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: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Wednesday February 08 2017, @11:00PM
It is hard to know where to start...
Although California uses 2.6% less electricity annually from the power grid now than in 2008,
Duh, the economy has been in the toilet while Shit Midas was "transforming America" but that is over. California is too big to opt out of #MAGA so you guys just have to accept some of the #Winning and the price of that is you will need the infrastructure to handle the booming economy that is coming your way. I know it is going to suck, every day you will see new businesses, new jobs and know you opposed every bit of it, you hate all of the growth, etc. but suck it up buttercup.
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
objections that there wasn't sufficient demand for its power. One skeptic was PUC commissioner Dian Grueneich
I know it is horrible that "consumer advocates", with a solar company on the side, can't stop development. Gaia weeps. I get it. But you lost. Even in loony CA you couldn't convince anyone that building more generating capacity is bad, that you precious snowflakes with degrees in Critical Theory know better than corporations plunking down billions of dollars on generating capacity they bet they can sell at a profit. And I'm just shocked, shocked that a green activist on the PUC with an academic background of a lawyer working the "climate change" racket opposed building new capacity vs demanding people live with less. See my shocked face?
Recent efforts to get courts to block several other PUC-approved plants have failed
Isn't this something that really needs attention? Seems the news most days includes judges trying to set policy and make laws. We really have to rein in the Judiciary. Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
Any decision by a Federal Court is subject to override by either of two methods:
1. A Bill passed through Congress with a 3/5 majority and signed by the President.
2. Bills enacted in the legislatures of 3/5 of States by the normal rules in each State for bills.
Any decision so overturned is to be stricken from the official records, leaving no binding precedent. Any economic reward is reversed. Any individual impacted is still protected by Double Jeopardy against being tried a second time in the case of a defendant set free by a misbehaving judge.
Any judge(s) overruled three times has demonstrated sufficient "bad behavior" as to automatically forfeit their Office. They are not eligible for reappointment to any Office of Trust under the United States. They do remain eligible to stand for election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:00AM
This is half reasonable half flamebait (and I agree with both parts). Could you split it in 2?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:53AM
One is just the hook to sucker you into accepting the other.