richard.arnold@juno.com wrote:
>
> The following seemed to require a bit of a response; nothing personal is
> intended.
>
> Rich
Indeed it did, but as someone who works in the utility industry (in a
state utility regulatory agency), allow me 3 (well three and a half)
observations that sum it all up:
1) Per capita power consumption is a meaningless factoid in this case.
The simple truth is that California has had the largest *growth* in
electrical demand in the US for at least the past 5 years, and hasn't
built a new generating plant or transmission facility in 15 years. If
you ever took any economics, what happens when demand rises and supply
remains the same?
1a) Why would one deregulate supply prices when demand is high and
supply is limited? I still can't figure that decision out.
2) Rather than doing what short-term economics would dictate to any
rational person (i.e. voluntarily reduce demand), Californians still det
record demand levels for electricity, despite warnings of what would
happen. So, reduction in demand was forced on them in the form of
rolling blackouts, proving that "denial" isn't just a river in Egypt.
3) The State of California was placed in this predicament by the state
legislators who established the policy that your utility regulators have
to follow. The legislature established the policies that led to
situation (1), decided to do (1a), and forced regualtors to impose
situation (2). If you don't like the result, perhaps you should think a
bit about who you elect in the future.
Look, California. It's nothing personal, but *you* made the decisions
which for years have built to this result. We're willing to help, but
quit blaming everybody else.
[LBC content: I drove my Midget yesterday, and it ran GREAT!! Now if I
can find that pesky coolant leak...]
///
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)
|