Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Re: Here is gov't site that explains the reason for the blackouts | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:17:23 03/16/07 Fri In reply to: Bev 's message, "Here is gov't site that explains the reason for the blackouts" on 12:27:35 03/16/07 Fri If you read the whole thing, it basicly says exactly what I posted. They depended too much on electricity coming from outside the state which was a result of not allowing new power plants being built within the state of CA. This put them at the mercy of providers that could have cared less about the people of CA or the utilities that are in CA. The problem of transmisson lines was in the San Fran area, not the whole state as you claimed. "The lights went out in the Bay Area in part because nine power plants were out of service, either for scheduled maintenance or repairs, or were operating at limited capacity. PG&E could not import enough power to make up for the lost generation because the region has limited transmission facilities over which to import power." NOTE THE REFERENCE TO REGION And this: "The state's short-term problems appear to evolve at least in part from past public policy choices regarding electricity supply combined with customer demand that has grown as a result of the state's robust economy." Exactly what I told you! And more: "1. California Has Made Only Limited Investments in New Power Plants in the Past Twenty Years" Again, exactly like I told you! "PUC regulatory ratemaking policy has provided incentives for utilities to forego new investments and defer maintenance. Specifically, "performance-based ratemaking" gives utility managers an incentive to save short term costs to make short term profits and to forego long term investments." Again, just like I told you! " State siting procedures in California are complex and create investor risk because of California's commitment to environmental protection and public participation in the permitting process." This is their biggest problem...too much liberal government meddling and too many econuts that sue to start any building, so investors run to other states to invest their many in new plants. Remember the old saying: "Money always migrates to wherever it's treated best." The Bay area has the worse problem because that is the center of kookyness in CA and these hoards of liberal eco kooks in that area would not allow any new plants even be proposed so they just nurse along the old plants which go down for maintenence at the drop of a hat. To make that worse, these same kooks wouldn't let new tranmission lines be built. They basicly dug their own grave and got what they deserved. "Failure to conduct adequate environmental review can result in CEQA litigation by citizens or local government agencies that can delay, change or eliminate a power plant project." The kooks ALWAYS claim that an adequate environmental review has not taken place and sue. That ends the hopes of getting new plants built. >If you read far enough you will see that power >transmission was part of the problem. Since enron has >already been found to be the largest culprit then the >power transmission blame is just not feasible. If i >have time later I will try to address the gas >refineries myth. However that may have to wait until >sun afternoon or later. > > >href="http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/published/report/GOV_REPOR >T.htm">http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/published/report/GOV_REPO >RT.htm [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |