3 ms·

Yeah, this is just California staying ahead of a potential problem. Good for the people in charge. So we have a 50% buffer against our legal threshold and for

by arjie 10y ago

Yeah, this is just California staying ahead of a potential problem. Good for the people in charge. So we have a 50% buffer against our legal threshold and for very little money. That's just good planning.

appleiigs 10y ago
Why do you want a 50% buffer on the 15% buffer? And it's not very little money. It says $6.5 billion more, which I think is an annual number.
- arjie 10y ago
  If there's a legal requirement, I would be uncomfortable being right on the edge of it. In any case, the problem here seems to be that regulatory approval for additional plants is supporting Public utilities like PG&E who have guaranteed returns over independent companies who don't have guaranteed returns. It looks like we need the ability to exempt proposed projects from the guaranteed returns in order to fix the misaligned incentives here.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    You seem very confused. the regulators here made the legal requirement It's not like an independent set of experts in charge made it. California made it, and in fact, most experts (in the very same article) seem to think it's "pretty rich". The regulators made the legal requirement, so saying "it's good the regulators are doing this because it's a legal requirement" is super-circular logic when the very same regulators made the legal requirement.
    - arjie 10y ago
      No, you're right. When I first read it I completely misunderstood.
Lazare 10y ago
A 50% buffer on top of the buffer that was already increased by 50% above what was already considered a safe buffer, against the advice of experts? But are you sure 21% excess capacity will be enough? It's barely over twice what people consider a sane margin of error; maybe it should be 40%. Or 80%! Safety first, right? Or maybe it should just be 10% like a normal state would have? > and for very little money Did we read the same article?

by arjie 10y ago

appleiigs 10y ago

Why do you want a 50% buffer on the 15% buffer? And it's not very little money. It says $6.5 billion more, which I think is an annual number.

arjie 10y ago
If there's a legal requirement, I would be uncomfortable being right on the edge of it. In any case, the problem here seems to be that regulatory approval for additional plants is supporting Public utilities like PG&E who have guaranteed returns over independent companies who don't have guaranteed returns. It looks like we need the ability to exempt proposed projects from the guaranteed returns in order to fix the misaligned incentives here.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  You seem very confused. the regulators here made the legal requirement It's not like an independent set of experts in charge made it. California made it, and in fact, most experts (in the very same article) seem to think it's "pretty rich". The regulators made the legal requirement, so saying "it's good the regulators are doing this because it's a legal requirement" is super-circular logic when the very same regulators made the legal requirement.
  - arjie 10y ago
    No, you're right. When I first read it I completely misunderstood.

Lazare 10y ago

A 50% buffer on top of the buffer that was already increased by 50% above what was already considered a safe buffer, against the advice of experts? But are you sure 21% excess capacity will be enough? It's barely over twice what people consider a sane margin of error; maybe it should be 40%. Or 80%! Safety first, right? Or maybe it should just be 10% like a normal state would have? > and for very little money Did we read the same article?