you're adding two additions to the fixed cost of the system, everyone's rates go down.
这会产生一个更低的商值，也就是电网用电的价格。
You know, produces a lower quotient, which is the price of grid consumed electricity.
问题在于，在各类材料（变压器、电缆、所有用于电线杆和线路的设备）都面临通胀的环境下，如果你新增需求却不只是利用系统现有的余量，如果你没有提升系统的容量利用率，而是触发大量新增资本支出，那么即便新增需求支付的是管制费率，可能也不足以抵消你在系统上逐步增加的总支出。
The problem here is that in a kind of an inflationary environment for all the materials, the transformers, the cabling, everything that goes into the poles and wires, if you're adding demand and you're not just using headroom that already exists on the system, if you're not increasing that capacity factor on the system, if you're tripping into a lot of new capital expenditures, then even if you're adding demand that's paying regulated rates, it may not be enough to offset the total amount of expenditures incrementally you're making on the system.
因此这里也需要政策干预，尝试将电网产生的成本直接转嫁给数据中心。
So there's policy interventions there too where you can try to directly assign the costs that are caused on the grid back to the data centers.
但这些方法都相当不成熟，有些已尝试的方案甚至瞄准了错误的方向。
But those are pretty nascent approaches, and some of the ones that have been tried are kinda aiming at the wrong thing.
所以这方面还有很多政策制定工作亟待完成。
So a lot of policy work remains to be done here.
这一切某种程度上是场政治辩论，许多州长——这些真正通过州公用事业委员会制定政策的人——他们既想要数据中心带来的经济发展，又不愿在可靠性、可负担性和清洁能源方面承担任何负面外部效应。
And all of this is kind of a political debate where, you know, a lot of state governors, the people who are really the ones kind of in charge of you know, with their state utility commissions setting these policies, They simultaneously want the economic development of data centers, but they don't want any negative externalities around reliability, affordability, clean energy.
所有这些因素相互制约，但政治人物总想同时最大化所有变量，这在当前环境下是不可能的。
And all those things trade off against one another, but, you know, political actors will want to maximize all of those variables, which is not possible in the current environment.
我能问个非常基础的问题吗？
Can I ask a very basic question?
我在纠结该怎么表述这个问题，才不会听起来像是带年长家人去诊所看病似的。
And I'm struggling to think of a way to frame it that doesn't sound like I've just taken an elderly family member to a medical office or something.
但什么是节点？
But what is a node?
节点通常是指变电站这样的地方。
A node usually would be a place like a substation.
它是电网中电力买卖的物理位置。
It is the place on the physical grid at which electricity is bought and sold.
这是电网上的一个物理终点。
It's a physical destination on the grid.
当我们说节点市场（描述电力市场的一种方式）时，指的是电力按所谓的位置边际定价基础进行定价的市场。
When we say nodal markets, which is a way to describe electricity markets, we're referring to markets where electricity is priced on a so called locational marginal price basis.
而LMP（位置边际价格的简称）就是基于电网中称为节点的物理位置来确定的。
And the l the LMPs, as they're called, are based on physical destinations on a grid called nodes.
我只是做个大概估计，像德州这样的市场会有几千个节点，每个节点的电力交易都基于独立定价。
I'm just, you know, estimated guess here, but a market like Texas will have a few thousand nodes at which electricity is traded on an individuated price basis.
这对我来说感觉是很奇怪的做法，当然我相信采用这种方式一定有非常合理的理由。
That seems like such a weird way of doing it to me, and I'm sure there are very valid reasons for doing it in this way.
但是，考虑到我们现在掌握的所有数据，考虑到人工智能的兴起，难道我们不能计算出整个系统的某种平均成本吗？
But, like, nowadays, given all the data at our disposal, given the rise of AI, can't we work out some sort of average cost across the system?
以物理节点来定价感觉真的很奇怪。
It seems really weird that we're taking it at, like, physical points.
虽然我知道有很多商品确实是基于特定地点进行交易的，但这对我来说还是显得很奇怪。
Although, I guess, you know, there are plenty of commodities that do trade based on particular locations, but it just seems strange to me.
嗯，系统中采用节点定价很重要，因为它能发出强有力的价格信号，准确指示所需发电的位置。
Well, it is important that you have nodal pricing in the system only because it sends a powerful price signal for the accurate location of necessary power generation.
有些市场，比如阿尔伯塔和一些欧洲市场，确实会在整个市场范围内建立区域统一价格。
There are certain markets, I'm thinking of Alberta, some of the European markets, that actually do establish a zonal price across their entire market.
但那样的话，最终会出现发电开发商在远离需求的特定区域开发风电以获取平均价格，结果却因为输电系统限制和拥堵导致这些能源无法输送的情况。
But there, you you end up with power plant developers, you know, who develop wind in a particular area far away from demand to capture the average price, but then that energy ends up being undeliverable because there are transmission system constraints and congestion.
所以节点定价机制的设立是为了反映一个与股票交易所不同的市场——这里交易的不是代表纸质证券的数据片段。
So the nodal pricing formulation is intended to reflect a market that, unlike the stock exchange, isn't just trading bits of data to represent kind of paper securities.
从非常现实的角度来说，它旨在模拟受系统约束的电子流动。
It in a very real way is meant to simulate a kind of flow of electrons on a system constrained basis.
同时它还提供了宝贵的信息，因为如果你持续观察到某地的位置边际价格居高不下，而20英里外却非常低，这就向电网规划者发出了信号：嘿，我们或许应该在这里建设一条输电线路。
And then it provides valuable information too because if you continue to see locational marginal prices, you know, in one place that are very high, and 20 miles away, they're very low, that's a signal to the people who plan the transmission grid that, hey, you know, we should probably build a transmission line here.
因为新增输电线路将消除这种价格差异，从而形成一个更趋近于铜板般统一（而非两个独立泳池般割裂）的市场。
Because the addition of the transmission line will be the thing that flattens out that price differential and creates a market that looks more like a, you know, a copper plate rather than two separate swimming pools.
有意思。
Interesting.
不过为了确认一下，如果我想成为头号公敌，是否可以通过在位置边际价格节点旁建造巨型数据中心，来影响更广泛区域的电力成本？
Just to be clear, though, if I wanted to be public enemy number one, could I build a gigantic data center next to a locational marginal price point node and affect the cost of electricity for, you know, a greater area?
是的。
Yes.
你完全有能力这么做。
You absolutely could.
事实上，我知道至少有一个案例——北达科他州就是典型例子，那里本身就缺乏
And in fact, I mean, I know of at least one example, you know, North Dakota is actually a good example of this, a place that is doesn't have
大量
a lot of
强大的输电基础设施不足，却拥有大量可再生能源资源，这些可再生能源几乎以一种倾销市场的方式导致能源价格下降，在北达科他州有时甚至出现负电价。
robust transmission infrastructure, does have a lot of renewable resources that cause and those renewables are almost kind of dumping on the market in a way that causes the energy price to go down and even negative at times in North Dakota.
而且，你知道，我们在这波扩张浪潮中看到的首批数据中心就选择落户北达科他州，因为他们能获得低至负值的批发电价。
And, you know, some of the first data centers that we've seen in this wave of expansion chose to locate in North Dakota because they had access to wholesale prices that were low or negative.
它们只是跟随价格信号，所以，你知道，有些数据中心实际上因为电力严重过剩而获得用电报酬，而该地区的输电能力又极其有限。
They were just following the price signal, and so there's, you know, there's certain data centers out there that are literally being paid to consume electricity because there's such an oversupply and so little transmission into the area.
我最近在播客上被问到这个问题，当时我没能给出好答案。
I you know, I got to ask this question on a podcast recently, and I didn't have a good answer.
所以现在我想请教。
And I so now I wanna ask.
你刚才提到，所有这些不同的电力设备都供应短缺。
So you mentioned, okay, all of these different pieces of electrical gear, they're in short supply.
可能要到2030年才能获得某些关键设备。
You might not be able to get some key equipment until 2030.
这种紧张状况会有所缓解吗？
Is that strain going to ease at all?
市场上会有新增产能吗？
Is there any additional capacity coming on the market?
被问到这个问题时，我有些犹豫。
When I was asked this, sort of hesitated.
当时觉得，或许他们不确定未来前景，所以对相关资本支出持谨慎态度。
Was like, well, maybe they're not sure about the future, so they're reluctant to do the capital expending involved.
但据你所知，这些核心基础设施的产能是否正在增长？
But do you think there's any is capacity growing for some of this core infrastructure as far as you can tell?
我的印象是肯定的。
My impression is yes.
比如你看到最大燃气轮机制造商GE Vernova关于新增制造基地的公开声明。
I mean, you've seen public announcements from the largest gas turbine manufacturer, GE Vernova, about new manufacturing base additions.
变压器设备方面，我认为也看到了一些增量投资。
You know, of the transformer equipment as well, I think you're seeing some incremental investment in.
当然也看到像NRG这样的发电企业正在布局，根据消费需求实际出现的地点，准备可部署在德州市场或中大西洋市场的电力项目。
You're certainly seeing power generators like NRG, you know, take positions in lining up their optionality to have power projects that can be deployable to either the Texas market or the Mid Atlantic market depending on where consumer demand actually arises.
所以我认为这个市场确实有所发展。
So I I I think there is some development in that market.
我想说的是，人们正在等待的是——大家都知道要审视供应链，并且合理地问：谁在这里有雄厚的资金实力？
I will say, I think what people are waiting for, you know, everyone looks around the supply chain and, you know, is reasonably asking, well, who's got the deep pockets here?
然后所有人都会把目光投向科技巨头。
And then everyone turns to big tech.
显然，如果科技巨头能签订一份15年甚至更短的电力购买协议，以固定价格购电，供应链的某些环节很快就能理顺。
You know, big tech, obviously, if they signed a power purchase agreement for fifteen years or even less to take power at a certain price, some of the supply chain would fall into place pretty readily, I would say.
因此某种程度上人们都在等待科技巨头做出这些重大双边合约动作，这将推动整个供应链对预期需求做出理性响应。
And so people are kind of waiting in a sense for big tech to make those big bilateral contracting moves that would serve to propagate sort of rationality around response to the perceived demand up and down the supply chain.
我认为这将是该领域需要关注的关键领先指标——看看实际签署了多少这类合约。
And I think that's kind of the leading indicator to watch for in the sector, how many of those contracts are actually being signed.
科技巨头简直要包办一切。
Big tech is just gonna do everything.
他们既要建核电站，又要自研芯片，还要自建晶圆厂，无所不包。
They're gonna build nuclear plants, they're gonna build their own chips, and they're going build their own fabs and everything.
这将是一个从头到尾都由字母公司主导的完整生态系统。
It'll be this entire ecosystem that is just alphabets down the line.
不过我想回到你之前说的一个观点，数据中心问题的棘手之处在于，需求激增并非源于整体经济趋势增长。
I want to go back though to something you said, which is that part of what's tricky about the data center thing is that, okay, here's this big boom in demand, but it's not because of general trend economic growth.
也许一年后、六个月后甚至明天人们就会说：'我要紧急叫停AI支出'。
And you could be perhaps that in a year from now or six months from now or tomorrow people say, Oh, I want to slam the brakes on AI spending.
我们看不到回报，泡沫担忧接踵而至。
We're not getting this return, fears of a bubble, you know, forth.
请详细谈谈委员会如何应对这种风险以及非此即彼的规划状态。
Talk to us a little bit more how the commissions are dealing with this risk and this very binary state of planning.
是的。
Yeah.
各州委员会处理这个问题的方式大相径庭。
So commissions at the state level have dealt with this in a very different way.
有些委员会和受监管的公用事业公司直言不讳地表示：'我们不愿承担这种风险'。
Some of them have candidly, and regulated utilities themselves have said, we want no part of this risk.
比如，我们是一家中小型公用事业公司，有人来敲门要求我们投资发电项目，其规模将相当于我们现有总资产负债表的三分之一，而这个资产负债表几十年来一直保持稳定。
Like, we're a small mid cap utility, and someone is knocking at our door asking us to invest in power generation that would be like a third of our total existing balance sheet that's remained stable for decades.
我们就是不会这么做。
We're just not doing it.
你可以接入我们的电网并支付接入费用，但在发电方面，你必须自带项目。
You can get on our grid and you can pay the cost to get on our grid, but in terms of power generation, you've gotta bring your own project.
我们不参与那部分。
We're not involved in that.
其他拥有更大资产负债表的公用事业公司，特别是东南部地区的，正在利用其受监管的资产负债表来扩建发电设施并供应数据中心客户。
Other utilities that have larger balance sheets, the southeastern utilities, are using their regulated balance sheets to build out generation and supply data center customers.
那些经过大量涂黑的商业协议中藏着魔鬼细节——我极其渴望看到这些协议能在多大程度上保护消费者。
Devil's in the details on those heavily redacted commercial agreements that I would I would desperately love to see about the degree to which they protect consumers.
当然，行业的另一面是竞争性行业，比如我所在的公司和数据中心会签订电力购销商业协议，但双方都没有依赖固定客户群的权利。
And then, of course, the other side of the industry, the competitive industry, you know, it's companies like mine and data centers that enter into commercial agreements for the purchase and sale of power, and neither of those parties have recourse to a captive base of customers.
所以他们可能会破产。
So they could go bust.
我们可能会破产。
We could go bust.
这不会，你知道的，让所谓的'纳税人'损失一分一毫。
It's not gonna, you know, be skin off the teeth of a set of quote unquote ratepayers.
再次强调，关于电网成本问题，关键在于各州监管机构——以及本案中的联邦监管机构联邦能源管理委员会——是否会采用'照付不议'合同协议，要求接入电网的大型数据中心实质上为电网扩建产生的增量成本提供收入流担保。
Again, on the grid costs, it's about whether or not state commissions, and in this case, a federal regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are going to style take or pay contractual agreements to require large data centers that come onto the grid to essentially collateralize a revenue stream associated with the incremental costs of developing the grid to serve them.
到目前为止，业界似乎普遍认同这是保护传统用户的正确方向。
And so far, there seems to be relative unanimity that that is the right way to go in order to protect legacy customers.
但细节决定成败，我对这些监管方案中的某些计算方法确实存有异议。
But, again, the devil's in the details, and I I have a problem with some of the math that's being done in those regulatory approaches.
因此这个问题并非未被行业经济监管者察觉，他们实际上正在实时探索解决方案。
So there it's not as if this problem is invisible to the people who are economically regulating this industry, but they are trying to in a very real way, they are trying to figure it out in real time.
我必须首先指出，他们提出的解决方案远非完美。
And they and I'll be the first to say their solution set is far from perfect.
说到这里，我突然意识到这个体系的复杂性——暂且不论50个州各自为政的监管拼图问题。
So just on this note, it strikes me that the difficulty in the system I mean, setting aside the patchwork of 50 different states all having their own different regulations.
当前系统的核心困境在于，我们既要保留市场信号以吸引更多投资，又要平抑部分价格波动，这样我和乔就不必花费过多时间考虑在什么时段吹干头发或洗衣服之类的事情最划算。
Like, the heart of the difficulty in the current system is we're trying to preserve the market signal for further investment, but also smooth out some of the volatility so that Joe and I don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what is, like, the most cost effective time to blow dry our hair or do our laundry or something like that.
所以我们有点像既要资本主义的蛋糕，又想把它吃掉。
So we're kind of trying to have our capitalism cake and eat it too.
蛋糕主义。
Cakeitalism.
蛋糕主义。
Cakeitalism.
这个说法还算贴切。
That kind of works.
你心目中理想的电力市场是什么样子的？
What is your platonic ideal of a electricity market?
在美国或世界其他地方，是否有你认为真正能兼顾这两方面的系统案例？
Do you have one either in The US or elsewhere in the world that you would say, look, here is a system that actually manages to do both these things?
是的。
Yeah.
老兄，我太爱这个问题了。
Man, I love that question.
我想说的是，美国电力系统的一个真正缺陷在于它没有像人们期望的那样成为一个充分的双边市场。
I mean, I will say one of the real flaws in The US electricity system is that it is not as robustly a two sided market as you would hope for.
需求只是被动存在于系统中。
It's still demand just exists on the system.
它基于供应方对可能情况的猜测进入系统，然后期望供应方解决所有问题。
It's coming onto the system based on people's on the supply side guesses about what will happen, and then the supply side is expected to solve all of it.
需求弹性方面几乎没有任何机制。
There's very little in the way of demand elasticity.
这背后有多种历史原因。
And that's been for a variety of historical reasons.
首先最明显的是，过去甚至没有先进计量基础设施这样的技术来了解人们实际用电时间与高度时间变化的上游成本之间的关系。
I mean, the first and most obvious one is that you didn't even have the technology in the form of advanced metering infrastructure to understand when people were actually using the power in relation to a highly time variable set of upstream costs.
现在你们确实有这个技术了。
Now you do have that.
此外，你们也越来越多地拥有这样的软件：能让面向终端用户的电力零售商基于高级计量基础设施的实际电表读数（即按时间间隔）进行财务结算。
You are also increasingly having the software that allows financial settlements on the part of the people retailing electricity to end use consumers to be settled on the basis of that advanced metering infrastructure's actual meter reads, so on a time interval basis.
最后，由于人们不应操心何时使用吹风机这类问题，你们已拥有大量设备自动化技术——包括智能恒温器、电池储能、电动汽车、制造及工业流程——这些都可以设置为自动响应高电价，从而提高系统负载率并避免在用电成本极高的时段用电，实现'设置后无需干预'的运作模式。
And finally, because you shouldn't have to think about when you're going to blow dry your hair, you have a significant amount of device automation in the form of smart thermostats, battery storage, electric vehicles, manufacturing and industrial processes, which can be sort of a set it and forget it to automatically respond to high prices to try to increase the system's load factor and avoid using electricity at very high cost times.
所以这在美国电力行业才刚刚开始。
So that is just starting to happen in the American electricity sector.
我倾向于认为英国和澳大利亚在解决这个问题和拥抱系统内在灵活性方面比美国走得更远一些，而美国仍困在这种'供给侧决定需求侧'的行业框架中。
I would tend to look to The UK and Australia as places that have gone a bit ways further in trying to solve that problem and embrace the inherent flexibility of a system as versus The United States, which is kind of stuck in this sort of supply does something to demand framework of industry.
因此这绝对是我的重点关注事项——它始终排在我的待办清单首位，不仅因为我认为许多人正在用增加供给这种高度传统的方式解决问题（这固然非常重要），但需求侧灵活性对于构建一个像世界上其他高效竞争市场那样具有双向调节能力的市场而言，实际上至关重要。
So that that's definitely on my like, it's always on the top of my homework list, if only because I think a lot of people are thinking about solving this problem highly conventionally with supply additions, which is going to be really important, but that demand flexibility component is actually essential to get to a market that looks like every other efficient and competitive market in the world, which has two sides to it.
我们一直在讨论面向未来的话题，研究如何将所有这些新增产能引入市场等等。
We've been talking a lot about sort of the future looking forward and figuring out how we're gonna get all of this new capacity onto the market, etcetera.
让我们回顾过去几年。
Let's look at the last several years.
发生了什么？
Happened?
我们之所以进行这次对话，部分原因正是因为电力问题已成为人们关注的焦点，对吧？
Part of the reason we're even having this conversation is because electricity are on people's minds, right?
而且电价一直居高不下。
And they've been high.
目前尚不明确这其中有多少只是通胀导致的正常上涨。
And it's a little unclear how much of this is just keeping up with inflation.
我认为电网维护确实直接受制于效率低下、劳动力成本上涨和通货膨胀等因素。
I presume that grid maintenance is actually straightforwardly ineffective, labor costs, inflation, etcetera.
但可以确定的是，自疫情以来，电价上涨速度确实出现了阶段性跃升。
One thing we do know, however, is that the pace of electricity price increases really since the pandemic seems to have been a level step up.
这背后的驱动因素是什么？
What's driven that?
您如何评价过去几年电价走势？负荷增长在推动价格上涨中扮演了怎样的角色？
How would you characterize the last several years of electricity prices and perhaps the role of load growth in driving increases?
嗯。
Yeah.
到目前为止，负荷增长实际上并非导致当前情况的主因。
So so far, load growth is really not the contributor to what has happened here.
这几乎让我们意识到，即便在没有额外负荷增长的情况下，我们的系统可靠性已经低于我们原先的认知。
It is almost an awakening to the fact that we had already without any more load growth, a less reliable system than we thought we did.
这背后有多种原因。
And that's due to a variety of reasons.
我们淘汰了大量燃煤电厂——虽然它们排放高——但取而代之的是大量天然气发电，这导致我们对相互关联的网络系统（天然气供应和管道系统）产生了更强的依赖性。这类系统通常在冬季住宅供暖需求激增时，会暴露出脆弱性，尽管平时它们非常稳定且经济高效。
You know, we retired a lot of coal, which, you know, had a lot of emissions, but we replaced it with a bunch of natural gas that created a, you know, a a sort of more of a dependency on an interrelated network system, the gas supply and pipeline system, which while usually very robust and very economically efficient in winter conditions where there's a lot of residential heating drawn that system can show frailties.
因此，这些电力市场的运营商在设定市场规则时，某种程度上调低了这种发电容量的价值评估，实际上相当于行政性地从部分市场撤出了供应。
And so market operators in these electricity markets sort of derated the value of that capacity in how they set up these markets, which meant effectively a sort of administrative withdrawal of supply from some of these markets.
类似地，可再生能源在中部地区等投资密集区域，并未被视作稳定发电的一对一替代品，而是被当作可调度电源的有效替代方案。
Similar to that, renewables were seen not as a one to one replacement for reliable generation in the parts of the country, the middle of the country especially, where they were heavily invested in, but they were really being leaned on as an effective substitute for more dispatchable power.
我想每个人心底都明白事实并非如此，但直到近期供应紧张时，人们才开始认真核算其中的问题。
I think everyone in the back of their head knew that wasn't the case, but only recently, as things have gotten tight, have people begun to do a lot of hard math around it.
最后，我们经历了几次极具破坏性的冬季风暴（尤其是东部和德州的案例），这彻底改变了电网运营责任方对运行态势和电网可靠资源需求的认知方式。
And then finally, you know, we've just seen a few really traumatic winter storms in particular, one in the East and one in Texas, that have sort of reshaped the way in which the people who have responsibility to operate the grid think about the operational posture and need for reliable resources on the grid.
因此我们进行了多项监管改革，这些改革最终强化了我们对系统可用发电能力的认知，而需求基础却基本保持不变。
And so there were a variety of regulatory changes that were made that had net of net the effect to tighten up the understanding of what generating capacity was available on the system relative to a base of demand that really didn't change.
但由于经济和环保法规导致大量燃煤电厂和旧式燃气电厂退役，我们突然发现自己处于相当紧张的境地。
But suddenly, because of all of the retirements that had happened of coal and older gas due to economics as well as environmental regulation, we suddenly found ourselves pretty tight.
而就在这时，需求增长开始显现。
And then this demand growth started to happen.
所以我们当前面对需求增长时，其实处于相当不利的位置。
So we were not particularly well positioned for the present moment of demand growth.
有些人可能会说我们已把系统优化得既紧凑又高效——如果需求增长是平稳的话。但这个系统确实没有准备好应对数十吉瓦的新增需求。
We'd already driven the system to, you know, some might call it a tight and efficient system if you had demand growth that was level, but it it was not well situated to pick up tens and tens of new gigawatts of demand.
我有个假设性问题，就当是个理论探讨。
I have a hypothetical question, but just as a theoretical exercise.
如果我们都在追求廉价而充足的能源，在这个前提下，给你两个选择：要么挥动魔法棒让美国各地突然出现大量核反应堆，要么挥动魔法棒让全美电池技术取得巨大突破。
If we are all in the pursuit of cheap and plentiful energy, and if as part of that pursuit, you could choose between two options, you could either wave a magic wand and get a bunch of nuclear reactors scattered around America, or you could wave a magic wand and get huge advances in battery technology across America.
这两个选项中，哪个更能帮助我们实现廉价充足能源供应的目标？
Which of those would be most conducive to having that cheap and plentiful energy supply?
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，虽然这个选择会让我的很多朋友不高兴，但我可能会选择电池和储能。
I mean, I I'm gonna make a lot of my friends unhappy with this one, but I'd probably go batteries and storage.
我认为在没有补贴的情况下，太阳能发电在全国大部分地区具有天然的经济优势，而电池似乎与之非常匹配。
I think there are some natural economic advantages in wide swaths of the country for relatively affordable, even without subsidies, solar production in particular, and batteries seem like a pretty good natural match to that.
从德克萨斯州目前的情况来看，电池与太阳能发电的结合，再加上天然气发电的补充，支撑了唯一一个不依赖数据中心而增长的电力市场。
It really has been in the kinda Texas story to date, the pairing of batteries and solar together with natural gas additions that have supported really the only electricity market that has been growing without data centers.
因此，我会将其视为领先指标。
So I would take that as the leading indicator.
这并不是在诋毁我那些核能支持者社区的朋友们。
That's not to speak ill of my friends in the nuclear bro community.
希望他们中的许多人都在收听这个播客。
Hope that Many of who listen to the podcast.
希望小型模块化反应堆领域正在取得的技术进步能够开花结果。
Advances that seem to be occurring in the small modular space come to fruition.
就目前而言，我还没看到很多人从商业角度在这方面投入大量资金，但我确实看到人们在储能领域砸钱。
I just so far, I don't see a lot of people laying down serious capital on that from a commercial perspective, but I do see people laying down money on storage.
我最后还有一个问题，这有点作弊的嫌疑。
I just have one last question, and it's kinda cheating.
其实这个问题是想让你帮我们完成工作，因为我在绞尽脑汁给这期节目想个好标题。
I'm actually question, I'm kinda gonna have you do our work for us, etcetera, because I'm trying to think of a really good title for this episode.
但展望未来五年，你提到要在德州新增一个加州规模的用电需求。
But if you look out over the next five years, you mentioned adding a whole California to Texas.
你如何看待此刻美国电力系统、整个电网面临的挑战规模？
How are you thinking about the scale of the challenge overall that The US electricity system, that the grid overall really faces in this moment?
从你们这样的公司到各州公用事业委员会，这项挑战的规模究竟有多大？
Like, how big is it that everyone from companies like yours to the various utility commissions, like, how big is this challenge gonna be?
这可能是个重大挑战。
It could be a substantial one.
我认为人工智能带来的电力需求增长是真实存在的。
I mean, I think that AI demand growth for electricity consumption is real.
我也认为这种增长需要拿出资金承诺来促进电力行业的资本投资，毕竟这些投资将是他们赖以生存的基础。我认为这些将成为他们在电网中运营的社会许可的基本条件——即使是在已经引入竞争的领域，电网仍然受到严格监管。
I also think that that growth needs to pony up financial commitments to engender capital investments in the power sector that it intends to rely upon, I think those will be the table stakes of their social license to operate in a grid that even where competition has been introduced remains pretty heavily regulated.
所以我认为我们会实现这个目标。
So I I think we're going to get there.
就我所接触的监管政策而言，确实存在太多小打小闹的思维，对传统做法的信任也过度了。现在或许是时候进行监管政策创新了，就像联邦通信委员会管理频谱和航空业放松管制那样，尝试将电网容量分配给最具价值的用户——那些真正愿意支付最高价格的人。
I I do think that in terms of the regulatory policy that I deal with, there's too much small ball thinking on this, and there's too much trust in the way we've always done things, it's probably a time to really have kind of regulatory policy innovations like we've seen with the FCC regulating spectrum and the deregulation of the airline industry that tries to allocate the capacity on the grid to the highest value, the people who are actually willing to pay the most for it.
而这些支付款项很可能会超过服务他们的边际成本，实际上可以成为回馈消费者的收入来源，从而帮助解决可负担性问题。
And those payments, which would likely exceed the incremental costs of serving them, could then actually be a revenue source back to consumers that helps on the affordability side.
所以这几乎是对听众的呼吁——如果你正从事一份平凡的企业工作，想尝试完全不同的领域，不妨考虑成为公用事业监管者，运用市场原则来帮助解决这些问题。
So I you know, it's almost a call to your listeners that, you know, if you're doing a a mundane corporate job and wanna do something completely different, consider becoming a utility regulator and applying some market based principles to to help solve some of these problems.
因为当你仔细思考时，公用事业监管机构需要成为该领域资本形成的推动者，并在需求不确定性方面澄清当前形势——这正是我们在概念层面所面临的挑战。
Because really, when you think about it, utility regulation, they need to be an agent of capital formation here in the sector and to clarify this moment in terms of demand uncertainty, and that is the kind of challenge on a conceptual basis that we're grappling with.
特拉维斯·卡武洛，说真的我们可以和你聊上几个小时。关于你在蒙大拿州的经历细节以及那些运作方式，我还有无数问题想问，不过今天就先到这里吧。
Travis Cavullo, you know, we can talk to you for hours actually just on you know, I have a million more questions just about specifics from your time in Montana and how all those things work, but we'll let you go.
非常感谢你抽时间参与。
Really appreciate your time.
改天再约，这期节目我确实学到了不少东西。
Let's do it again sometime, and I did learn a few things on this episode.
非常感谢你参加《Odd Lock》节目。
So appreciate you coming on Odd Lock.
非常感谢。
Thank you so much.
太感谢你了，Travis。
Thank you so much, Travis.
太棒了。
That was great.
特蕾西，我真的很喜欢这个观点。
Tracy, I really like that.
我特别喜欢你在提问中的表述方式——我们想要一个类市场的环境，需求信号非常重要等等，我们希望资本流向能盈利的地方。
I really like the way you put it there in your question of we wanna have a market ish environment, and demand signals are pretty important, etcetera, and we want capital to flow where it's gonna be profitable and all that.
我们只是不想承受市场带来的任何阵痛。
We just don't really want any of the pain associated with the market.
是啊。
Yeah.
而且，讽刺的是，市场可能正按预期运作——比如像数据中心这样的大型电力消费者，决定搬迁到能源成本实际很低的地方。
And, I mean, the irony is that the market could be functioning as intended in the sense that a large consumer of power, like a data center, decides to relocate itself to a place where energy costs are actually quite low.
没错。
Yeah.
然后因为它这么做，完全地。
And then because it does that Totally.
最终将电力需求成本分散到更广的区域，完全地。
Ends up distributing Totally.
你知道，它自身的电力需求成本就这样被分摊到更广泛的地区。
You know, the cost of its own power needs across a wider area.
这一切看起来...我想说，我还是回到之前提到的观点。
And it all seems I mean, I'm just gonna go back to what I said earlier.
这一切看起来太绕了，真的。
It all seems so convoluted Yeah.
而且在不同司法管辖区之间如此独具特色。
And so idiosyncratic across different jurisdictions.
我确实非常尊重特拉维斯刚才的呼吁。
I do actually really respect Travis's call just then.
如果你对市场感兴趣，并想对人们的日常生活产生影响，考虑尝试清理能源监管这个烂摊子吧。
If you're interested in markets and wanna have an impact on people's everyday lives, consider trying to clean up the mess that is energy regulation.
但你知道吗，即使在不复杂的情况下，如果我们只想象一个正常市场的柏拉图式理想状态，那里有这种商品——电子，而且，如果人工智能真的是非常有价值的东西，比吹干头发更有价值呢？
But, you know, even in the nonconvoluted version of it, if we just imagine the platonic ideal of a normal market and there's this commodity, electrons, and it's, well, what if AI is this really valuable thing, and it's more valuable than blow drying your hair?
我是说，真的，这可能会成为现实。
I mean, for real, this could be a thing.
就像，你知道的，我们之前讨论过制造汽车或钢铁等等。
Like, you know, we were talking about making cars or making steel, etcetera.
我们会说，哦，是的。
We'd be like, oh, yeah.
嗯，这就是这个
Well, this is this
价值我生产性本不打算这么做。
value I productive wasn't gonna do it.
我本来不打算提的，但现在我要提起你曾写过理论上挖矿可能比运行冰箱更有价值的那件事。
I wasn't going to, but now I'm gonna bring up that time you wrote that mining crypto could theoretically be a more valuable activity than running a fridge.
嗯，没错。
Well, right.
这就是问题所在。
This is the question.
在一个正常市场中，这个例子显得荒谬的原因——我很高兴你实际提出了这一点。
In a normal market, the reason why that example seems absurd I'm glad you actually brought it up.
因为这个例子显得荒谬的原因在于，很少有人能理解挖矿怎么可能比运行冰箱更有价值或增值。
Because the reason why that example seems absurd is because very few people could ever wrap their heads around, well, could cryptomining be more valuable or value add than running a fridge?
话虽如此，当涉及到像AI这样的东西时，确实存在争议。
That being said, when it comes to something like AI, there really is a debate.
有些人会说这完全是浪费，因为AI只是制造快速诗歌的昂贵方式。
And some people would say that's a total waste because AI is just a costly way to make fast poems.
而其他人会说，不，这是第四次工业革命之类的。
And other people would say, No, this is the fourth industrial revolution or whatever.
所以我认为我们对于‘哦，我们只要把电子转移到出价最高的人那里’这种说法感到不安的部分原因是，我觉得很多人直觉上都不认为这是一种对实际资源的良好分配。
And so I think part of the reason we're sort of uncomfortable with the, Oh, let's just move the electrons to who's going to pay for them most, is because I don't think a lot of people there are a lot of people who intuitively are skeptical that this is a good allocation of real resources.
对。
Right.
我是说，从政治角度来看，‘你的电费必须上涨，这样AI才能运作，而你可能会失业’这种信息是极其令人难以接受的。
I mean, I think, politically, the message that the cost of your electricity has to go up so that AI can do its thing and you can lose your job is an extremely unpalatable one.
不。
No.
完全如此。
It's totally.
完全如此——我认为这就是为什么这会毁掉很多人的品牌形象。
It's totally I think this is why it's gonna break a lot of people's brands.
但另一方面，如果我们接受市场通常是资源良好分配者的信念等等，他们就会说‘这其实不是我们该发表意见的事’。
But on the other hand, if we accept the belief that markets are generally good allocators of resources, etcetera, they're like, Well, it's not really our job to have an opinion on.
这是合理的用途。
This is a good use.
这不是合理的用途。
This is not a good use.
但不管怎样，我觉得那场对话非常有意思。
But anyway, I did find that to be a very interesting conversation.
看起来那些需要决定升级和扩容投入多少资金才合适的委员会，现在确实面临艰巨的任务。
It does seem like those commissions that have to decide what is an appropriate amount to spend on upgrades and capacity, they really have their work cut out for them right now.
是啊。
Yeah.
要我说的话，他们在各自辖区通常都不是最受欢迎的人。
The way I would put it is they're not always the most popular people among their respective jurisdictions.
这点是肯定的。
That's for sure.
总得有人来干这些得罪人的活儿。
Well, someone has to have the job of doing the unpopular stuff.
对吧？
Right?
总得有人负责为公用事业投资者提供充分补偿，以弥补他们在为生活和第四次工业革命提供必要商品时所承担的风险。
Someone has to have the job of adequately compensating investors in utilities for the risks that they take on in providing a necessary commodity for life and the fourth industrial revolution.
没错。
That's right.
好的。
Alright.
我们就到此为止吧？
Shall we leave it there?
我们就到这里
Let's leave it
吧。
there.
本期《奇思妙想》播客节目到此结束。
This has been another episode of the Odd Thoughts podcast.
我是特蕾西·阿拉维。
I'm Tracy Allaway.
你可以在特蕾西·阿拉维那里关注我。
You can follow me at Tracy Allaway.
我是吉尔·韦森塔尔。
And I'm Jill Weisenthal.
你可以在The Stalwart那里关注我。
You can follow me at the stalwart.
关注我们的嘉宾特拉维斯·卡武拉。
Follow our guest, Travis Cavula.
他的账号是t卡武拉。
He's at t Cavula.
关注我们的制作人卡门·罗德里格斯（账号卡门）、阿门·达希尔·本内特（账号Dashbot）和凯尔·布鲁克斯（账号凯尔·布鲁克斯）。
Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armen Dashiell Bennett at Dashbot, and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks.
更多Odd内容请访问bloomberg.com/oddlots，那里有每日通讯和所有节目集锦，您还可以在我们的Discord社区discord.gg/oddlots中24/7随时讨论这些话题。
For more Odd content, go to bloomberg.com/oddlots where the daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you can chat about all these topics twenty four seven in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.
如果你喜欢OddLots节目，喜欢我们试图解析美国公用事业格局的努力，请在您喜爱的播客平台上给我们留下好评。
And if you enjoy OddLots, if you like it when we try to untangle The US utility landscape, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.
请记住，如果您是彭博订阅用户，可以完全无广告收听我们所有节目。
And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.
您只需在苹果播客上找到彭博频道，并按照那里的指示操作即可。
All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
感谢收听。
Thanks for listening.
我是巴里·里索兹，诚邀您收听我的《商业大师》播客。
I'm Barry Ritholtz inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business podcast.
每周我们都会为您带来与影响市场、投资和商业的人士的精彩对话。
Every week, we bring you fascinating conversations with the people who shape markets, investing, and business.
无论是CEO、基金经理、亿万富翁、诺贝尔奖得主、交易员、分析师、经济学家，还是所有影响市场动向的人士——无论您持有股票、债券、房地产、大宗商品还是加密货币，这些对话都值得一听。
CEOs, fund managers, billionaires, Nobel laureates, traders, analysts, economists, everybody that affects what's going on in the market, whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, crypto, you really need to hear these conversations.
有时我们会邀请行为经济学家，比如迪克·泰勒或鲍勃·席勒。
Sometimes it's behaviorists like Dick Thaler or Bob Schiller.
有时是像彼得·林奇、比尔·米勒、瑞·达利欧这样的基金经理。
Sometimes it's fund managers like Peter Lynch, Bill Miller, Ray Dalio.
有时是作家。
Sometimes it's authors.
比如《大空头》和《点球成金》的作者迈克尔·刘易斯。
Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, and Moneyball.
无论话题如何，这些人都是每周搅动市场的关键人物。
Regardless of the conversation, these are the folks that move markets each week.
这就是由我——巴里·里索兹主持的《商业大师》播客。
That's the masters in business podcast with me, Barry Ritholtz.
您可以在苹果播客、Spotify或任何收听平台订阅本节目。
Listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。