NASA NTRS2007
Forbes & St. Cyr (2004, hereafter "FISC") have provided evidence that the electricity market can be impacted by space weather. Our analysis indicated that the estimated market impact for PJM was 3.7 % or approximately $500 million dollars over the 19 month sample period. Kappenman has taken exception to this estimate and contends that we have exaggerated the magnitude of the problem that space weather poses to PJM. There are four specific issues: (1) he claims that we have ignored relevant literature; (2) he asserts that Dst is not an appropriate proxy for GICs in PJM; (3) he charges that our findings are inconsistent with the impact of the 17 September 2000 storm; and (4) he alleges that our discussion of October 2003 storms is misleading. In our article, we have explained our methodology, multivariate regression analysis, with a particular focus on how it compares to correlation analysis. We have also explained the limitations of our analysis. We noted that "...While the Dstlprice relationship was found to be robust, the precise estimate should be treated with a relatively high degree of caution given that econometric modeling is not an exact science as well as the fact that the measure of space weather may be a poor proxy for GICs" (paragraph 96). We have also noted that additional research using local magnetometer data are needed (paragraph 97). We did not claim that that our findings for PJM are representative of the impact of space weather on other power grids. On the contrary, we noted that ... "Only analysis of other power grids will tell. " (paragraph 97). Kappenman inaccurately asserts that we have indicated that our findings . . . "imply much higher total costs are likely across the US and elsewhere in the world." He also inaccurately asserts that we have claimed that " . . . Dst is the most suited proxy for GIC in the PJM grid.. ." Moreover, he inaccurately refers to our analysis as a correlation study that uses Dst as quasi-binary indicator.