Posted on 08/27/2002 3:10:27 PM PDT by snopercod
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:42:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It's impossible to pinpoint a single cause for the power crisis that swept California last year. But if state policy-makers could go back in time, the first thing they probably would do is loosen the restrictions that stopped the utilities from signing long-term contracts for electricity.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Can it be??? The RATS are finally getting it? My gut tells me to read the fine print of AB57.
I've met him during the NRA Annual Convention in Reno, Nevada. Smart guy. I would say, a traditional Democrat, unlike the liberal socialist democRATS currently holding the party hostage.
You are dead wrong Mr. Weintraub.
The single cause for the crisis was an action not taken by Gray Davis in the winter of 2000. Had Davis simply said NO to the suppliers (at their first attempt to coerse the state) and turned out the lights that December this nonsense wouldn't have lasted two weeks.
Without some serious changes in California laws, it was just a matter of time until all power distributors in California went bankrupt and producers withdrew their product entirely from sale in that state.
Kind of like with the insurance industry.
The only people who had "NO" said to them were companies that wanted to invest in nuke plants in CA and the stupid greens didn't let them.
That is the only way that problem would have been avoided, more in-state supply.
Calpowercrisis:
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Calpowercrisis | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
In his analogy, your solution to high ticket prices would be to ground all flights, thereby making everyone desire to rip your limbs off.
Correct. That and TRUE de-regulation, enabling utilities to pass on the cost of producing power to the retail consumer, would have avoided the $25 billion deficit now facing CA residents.
Actually I had Gray Davis' limbs in mind.
An unpopular solution. An unthinkabel solution.
Regulate growth.
Regulate growth by discouraging immigration. Regulate growth by discouraging overconsumption. Regulate growth by ending artifical, and I might add not cost effective, means to deny the natural limits imposed by California's geography and natural resources.
This solution also binds many other of California's bleeding wounds.
Another analogy would be the purchase of mobile phone airtime. On a typical wireless carrier, one may spend $10/month plus $0.30/minute for airtime, $20/month plus $0.30 for each minute over 100, or $30/month plus $0.25 for each minute over 300 (or various other deals).
The "bundled" minutes in the 100- and 300- minute plans cost very little per minute ($0.10/minute for the 100-minute plan; $0.05/minute for the extra minutes in the 300-minute plan), but the customer must pay for them whether they are used or not. If someone isn't sure that they're going to use the phone very much, it may make more sense to get the $10/month plan and just pay for the minutes actually used. Consider this table:
| 0 | $10.00 | $20.00 | $30.00 |
| 33 | $19.90 | $20.00 | $30.00 |
| 100 | $40.00 | $20.00 | $30.00 |
| 133 | $49.90 | $29.90 | $30.00 |
| 300 | $100.00 | $80.00 | $30.00 |
Someone who is expecting to use the phone for 60 minutes/month would be a fool to go with the no-minutes plan; unless they had a reasonable likelihood of going way over their planned usage they should most likely go with the 100-minute plan. Somone who expects to use between 100 and 150 minutes may be best off with either the 100-minute or 300-minute plan, since the former would save them $10 if they use only 100 minutes, but the latter would save them $5 if they use the entire 150.
The "no contracting" rules, however, were equivalent to requiring everyone to be on the zero-minutes plan. As the table above shows, that can be a very expensive proposition.
As in unpopular and unthinkable?
You of course would be in charge of defining what "overconsumption" would be for the rest of us....Like SUV's, air conditioners set above 78 deg. or lower the threshold for consumed KWH price changes, only flourescent lighting would be legal, no outdoor christmas, security or other "overconsuming" lights?...Stuff like that?
. Regulate growth by ending artifical, and I might add not cost effective, means to deny the natural limits imposed by California's geography and natural resources.
What does that mean exactly?
In other words, go to the core of the problem, repeal the grossly flawed idiocy of Pete Wilson's phony "deregulation".
I have a funny feeling last summer's electricity shortages took care of that, as some businesses have decided it's better to operate someplace which isn't hostile to companies wanting to "keep the lights on" [literally].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.