3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoNo, you're right. When I first read it I completely misunderstood.