Consumer Homes.

Question:

  Fwd: by Sean D. : Thoughts on the Nature and Future of Electric Power      moderated by Michael Potts & Paul Gipe Introduction Summary Bogus Crisis Opinions Remedies Feedback    History: California’s Power Crisis, A Personal View by Paul Gipe Copyright 2001 by Paul Gipe. All rights reserved. This essay may not be copied or circulated without express permission. Disclosure: What follows are my recollections of events surrounding California’s electric utilities and how we came to be in the situation we are in today. These recollections are derived from an admittedly faulty memory of events, some of which occurred more than a decade ago, and seen through the lens of my political perspective. This is a work in progress and will change as time and memory permit. February 2, 2001 California Deregulation I’ve been a resident of California since 1984. I followed utility issues in the state closely until the mid 1990s, as both an advocate of renewable energy and a contractor to the wind energy industry. At that time, the deregulation train was barreling down the track and I didn’t want any part of it. So I turned my attention elsewhere. Deregulation was complex. It was overwhelming. Worse, the Big Dogs and free-market ideologues were running the show and there was little room for public-interest groups to participate. It was, I thought, better to wait until the dust settled before investing any more time in the seemingly futile effort to determine how renewables or the environment fit into the picture. Unfortunately, some four years later the dust still hasn’t settled and even more dust is being stirred up. Today the system is in disarray. Rolling blackouts are daily threats, business groups are lobbying for every conceivable pet energy project, and the public is screaming about the power crisis. In a fit of hubris suitable for the Guinness Book of Records, the state’s politicians are promising that they’ll fix everything–"Just don’t you worry," they say. I am worried. Especially when I hear politicians making such inane suggestions on how to solve the power crisis as building more nuclear power plants. No, I didn’t make that up. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale) said it. In general, I prefer the devil I know to the devil I don’t know. Some renewables advocates argued that the previous system of regulation was broken and nothing could make it worse. I didn’t agree. After all, the previous system had resulted in 1,500 MW of wind capacity and 600 MW of solar power in the state. While it was far from perfect, at least I knew the players and where they stood. Of course, that’s not true today. Most utilities have changed their names since deregulation fever swept the country. Now, we don’t even know the names of our suppliers, let alone where they’re based. Where do I stand? I was opposed to deregulation. I still am. Anyone with any historical perspective whatsoever should recall with a shudder why electric utilities were regulated in the first place. Millions of Americans lost their life savings to the Power Trusts of the 1920s. As a result, there was a social compact between utilities and the public. While it was fraught with problems from an environmental perspective, the system basically worked. At least it kept the lights on. Deregulation resulted from the belief of followers of the last great religion to sweep the world. Call it what you will, Thatcherism, Reaganism, capitalism, free-marketism. It is an "ism" no different than the other great "isms" of the 20th century (communism, socialism, etc.). But it’s our "ism" and it is the prevailing ideology. Californians and their politicians were not immune. So, is the power crisis real? Yes, it certainly is. Is there a quick fix? No. It took us a decade to get into this mess and it will take some time to get us out. Is the public’s widespread cynicism about who benefits from the crisis justified? Yes. While the public may not have the facts straight, their general belief that they will be the ones to pay for the failures of deregulation is right on target. Why the Crisis? Here’s a quick summary. The state’s population is exploding. Since I arrived here 15 years ago, the state’s population has increased nearly 50%, from 25 million then to 36 million today. The state’s population is nearly half again that of Canada, and more than half that of Great Britain. Per capita consumption is increasing–not decreasing. Despite great advances in technology since the mid 1980s, we’re using more electricity now than we were then. When I arrived in the state, the average household used 6,200 kWh per year. Today consumption has risen to 6,700 kWh/yr. Yes, everyone has a computer now that they didn’t have then. But waste is rampant. Just drive down any street at dusk. Even in the current crisis, with prices at record highs, you can see homes with two or even three incandescent porch lights blazing away. And today everyone has an instant-on television gobbling up the kilowatt-hours in the living room even when it’s turned "off". I attribute this partly to the "wealth effect" of a booming stock market. Who cares about cost when there’s plenty of money and more being made every day. Deregulation itself is another factor that has contributed to increased consumption. Utility-sponsored efficiency programs have been cut statewide by more than two-thirds. Demand = population x per capita consumption. Bingo. We’re consuming more electricity than ever before. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. On the supply side, there hasn’t been a power plant built in California for a decade. Why No New Plants? Because of those pesky enviros? No. Enviros participated in the grueling, seemingly never-ending and ultimately unsuccessful planning process that should have resulted in 1,500 MW of new power plants in the state. Well then, who did stop the plants? The electric utilities with the connivance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Huh, you mean the guys whining about bankruptcy? Yep, the very ones. It’s a long, bizarre story. Let’s just say that they got it wrong, very wrong. The BRPU No, it’s not a digestive problem. It was the Biennial Resource Plan Update proceeding undertaken by the state’s Public Utilities Commission. This was the pre-deregulation process for assessing need and determining how much new generating capacity was needed and where. To complicate matters further, the assessment of need first had to be identified by the California Energy Commission. The PUC then used the CEC data in its subsequent proceedings. Normally this process took place every two years. The final BRPU went on for almost four years. At the beginning of the decade, the CEC said no new generating capacity was needed in the future. The PUC disagreed and launched its proceeding. The investor-owned utilities, or IOUs, wanted to build new plants. The PUC said that in the modern world the IOUs were not the only ones who could play. They said that independent power producers using wind, solar, and other technologies might be able to build these plants more cheaply. As a result, the PUC issued a request for bids to build about 1,500 MW of new capacity in the state. The IOUs were very unhappy with the bidding results and filed a complaint with FERC. The IOUs prevailed and FERC overturned the bidding and threw out the 1,500 MW of new plants. Yes, that’s the same federal government that now says they had nothing to do with the mess in California. Sierra Club California’s Rich Ferguson has a copy of Southern California Edison’s filing with FERC. In it, SCE claims that the bids should be thrown out in part because there would be no need for the power and that the PUC would require SCE to add capacity "prematurely". Yes, that’s the same clever SCE that’s not paying the wind farms in Tehachapi because the utility is broke. After this disastrous decision, nearly everyone was exhausted. But if FERC’s decision was bad, the situation got worse. The PUC proposed to deregulate the state’s utilities. And for once everyone agreed; the PUC’s plan was dead on arrival. Deregulation Starts Down the Tracks When I want to know what’s happening with California’s electric utilities, the first person I call is Jan Hamrin. Currently she runs the Center for Resource Solutions in San Francisco, but her experience with electric utility regulation goes back to the Jerry Brown administration. She’s been at it ever since. Jan, like others in the public interest community, say that the deregulation train had a head of steam and was going to plow through anything in its path. No one was going to stop it. The "Big Dogs" were driving it down the track, she says, and the best that could be done was to try limit its damage as much as possible. The Big Dogs were the states IOUs (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) and the large industrial consumers who wanted lower rates. Steve Peace, (D-El Cajon), was willing and able to help. An ambitious, up-and-coming legislator, Peace could have ridden successful deregulation legislation to higher office. Instead, it ruined his career. "He couldn’t be elected dog-catcher now," say some pundits. Industrial customers wanted deregulation so they could cut special deals for lower rates outside the purview of the PUC. The IOUs wanted deregulation so they could offer special "sweetheart deals" with their industrial customers and be free to enter into more profitable businesses. As regulated companies, their downside risk was minimized by the social compact of PUC regulation but it also limited their "upside potential" as it’s known in business jargon. Executives cannot envision bankruptcy, they can only see the profits that lie ahead if only government and public regulation would just get out of the way. While Peace and the Big Dogs crafted legislation, the public interest community, deeply split, yapped ineffectually at their heels. Ratepayer advocates wanted lower rates; environmentalists … read more »

Response:

Best account of the situation I have seen yet. Dan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  Fwd: by Sean D. >: Thoughts on the Nature and Future of Electric Power >     moderated by Michael Potts & Paul Gipe >Introduction >Summary >Bogus Crisis >Opinions >Remedies >Feedback >   History: California’s Power Crisis, A Personal View >by Paul Gipe >Copyright 2001 by Paul Gipe. All rights reserved. This essay may not be >copied or circulated without express permission. >Should you cry for PG&E and SCE? Certainly not. They have been criminally >negligent because of their opposition to the BRPU process and their >avaricious support of deregulation. PG&E and SCE, as well as the >out-of-state power generators who may be gaming the power market in >California should be held accountable for any deaths or injuries that may >result from rolling blackouts.

  I notice that he left out two important factors. #1)the "Greens" who are determined that there be no new power plants built. #2)It was not the "utilities" who refused to let *any* long term contracts be written. I am familiar with the "regulation" process, form the inside (Iworked for such an agency), and they constantly "second guess." You cannot win, if they reserve the right, to second guess every decision, without *any* consequence. The point of a long term _supply_ contract, is that you expect costs to *go up.* Since no one really knows, it is a bet with the supplier. A bet that prices will go up _more_ than the higher cost. The supplier, really can’t lose, as they sell product either way. They don’t have to worry about not having a market. The buyer, no longer needs to worry about how high it _does_ go.    Only an idiot whines, when they make a wrong bet. If you bet, by buying short term supplies that prices will go _down_, you’d better hope that you guessed right. If you don’t, you *lose.* There is *no one* obligated to make up for your stupid mistakes. Especially, someone who does not profit if you bet right.   California bet wrong, and lost. It continues to make the same mistakes. Like a problem gambler, it continues to pour money into the same losing "hand." "Protect" the consumer, by not making them pay "market rate," for power. Of course, power usage is up, and remains up. Someone else is paying the "higher bills," so there is no reason to "save." Electrical power will continue to be "wasted," as long as the consumer is protected, from the effects of their own behavior. If running every light, only costs $1/month, why not? If it costs $100/month, see how fast they get turned off. >previous: Summary      Links      next: Bogus Crisis

 FBN Graphics prints specialties in small quantities at reasonable prices. Express your interests with a Custom printed T-shirt, mug, mousepad, or carry bag. We cheerfully print in quantities as small as one. http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/  Answer the design survey, and win a free prize.

Response:

>  I notice that he left out two important factors. #1)the "Greens" who >are determined that there be no new power plants built.

The reason he left that out is that it is just plain wrong. No point in "facts" that are simply false. See any of the various references I have provided. #2)It was not the "utilities" who refused to let *any* long term >contracts be written.

This is wrong too, in detail (though not in overall thrust).  You really ought to read what I have written about California’s "deregulation" process.  The idea of scheduling virtually all of the generation and load through CalPX was someone’s idea — whose is not clear, although the concept itself comes out of the 1988 UK system and its Pool — to develop a deep and liquid electricity market rapidly, and avoid market power.  Instead, it *facilitates* the exercise of market power; and of course markets have to develop on their own. In any case, long term contracts *were* written — but not enough. >I am familiar with the "regulation" process, form the inside >(Iworked for such an agency), and they constantly "second guess."

All true.  But the PUC were *supposed* to "get out of the way" at the end of the deregulation "transition" phase, and the frozen retail price was *supposed* to provide "headroom" until the deregulation transition ended in 2002.  No one — neither the utilities nor the legislators writing AB1890 — really imagined that natural gas prices would exceed $5/MMBtu, and yet here they are today at $15/MMBtu in SoCal, with some forecasts calling for $60/MMBtu. Retail prices in CA *must* rise, and *will* rise; the question now is how and when.  The CPUC voted for an increase that was supposed to have happened already, but due to many objections (from virtually all quarters — Davis and consumer groups say "too much", PG&E and SCE say "too little", businesses say "too skewed", etc) it has been delayed until June at the earliest. — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc / Wind River Systems

Response:

>   Only an idiot whines, when they make a wrong bet. If you bet, by >buying short term supplies that prices will go _down_, you’d better >hope that you guessed right.

PG&E managers got large bonuses for being idiots and making that wrong bet. They were pushing for deregulation all the way. Now they want to be bailed out by taxpayers.

Response:

:   California bet wrong, and lost. It continues to make the same : mistakes. Like a problem gambler, it continues to pour money into the : same losing "hand." "Protect" the consumer, by not making them pay : "market rate," for power. Of course, power usage is up, and remains : up. Someone else is paying the "higher bills," so there is no reason : to "save." Electrical power will continue to be "wasted," as long as : the consumer is protected, from the effects of their own behavior. If : running every light, only costs $1/month, why not? If it costs : $100/month, see how fast they get turned off. This would make sense, providing that power was just another commodity. Let the market determine the price in that case. But power is not "just another commodity" any more than /dev/hda is "just another file" on a Linux box. There are two reasons why power isn’t just another commodity. First, it’s energy, and the power underpins all the businesses; blackouts put the brakes on business. Second, the "free market" fails as there is _one_ grid and the customer has no real choice but to go off-grid. A free market can’t exist unless PV panels and batteries and inverters get incredibly cheap OR the cost of generation gets higher. — FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run. The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust. The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.

Response:

> There are two reasons why power isn’t just another commodity. > First, it’s energy, and the power underpins all the businesses; blackouts put > the brakes on business.

You could apply that argument to anything. Wheat is food; and food underpins all the businesses; food shortages put the brakes on business. Water is a necessity; and water underpins all the businesses; water shortages put the brakes on business. Etc. Electricity is a commodity.  If anything, it is even more a commodity than anything else, since it is so easy to produce, transport and consume. > Second, the "free market" fails as there is _one_ grid and the customer has no > real choice but to go off-grid. A free market can’t exist unless PV panels and > batteries and inverters get incredibly cheap OR the cost of generation gets > higher.

You are confusing distribution (the grid) with supply (generation).  The grid is not a commodity, but what it transports (electricity) is. The grid is a public good, just like the street in front of the grocery store.  But just because we use the infrastructure to deliver a commodity, it gives no more reason to own the supplier than to own the consumer.  Both need the infrastructure to use the commodity. sdb — More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6  *** Watch out for munged e-mail address. User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!

Response:

You can store food, you can store water. You cannot easily store electricity so it doesn’t matter how easy it is to produce and transport. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Electricity is a commodity.  If anything, it is even more a commodity > than anything else, since it is so easy to produce, transport and > consume. > Second, the "free market" fails as there is _one_ grid and the customer has no > real choice but to go off-grid. A free market can’t exist unless PV panels and > batteries and inverters get incredibly cheap OR the cost of generation gets > higher. > You are confusing distribution (the grid) with supply (generation).  The > grid is not a commodity, but what it transports (electricity) is. > The grid is a public good, just like the street in front of the grocery > store.  But just because we use the infrastructure to deliver a > commodity, it gives no more reason to own the supplier than to own the > consumer.  Both need the infrastructure to use the commodity. > sdb > — > More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6 >  *** > Watch out for munged e-mail address. > User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com > Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is easily stored electricity. — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages – http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages – http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation – http://www.webconx.com/x10 (212) 894-3704 x3154 – voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You can store food, you can store water. You cannot easily store > electricity so it doesn’t matter how easy it is to produce and > transport. > Electricity is a commodity.  If anything, it is even more a commodity > than anything else, since it is so easy to produce, transport and > consume. > > Second, the "free market" fails as there is _one_ grid and the customer has no > > real choice but to go off-grid. A free market can’t exist unless PV panels and > > batteries and inverters get incredibly cheap OR the cost of generation gets > > higher. > You are confusing distribution (the grid) with supply (generation).  The > grid is not a commodity, but what it transports (electricity) is. > The grid is a public good, just like the street in front of the grocery > store.  But just because we use the infrastructure to deliver a > commodity, it gives no more reason to own the supplier than to own the > consumer.  Both need the infrastructure to use the commodity. > sdb > — > More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6 >  *** > Watch out for munged e-mail address. > User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com > Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)! > — > Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

>>  I notice that he left out two important factors. #1)the "Greens" who >are determined that there be no new power plants built. >The reason he left that out is that it is just plain wrong. >No point in "facts" that are simply false.

  There are some such. I was watching "The Lehrer News Hour," a few weeeks abck, and they had a couple. How hard they had to look, I have no idea. I suspect any in Cal, are keeping pretty quiet right now. It could be pretty unhealthy. I want the "Wackos" to shut up because they got logical, correct info, not because they are afraid. IOW, I want them to have the same rights that I want for myself. >See any of the various references I have provided. >#2)It was not the "utilities" who refused to let *any* long term >contracts be written. >This is wrong too, in detail (though not in overall thrust).  You >really ought to read what I have written about California’s >"deregulation" process.  The idea of scheduling virtually all of >the generation and load through CalPX was someone’s idea — whose >is not clear, although the concept itself comes out of the 1988 UK >system and its Pool — to develop a deep and liquid electricity >market rapidly, and avoid market power.

  I’m still not convinced that the idea "really works." The UK is not necessarily a good example. Different culture, different society, different needs, different Gov’t structure, etc. IOW, it was poorly planned, poorly implemented, and _maybe_ not workable in Cal. >  Instead, it *facilitates* >the exercise of market power; and of course markets have to develop >on their own. >In any case, long term contracts *were* written — but not enough. >I am familiar with the "regulation" process, form the inside >(Iworked for such an agency), and they constantly "second guess." >All true.  But the PUC were *supposed* to "get out of the way" at >the end of the deregulation "transition" phase, and the frozen >retail price was *supposed* to provide "headroom" until the >deregulation transition ended in 2002.

  Too many things were ignored, by too many people. Internet changes were not anticipated, and no "breaker" in the circuit. Any competent "system engineer," could look at such a system (mechanical type), and see *problems.* In this case politicians (never change anything unless you benefit) and "Management" (always assume tomorrow will look like yesterday), did it to everybody. >  No one — neither the >utilities nor the legislators writing AB1890 — really imagined >that natural gas prices would exceed $5/MMBtu, and yet here they >are today at $15/MMBtu in SoCal, with some forecasts calling for >$60/MMBtu. >Retail prices in CA *must* rise, and *will* rise; the question now >is how and when.  The CPUC voted for an increase that was supposed >to have happened already, but due to many objections (from virtually >all quarters — Davis and consumer groups say "too much", PG&E and >SCE say "too little", businesses say "too skewed", etc) it has been >delayed until June at the earliest.

  $10 says it won’t happen even then. Politicians have their "careers" invested in "fixing" it. By the time they finish trying to "fix" it, it will be well and truly broken. >– >In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc / Wind River Systems

 FBN Graphics prints specialties in small quantities at reasonable prices. Express your interests with a Custom printed T-shirt, mug, mousepad, or carry bag. We cheerfully print in quantities as small as one. http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/  Answer the design survey, and win a free prize.

Response:

> You can store food, you can store water. You cannot easily store > electricity so it doesn’t matter how easy it is to produce and > transport.

Totally irrelevent. It is so easy to produce, why store it? And it is easy to store, have you never heard of batteries? sdb — More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6  *** Watch out for munged e-mail address. User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!

Response:

500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is not electricity, it is the potential for electricity. I can (figuratively) hold a generator in my hand, I can hold diesel in my hand, I cannot hold electricity in my hand > 500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is easily stored electricity.

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

so put the diesel into the generator, fire it up, and walla, electricity. shheesh! — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages – http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages – http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation – http://www.webconx.com/x10 (212) 894-3704 x3154 – voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is not electricity, it is the > potential for electricity. I can (figuratively) hold a generator in my > hand, I can hold diesel in my hand, I cannot hold electricity in my hand > 500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is easily stored electricity. > — > Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

It is so easy to produce yet we have rolling blackouts. Not enough batteries in the world to store the electricity that California consumes in a day. > Totally irrelevent. > It is so easy to produce, why store it? > And it is easy to store, have you never heard of batteries?

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

but you can buy enough batteries to store what you use in a day. especially easy if you practice conservation and cut consumption. — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages – http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages – http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation – http://www.webconx.com/x10 (212) 894-3704 x3154 – voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It is so easy to produce yet we have rolling blackouts. Not enough > batteries in the world to store the electricity that California consumes > in a day. > Totally irrelevent. > It is so easy to produce, why store it? > And it is easy to store, have you never heard of batteries? > — > Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

>but you can buy enough batteries to store what you use in a day. especially >easy if you practice conservation and cut consumption.

Not possible for [in general, not everyone] Californians. Requires effort. Easier to lobby to make "someone else" do it. Like, sell them your power cheap,dammit. Use more power, build less or no new plants, suffer shortages. Reality has a nasty habit of kicking your butt.

Response:

But it is driven by market forces.  A similar situation in denver existed public transportation, it was in financial trouble and had excess capacity. By making parking in downtown more expensive the public transportation system flourished.   Real costs need to be passed on to consumers.  California refused to build power generation capacity and now pays the price. Voters made those decisons over the last 20 years and need to pony up with conservation and there wallets. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > :   California bet wrong, and lost. It continues to make the same > : mistakes. Like a problem gambler, it continues to pour money into the > : same losing "hand." "Protect" the consumer, by not making them pay > : "market rate," for power. Of course, power usage is up, and remains > : up. Someone else is paying the "higher bills," so there is no reason > : to "save." Electrical power will continue to be "wasted," as long as > : the consumer is protected, from the effects of their own behavior. If > : running every light, only costs $1/month, why not? If it costs > : $100/month, see how fast they get turned off. > This would make sense, providing that power was just another commodity. Let > the market determine the price in that case. But power is not "just another > commodity" any more than /dev/hda is "just another file" on a Linux box. > There are two reasons why power isn’t just another commodity. > First, it’s energy, and the power underpins all the businesses; blackouts put > the brakes on business. > Second, the "free market" fails as there is _one_ grid and the customer has no > real choice but to go off-grid. A free market can’t exist unless PV panels and > batteries and inverters get incredibly cheap OR the cost of generation gets > higher. > — > FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run. > The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust. > The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.

Response:

Raising the cost of parking is an interesting way to make public transportation look better, but it isn’t going to keep the downtown vital and active. People will just go to the malls where they can park for free. To make the downtown more vital and active you have to build a $300 million sports stadium with public money. As I understand it California is 49th lowest in per capita electrical consumption. If that’s true maybe the other 48 states ought to lower their consumption and then bitch us out. > But it is driven by market forces.  A similar situation in denver existed > public transportation, it was in financial trouble and had excess capacity. > By making parking in downtown more expensive the public transportation > system flourished. > Real costs need to be passed on to consumers.  California refused to > build power generation capacity and now pays the price. Voters made those > decisons over the last 20 years and need to pony up with conservation and > there wallets.

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

> It is so easy to produce yet we have rolling blackouts. Not enough

Well, it is easy for everyone but a Californian to produce! sdb — More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6  *** Watch out for munged e-mail address. User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!

Response:

>> 500 gallons of diesel fuel and a generator is not electricity, it is the > so put the diesel into the generator, fire it up, and walla, electricity.

Don’t forget Steve, you are talking with a socialist californian! sdb — More guns means less crime.  ISBN:0-226-49363-6  *** Watch out for munged e-mail address. User should be sylvandb1 and host is at bigfoot.com Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!

Response:

Look at Denver, New baseball Park, New basketball arena, New football stadium all downtown. PS great Restaurants and Night clubs with super live Music. Pretty revialized I’d say. Still it costs an arm and a leg to park downtown but it is free to park in the outlying areea and reasonable to rid the bus. (Now they have started a light rail system) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Raising the cost of parking is an interesting way to make public > transportation look better, but it isn’t going to keep the downtown > vital and active. People will just go to the malls where they can park > for free. To make the downtown more vital and active you have to build a > $300 million sports stadium with public money. > As I understand it California is 49th lowest in per capita electrical > consumption. If that’s true maybe the other 48 states ought to lower > their consumption and then bitch us out. > But it is driven by market forces.  A similar situation in denver existed > public transportation, it was in financial trouble and had excess capacity. > By making parking in downtown more expensive the public transportation > system flourished. > Real costs need to be passed on to consumers.  California refused to > build power generation capacity and now pays the price. Voters made those > decisons over the last 20 years and need to pony up with conservation and > there wallets. > — > Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

Seattle did the same, baseball and football stadiums – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Look at Denver, New baseball Park, New basketball arena, New football stadium > all downtown. > PS great Restaurants and Night clubs with super live Music. Pretty revialized > I’d say. Still it costs an arm and a leg to park downtown but it is free to > park in the outlying areea and reasonable to rid the bus. (Now they have > started a light rail system) > Raising the cost of parking is an interesting way to make public > transportation look better, but it isn’t going to keep the downtown > vital and active. People will just go to the malls where they can park > for free. To make the downtown more vital and active you have to build a > $300 million sports stadium with public money. > As I understand it California is 49th lowest in per capita electrical > consumption. If that’s true maybe the other 48 states ought to lower > their consumption and then bitch us out. > > But it is driven by market forces.  A similar situation in denver existed > > public transportation, it was in financial trouble and had excess capacity. > > By making parking in downtown more expensive the public transportation > > system flourished. > > Real costs need to be passed on to consumers.  California refused to > > build power generation capacity and now pays the price. Voters made those > > decisons over the last 20 years and need to pony up with conservation and > > there wallets. > — > Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

Who paid for the stadiums? > Seattle did the same, baseball and football stadiums

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

If it’s so easy to produce where is the "shortage" coming from? I see shortages in Western Canada and Washington and they aren’t encumbered by the same rules as California, why aren’t they building power plants to take advantage of this market glitch. Heck they could even re-start the WHPPS nuke plants. > Well, it is easy for everyone but a Californian to produce!

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response:

Who paid for the stadium? In west sac there is raley field for the river cats. Drive by just before a game and the interstate is a parking lot. And raley field is a small stadium. Our beloved mayor wishes to build a full size statium in downtown sac on the site of a contaminated rail yard. No team, no negotiations, no parking, crowded streets, and she wants the region to tax itself to pay for it. Let the owners build it or let the builders own the team. As I understand it Old Sac and downtown Sac have a few great restaurants. Don’t want our pols cutting deals in a burger king. Sac already has a light rail. > Look at Denver, New baseball Park, New basketball arena, New football stadium > all downtown. > PS great Restaurants and Night clubs with super live Music. Pretty revialized > I’d say. Still it costs an arm and a leg to park downtown but it is free to > park in the outlying areea and reasonable to rid the bus. (Now they have > started a light rail system)

– Remove "REMOVE" from address (when present) for reply by e-mail

Response: