Yup. It's aggressive. Given the implementation of the suggested changes on the demand side, I think the curves cross in a doable fashion. Remember, we are only talking about peak capacity. Unless I miss my guess, between upgrades of existing equipment and permits in place now we might get a large fraction of that 5% in peak capacity we absolutely need within that time frame.
Given that it will take some time to roll back some of the rules (assuming the legislature is willing), and the time it takes for businesses to commit to make the investment, I think California will be hard pressed to expect new capacity on a large scale within five years.
I am not talking large scale. I think only 5% increase on the supply side and a 5% reduction in peak demand may be sufficient to keep the market from going berserk when we let it go. Of that 5% reduction, I think a lot of it could come from timers on water heaters and AC units. Of course, if Johnny boy has another fire in San Onofre...
Unfortunately, it's likely to become a crisis before then, and a certainty if there is another drought.
If there is a drought, you are correct there would have to be a delay. I am assuming all other factors remain equal.
I'd love to see California decide to build a new nuke. There's no reliance on fossil fuels, and no pipeline or emission issues. But now I'm just dreaming...
You and me both! How about ten of them? Hydrogen or desal plants would then be a real possibility.
I did note, though, that California's population (according to state estimates) is projected to increase to 46 million people by 2020, up from 34 million in 2002. All things being equal, that means that you have to increase your supply by 25% in the next 17 years, just to stay dangerously thin.
How in the hell are you going to do it, since you can't build any more Shasta or Oroville dams?