SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
California has a big — and growing — glut of power, an investigation by the Los Angeles Times has found. The state's power plants are on track to be able to produce at least 21% more electricity than it needs by 2020, based on official estimates. And that doesn't even count the soaring production of electricity by rooftop solar panels that has added to the surplus.
[...] This translates into a staggering bill. Although California uses 2.6% less electricity annually from the power grid now than in 2008, residential and business customers together pay $6.8 billion more for power than they did then. The added cost to customers will total many billions of dollars over the next two decades, because regulators have approved higher rates for years to come so utilities can recoup the expense of building and maintaining the new plants, transmission lines and related equipment, even if their power isn't needed.
How this came about is a tale of what critics call misguided and inept decision-making by state utility regulators, who have ignored repeated warnings going back a decade about a looming power glut.
[...] California utilities are "constantly crying wolf that we're always short of power and have all this need," said Bill Powers, a San Diego-based engineer and consumer advocate who has filed repeated objections with regulators to try to stop the approval of new plants. They are needlessly trying to attain a level of reliability that is a worst-case "act of God standard," he said.
Even with the growing glut of electricity, consumer critics have found that it is difficult to block the [Public Utilities Commission] (PUC) from approving new ones.
In 2010, regulators considered a request by [Pacific Gas and Electric Co.] (PG&E) to build a $1.15-billion power plant in Contra Costa County east of San Francisco, over objections that there wasn't sufficient demand for its power. One skeptic was PUC commissioner Dian Grueneich. She warned that the plant wasn't needed and its construction would lead to higher electricity rates for consumers — on top of the 28% increase the PUC had allowed for PG&E over the previous five years.
[...] Recent efforts to get courts to block several other PUC-approved plants have failed, however, so the projects are moving forward.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:31PM
Isn't that kinda like bitching that a water reservoir is to big? Or, that there is to much money in the bank?
Yes, it is exactly like that in one very specific way: Opportunity cost.
Building a water reservoir isn't free, and leaving money in the bank means it isn't being productively used.
Perfectly functional electric plants are being decommissioned 10-15 years early because there isn't enough demand to make operations profitable. The money that went into the construction could have been more efficiently used elsewhere in the economy.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday February 08 2017, @08:52PM
... and leaving money in the bank means it isn't being productively used.
The interest you get paid for doing so says otherwise.
That is all.
(Score: 4, Touché) by captain normal on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:57PM
The interest the banks pay won't even cover the cost of inflation.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:22AM
Not to mention the excessive fees that are charged.
When I was young, banks made money by lending the depositors money out and having a bank account was free. Now the main source of income for banks, at least in Canada, are fees and every year the banks have record profits.