Should California's Grid Join a Larger Regional Electricity Market? (latimes.com) 134
One in every 9 Americans lives in California. And right now its Congress is debating a bill that "would help establish a regional electricity market capable of tying together the American West's three dozen independent power grids," according to the Los Angeles Times' newsletter about climate change and energy issues.
But that bill "has bitterly divided environmentalists," with some seeing it "as a plot by greedy energy companies to enrich themselves." Supporters say it would smooth the flow of solar and wind power from the sunny, windy landscapes where they're produced most cheaply to the cities where they're most needed. It would help California keep the lights on without fossil fuels, and without driving up utility bills... [S]olar and wind power are still cheaper than planet-warming coal and fossil gas. Which is why Michael Wara, a Stanford energy and climate scholar, isn't worried that SB 540 will leave Californians drowning in dirty power. In a regional market, solar and wind will usually outcompete coal and gas. "Any energy source that requires fuel to operate is more expensive than an energy source that doesn't," he said.
California also needs to prove that a grid powered entirely by clean energy is affordable and reliable. The state's rising electric rates are already a big concern. And although the grid has been stable the last few years, thanks to batteries that store solar for after dark, keeping the lights on with more and more renewables might get harder. Regional market advocates make a strong case that interstate cooperation would help.
For instance, a market would help California more smoothly access Pacific Northwest hydropower, already a key energy source during heat waves. It would also give California easier access to low-cost winds from New Mexico and Wyoming. Best of all, that wind is often blowing strong just as the sun sets along the Pacific. Another benefit: Right now, California often generates more solar than it can use during certain hours of the day, forcing solar farms to shut down — or pay other states to take the extra power. With a regional market, California could sell excess solar to other states, keeping utility bills down. "This is about lowering costs," said Robin Everett, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
"Unlike with past regional market proposals, California would retain control of its grid operator, with only a few functions delegated to a regional entity," the article points out. But opponents still worry this would give new powers to an outside-of-California group to thwart clean energy progress (if not gouge customers). Amendments passed this week add a "Regional Energy Markets Oversight Council" to address that concern — but which lost support for the bill from some of its earlier supporters.
"The amendments would make it easier for the Golden State to bail," notes the climate newsletter, and "Out-of-state utilities don't want to waste time and money committing themselves to a California-led market only to lose California, and thus many of the economic benefits..."
But that bill "has bitterly divided environmentalists," with some seeing it "as a plot by greedy energy companies to enrich themselves." Supporters say it would smooth the flow of solar and wind power from the sunny, windy landscapes where they're produced most cheaply to the cities where they're most needed. It would help California keep the lights on without fossil fuels, and without driving up utility bills... [S]olar and wind power are still cheaper than planet-warming coal and fossil gas. Which is why Michael Wara, a Stanford energy and climate scholar, isn't worried that SB 540 will leave Californians drowning in dirty power. In a regional market, solar and wind will usually outcompete coal and gas. "Any energy source that requires fuel to operate is more expensive than an energy source that doesn't," he said.
California also needs to prove that a grid powered entirely by clean energy is affordable and reliable. The state's rising electric rates are already a big concern. And although the grid has been stable the last few years, thanks to batteries that store solar for after dark, keeping the lights on with more and more renewables might get harder. Regional market advocates make a strong case that interstate cooperation would help.
For instance, a market would help California more smoothly access Pacific Northwest hydropower, already a key energy source during heat waves. It would also give California easier access to low-cost winds from New Mexico and Wyoming. Best of all, that wind is often blowing strong just as the sun sets along the Pacific. Another benefit: Right now, California often generates more solar than it can use during certain hours of the day, forcing solar farms to shut down — or pay other states to take the extra power. With a regional market, California could sell excess solar to other states, keeping utility bills down. "This is about lowering costs," said Robin Everett, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
"Unlike with past regional market proposals, California would retain control of its grid operator, with only a few functions delegated to a regional entity," the article points out. But opponents still worry this would give new powers to an outside-of-California group to thwart clean energy progress (if not gouge customers). Amendments passed this week add a "Regional Energy Markets Oversight Council" to address that concern — but which lost support for the bill from some of its earlier supporters.
"The amendments would make it easier for the Golden State to bail," notes the climate newsletter, and "Out-of-state utilities don't want to waste time and money committing themselves to a California-led market only to lose California, and thus many of the economic benefits..."
The devil is in the details (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is not being part of a larger market. The issue is the deal signed and all the unanticipated consequences. Who is going to get rich doing this?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not being part of a larger market. The issue is the deal signed and all the unanticipated consequences. Who is going to get rich doing this?
Is Enron's zombie involved in this?
Re: (Score:2)
100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to get rich doing this?
It's good for the environment, but liberals oppose it because it will also be cost-effective and thus profitable.
Then liberals wonder why they keep losing elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to get rich doing this?
Whoever can provide the most power at the lowest price at the times it's needed.
Re: (Score:2)
pollyanna
Re: (Score:2)
pollyanna
It's how basically everything else works. Provide the product desired and you make money -- and people get what they want to buy. The core point, though, is that it's silly to worry about who is going to get rich. Just make sure the market is competitive, then see who can compete the best. This particular market is a bit hamstrung by regulations, but diversifying the supplier sources should actually help to ease the effect of that a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to get rich doing this?
That is the only question that needs to be asked when California politics is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
If your gubernement was really serious about this they would start with texas. your TDS is clouding your eyes & mind.
This right here.
Inevitable? (Score:3)
Impact assessments have shown various technical, economic and administrative benefits, resulting in significant cost reductions.
California's electricity grid should definitely be integrated, but with a clear strategy for transitioning to renewable energy. With a reduction in cost and less CO2 emitted, perhaps it is inevitable?
Re: (Score:3)
Europe has been moving towards a common energy market since 2006, and currently most of Europe is integrated, and the transition to renewable energy is part of this. Impact assessments have shown various technical, economic and administrative benefits, resulting in significant cost reductions.
There were no electricity cost reductions in Europe in the past 16 years for households. There was a huge bump in price after COVID and when Russia invaded Ukraine. After that it somewhat stabilized but it is still up by about 64% in this period: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
There was a small price drop for electricity for companies in 2023. But it is not dropping any more either now. And overall electricity price for companies went up by about 90% in the last 16 years: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/. [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
When a country produces more energy than it needs, it can export it and get paid for it. A possible downside is that this could push up prices locally when prices rise nearby, but it should result in a more reliable and efficient supply of electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Average European prices have been at their lowest in 2024 since 2021, despite volatility.
Did you look at the charts I posted? They are published by Eurostat which is the authoritative source for EU. The charts clearly show your claim is not true for households and it might be true for companies if your "since 2021" actually means excluding 2021 (i.e. since 2022). If there are any price reductions then they are not propagated down to households and mostly not propagated down to companies.
You are twisting truth like you work for an electricity exchange house in Germany :)
Maybe the common EU el
Re: Inevitable? (Score:2)
What if wholesale electricity costs are going down and often go negative indicating massive oversupply, but retail prices are administered by committees explicitly directed by law to decouple supply from demand?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That must be why Norway is looking to cut energy links [euronews.com] with Europe /s. There are pros and cons to linking up grids, and anyone trying to make out like the cons don't exist is doing a disservice.
Re: (Score:2)
It is therefore unlikely that Norway will break its connection to the EU market and risk a trade war.
At the same time, the EU is investing in more cables for the common market, and all countries make money in the internal market.
Re: Inevitable? (Score:2)
But what are the costs to traders trading wholesale units, free of the decoupling laws that allow pretail rates to be administered, not set by supply and demand, as implicitly assumed in your post, and, indeed, throughout this entire thread?
Hard to believe anything would change (Score:5, Interesting)
To make an effective western grid more transmission lines are needed. Yes, wholesale feed-in rates might go down due to the mechanics of pricing (oversimplifying: last MW committed determines the price everyone is paid, and you would have more generation competing for that last MW). The problem is that the transmission charges would make it difficult for energy to flow from point A to point B. You see this today in California's grid where some transmission lines and nodes have a negative marginal cost while others are quite high.
Really the best solution is microgrids where regions purchase/sell power to the grid but the grid doesn't control the majority of energy flow. The microgrids need multiple sources of storage and generation, but when things don't get averaged out over a larger area there is less opportunity to game things. I'd also personally like to see separate day-ahead and hour-ahead forecast rates, along with realtime rates for any delta. That creates an opportunity to better balance systems and keep high-cost energy off the grid and increasing the costs.
Re: Hard to believe anything would change (Score:2)
How much do utilities spend on lobbyists whining that they need higher retail rates even as their actual supply costs go down?
The reality (Score:4, Interesting)
The lived experience of the Australian East Coast grid is that whacking in loads of unreliables (solar wind) with inadequate storage (11 weeks worth) will kill the economics of the fossil fuel and nuclear plants, which work best as baseload providers, not infilling for the unreliables.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I forgot the conclusion... therefore all surrounding grids that rely on reliable energy sources will find they are rendered uneconomic by the often free but usually non existent unreliable power sources the CA grid has encouraged.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I forgot the conclusion... therefore all surrounding grids that rely on reliable energy sources will find they are rendered uneconomic by the often free but usually non existent unreliable power sources the CA grid has encouraged.
In his rush to try and blame renewable energy, he forgot to mention the East Coast power grid consits almost entirely of privatised energy companies. But he could never admit that's what is really wrong with it. Control was taken away and given to unaccountable firms that have done nothing but milk it for profit (except when they've got their hands out to the government for more public money, so they can build stuff to then milk for profit).
There's a reason Western Australia has cheaper power despite it
Re: (Score:2)
The lived experience of the Australian East Coast grid is that whacking in loads of unreliables (solar wind) with inadequate storage (11 weeks worth)...
11 weeks of storage? That's an enormous amount. Some quick searching shows California currently has something like 11 hours of battery backup.
Whether that's enough, well, I don't recall ever having 11 weeks of still air and clouds when I lived there. I'll let others with more real knowledge explain the actual math.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you got 11 weeks from. Did you mean 11 hours?
Anyway, the problem with nuclear power is that it doesn't load-follow cost effectively. That means nuclear power, just like renewables, cannot cover 100% of a nation's electricity needs. The carbon-free solution for both nuclear and renewables is the same: more grid storage.
UK (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah they should connect to the UK, that way the solar panels would compliment each other. (when its daytime in CA its night in the UK.)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better: A worldwide superconducting HVDC transmission line. Also known as a supergrid.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/lets-build-a-global-power-grid
Regrettably, the tech isn't there yet, and it won't happen as long as there is geopolitical conflict.
NO! (Score:3)
It would violate the law, Betteridge's law of headlines with a question mark.
Those are always to be answered with NO!
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
It would violate the law, Betteridge's law of headlines with a question mark.
Those are always to be answered with NO!
Except in this case the answer is clearly "yes". Connect the grids as far and wide as possible, and let market forces drive production up and costs down. The argument that "but then Californians might sometimes be using dirty power from coal plants in Nevada" is just stupid, because while that might happen sometimes, it also means that people in other states will use more of CA's renewable power.
What matters isn't who uses which, but that we maximize the total use of renewables and minimize the total use of fossil fuels. Given that renewables are dramatically cheaper than fossil energy, this means that just letting the market work will move us in the right direction. Broad interconnection and competitive markets will serve to ensure that the cheapest and greenest energy sources are 100% used and never wasted, not until the whole western US has enough renewables that renewable output sometimes exceeds the consumption of the entire region. It will further encourage deployment of more and more super-cheap renewables, driving fossil energy gradually out of the market.
Note that it's also important that wholesale prices not be tightly regulated, that the market be free to seek proper price equilibrium. Why? Because it's important that it be possible for, say, gas peaker plants to be able to make an absolute killing in the rare cases that available renewables fall short, so that power companies are motivated to operate and maintain those plants -- or to replace them with energy storage systems (battery, pumped hydro, whatever) so that those can make a killing when they're needed.
If at some point we fall into a local minimum where the market isn't incentivizing the shift to renewables + storage, then it will make sense to find some way to intervene with regulation. But, again, the best strategy will be to harness the market. For example, just internalize the carbon emission externality by applying a carbon tax, then let the market work out the power balance -- which could even include fossil fuel plants with carbon capture systems, who knows? At the present, though, costs favor renewables even with the carbon externalities of fossil plants.
Enron 2.0? No thanks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in California and used to work in the Texas electricity market (ERCOT). I don't want a bunch of out of state pirates manipulating our market again. Our homegrown pirates are bad enough.
How would out of state "pirates" manipulate the CA market? If the pirates want to charge more for electricity than it costs locally, use the local power. If they're offering it for less (which is likely the case, since everywhere around CA has cheaper power than CA does), then buy it.
This seems like nothing but a win for CA residents. The residents of other states in the area might not fare so well, since their own generation companies will prefer to sell to CA for the higher prices available there.
Does Betteridge's law apply? (Score:2)
From the fine article:
Some consider regional power-trading a crucial market-based tool for accelerating climate progress. Others see it as a plot by greedy energy companies to enrich themselves.
How dare anyone try to make a profit on the sale of goods and service, am I right?
Profit isn't good, or bad, but it is necessary to keep a business going. If energy companies aren't making a profit then the people running them will close the company and find someplace else to invest their money. What keeps the greedy from gouging people for profits is competition, and with a larger electrical grid there would be more opportunity for competition to keep people from being too greedy.
Re: Does Betteridge's law apply? (Score:2)
Looks good, except for the fossil-fuel poison pill (Score:3)
SB 540 started out as a smart evolution of California’s grid strategy — enabling them to join a broader Western electricity market that cuts costs, reduces emissions, and boosts reliability by sharing renewables across state lines. And it *still could be* — except for the poison pill that the fossil fuel lobby buried in Section 2(c): the Regional Energy Market Oversight Council (REMOC). This unelected new oversight council sounds like a watchdog but functions like a trapdoor, with the power to force California out of the market on short notice, no matter the consequences.
That’s why a coalition including the Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, and even Amazon(!) now opposes the bill unless amended. REMOC could *force* California to exit the regional market with just 120 days’ notice, even for minor or ambiguous infractions. That kind of uncertainty makes other states think twice about joining at all. And if they bail, the only winner is the fossil fuel industry -- we get balkanized markets, weaker coordination, and fossil-heavy grids consolidating power elsewhere. REMOC is the kind of provision that fossil energy providers would *love* — because it keeps California isolated and limits the states leverage to push for real decarbonization.
And guess who wins when the largest energy consumer in the American West isolates themselves from the table? If California withdraws or scares off partners, the rest of the West defaults to fossil-friendly grid systems like SPP. REMOC doesn’t safeguard the future — it hands it over to the fossil fuel industry.
Funny (Score:2)
How americans roam around the planet dictating who should use what source of which energy yet can't fix their own energy issues...
yes, Texas (Score:2)
I'd think they'd be perfect for each other.
Congress (Score:2)
California does not have a congress, unless the article is referring to the casting couch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, that's a bit of a head scratcher to me. I'm guessing the author meant to say "And right now its legislature"... The State Legislature being composed of the State Assembly and State Senate.
Confused (Score:2)
I thought one of the things that makes Texas special is that we are on our own power grid, not part of any other, larger/regional power grid, now I hear that California has its own power grid, not part of any other?
I'm confused.
Countless Californians mocked Texas for having its own private power grid back when we had the huge blackout in Texas a couple years ago, but it turns out CA has their own private power grid too?
Tres Amigas Super Station project (Score:2)
I first heard about this more than 10 years ago & I thought it was very much worth doing even if expensive.
But I don't know if it'll ever come to pass
could lead to improvement (Score:2)
PGE is downright evil and neither the CPUC nor any other part of our government seems to be able to do anything to rein them in, maybe getting some other states involved will help shine a light on whatever corruption allows this to continue.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the future. Highly interconnected grids that can move energy from where it is available to where it is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
That would sound promising, but as long as trucks work on fossile fuel ...
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
We have EV trucks in Europe. Big batteries, decent range, fast charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Also hybrids, if you're into that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, when I say "trucks", I mean heavy goods vehicles with trailers. I'm not sure exactly what we would call an F-150. Maybe a light truck, but I tend to think of something smaller for those, like a Japanese Kei truck.
Anyway, big rigs like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even here in the USA an F150 is properly called a "pickup" or "pickup truck" and not just a "truck", but America doesn't care about what's proper.
The law in the USA refers to what you call a "truck" as a "heavy truck", though it's not only semi-tractors but just also any other truck over a certain gross weight rating.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly what we would call an F-150
I don't know what we call an F-150, but I know what I call someone driving one of them in London. Sounds a bit like with ducking brat.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it qualify as a wankpanzer?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We have EV trucks in Europe. Big batteries, decent range, fast charging.
That's hardly a fair comparison. The EU has more people than the USA, in less than half the land area, and has plenty of waterways, canals, and access to the sea for cheap transport by water. While the EU is technically connected by roads and rail to Asia there's a political boundary defined by Russia that further discourages long distance travel by land.
I suspect that there are very few truck drivers in the EU that are unable to sleep in their own beds every night because the routes they'd travel would b
Re: (Score:2)
If you are driving a lorry load of lemons from Sicily in southern Italy to Dartford in the south east of England, that is a 29 hour drive assuming no rest breaks.
Even if you are driving between Glasgow (Scotland) and London (England), about 8 hours, then realistically you are only doing a run in one direction each day. Or sometimes, if it is a big company, the drivers might meet up half-way and swap vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are driving a lorry load of lemons from Sicily in southern Italy to Dartford in the south east of England, that is a 29 hour drive assuming no rest breaks.
Why drive that far when it's likely cheaper to make that trip by sea? Or by train?
Even if you are driving between Glasgow (Scotland) and London (England), about 8 hours, then realistically you are only doing a run in one direction each day. Or sometimes, if it is a big company, the drivers might meet up half-way and swap vehicles.
What I'd expect other than swapping vehicles is that at some halfway point there would be a warehouse that would unload the truck, sort out the boxes by destination, then pack the boxes on a different truck or trailer. That kind of process likely means more travel time but more efficient use of the space on each truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Why drive that far when it's likely cheaper to make that trip by sea? Or by train?
America has loads of goods trains too. And the longer the distances, the bigger the gain, since they're more fuel efficient and need fewer staff.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the canals are not used for commercial traffic now. Even most of the rail freight is gone, it's mostly passenger trains only.
The video I linked is a 5000km trip.
Re: (Score:2)
The video I linked to is a 5000km trip.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the kind of willfully ignorant, close minded pathetic responses that really pisses me off.
So because some vehicles still use fossil fuel, we should make absolutely no advancements towards renewables? If it can't be a 100% changeover all at once it's not worth doing?
I wish stupidity was painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
If California joins the larger grid, it would most likely lower the electricity price in California and also in the rest of the USA. It would also most likely lower CO2 emissions. It would also most likely lower the probability of peak prices and blackouts. IMHO only losers would be fossil energy providers.
That’s *exactly* what the fossil fuel industry wants you to think. “Hey, just join the market! It’s all sunshine and savings!” Meanwhile, buried deep in the amended version of SB 540 is a shiny little trapdoor called REMOC — an unelected oversight council with the power to yank California out of the market with 120 days’ notice, even for vague or technical violations. That kind of political landmine all but guarantees other Western states will take their toys and go home — and when they do, they’ll end up in fossil-friendly markets like SPP, where coal and gas get capacity payments just for existing.
So yes, the idea of a regional grid is solid. But the execution in the May 29 version of this bill practically dares the West to walk away from California. And if that happens, guess who wins? The same fossil lobby that would love nothing more than to keep us fragmented, isolated, and too proud to admit we got played.
You’re right to want lower prices and fewer emissions. Just don’t assume the latest version of this bill gets us there — especially when it’s been quietly rewritten to help the exact people you think it hurts.
Re: (Score:3)
"If California joins the larger grid"
They are already connected to Washington, or more exactly the BPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If California joins the larger grid, it would most likely lower the electricity price in California
Almost certainly.
and also in the rest of the USA
This is far less likely, and in fact whoever they interconnect with probably ends up paying higher rates than they do today.
Re: (Score:2)
This will have approximately 0 impact on California electricity bills. They already buy power for 4 cents and sell it for 65. If they buy for 3 cents instead, it won't make a real difference. All of the cost is in local distribution and paying off the consequences of boneheaded decisions around local distribution -- aka the wildfires, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary cost of electricity in California is DISTRIBUTION COST, not generating cost. About 1/3 of my bill in California is electricity generation. The other 2/3 is distribution cost and PG&E reams us for that.
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E and Southern California Edison make quite a bit of money raising retail rates to pay for the peak prices. They're experts on passing the buck onto the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E tier pricing works well for people who use little electricity.
It sucks for those with big families.
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E does NOT work well for those not using much electricity. Their base rate where I live is 49 cents/KWH. Our nearby cities that have their own electric companies pay less than half of that. We seldom go beyond the second tier of rates and our electric bill approaches $300/month most of the time. Also it's not who "generates the electricity" that's getting most of the money. It's who owns the lines and PG&E owns most of the lines in the Central and Northern part of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Requisite California Bashing (Score:2)
Ditto.
Re: Requisite California Bashing (Score:2)
speed.
would this greed based proposal slow down californias achieving its 2035 renewable energy goal.
leading by example is not trivial
Re: (Score:2)
California is quickly showing its true colors with regards to costs and expenses.
It highlights the macroeconomic problem of trying to operate a modern western welfare capitalist economy at a level below the national level and in opposition to the current administration's policies. Most of California's ambitions don't work without their own bank and own money supply. The power of the treasury and FED is much larger than most people realize.
We do have examples of social programs and green energy programs working and being quite affordable. Just not underneath the US system of government.
Re:Requisite California Bashing (Score:5, Informative)
I think their point is your overly dramatic anti California stuff under an article about combining regional power grids is ridiculous. You're acting like California is in desperate need of some kind of charity and setting up strawmen left and right.
It's crazy what right wing news has done to American's conceptualization of California and the level of irrational, frothing rage we now get from conservatives every time the state is brought up. This is why you were referred to as essentially a MAGA nut.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically your real world name is Captain Ahab McMAGA and your California is your white whale?
Do you always try and abuse feminist SIGN language to try and Shame your point across, or did you actually have a valid retort that might be worth more than the Cali-politik selling this story? Proof is in the pudding. Let’s see if California evidence can argue the benefits of this far better than their politicians do when they sit down with Shawn Ryan.
Most are more than willing to help out a fellow American. The burden of proof, is now on California to prove they are wanting and worthy of others help instead of just looking to reduce their insane costs created by thy own fucking hand. Go figure a lot of other struggling taxpayers are not looking to merge and absorb the cost burden of California.
If their grid was SO next-gen amazing, California wouldn’t have to sell this idea as if their life depended on it. Gotta love how TFS tries to sell the idea of “low-cost wind”. As if it’s a horrific collusion between God and Mother Nature established in the 3rd Century that’s always screwing California over with a horrible blow job..
No, you are completely overthinking this, I was merely using sarcasm to mock you and your angry little political manifesto.
Re:Requisite California Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
If California wants to use state's rights to continue having their electrical grid isolated from neighboring states then that's fine by me.
California's grid is not isolated from other states, it's part of the Western Interconnection [wikipedia.org], one of the 3 major grids in the US - the others being the Eastern and the Texas interconnections. This article is about electricity wholesale markets and pricing, not how grids are interconnected. California already brings in a bunch of power from throughout the west. For example, the Pacific DC intertie [wikipedia.org] is a 3.1 GW transmission line that brings hydro power from the Columbia river to southern California.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I didn't understand about TFS saying that doing this would somehow make it easier for California to get hydropower from the Pacific Northwest, when California has been getting hydropower via Path 65 since the mid-1960s.
What the fuck are they even talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
It will make it easier for grifters to manipulate the market for their own personal gain. Like "deregulation" did years ago.
Re: Requisite California Bashing (Score:2)
Yeah, remember Enron?
Re: Requisite California Bashing (Score:3)
Re: Requisite California Bashing (Score:3, Informative)
I'm generally fine with state's rights being used against federal law.
Which federal laws can states opt out of, and which can they not?
As a reminder, states don't enforce federal laws, so a state can't simply decide to or not to enforce federal law, it isn't their concern (see Arizona and immigration law).
When a state declares itself a Sanctuary State for, say, immigrants in the country illegally, what the state is actually doing is interfering with federal enforcement of federal laws, commonly referred to as obstruction.
A state can't simply obstruct federal law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
The homeless tend to end up in California in part because of the mild weather
Nope. This is a myth that's been debunked. Homeless people rarely move between states.
The state of California commissioned a survey that found the vast majority of the state's homeless lived in Califoria before they were homeless.
How many of California's homeless are from out of state [mercurynews.com]
Net migration is actually in the other direction. Homeless people move out of California to seek cheaper housing elsewhere, but then they're not homeless anymore.
Re:Amazed the USA doesn't have a National Grid (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, England, Wales, and Scotland are less than 60% the size of California and your population is about 50% greater. You simply have no idea how big this place is or how spread out we are.
Re: Amazed the USA doesn't have a National Grid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Amazed the USA doesn't have a National Grid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'll anticipate the incoming "the US is so backward because it doesn't have a dense national rail system like my $TINY_DENSELY_POPULATED_COUNTRY does!!1!!!11!!!" comments.
Ah yes, the old excuse that Alaska is huge and empty therefore so therefore LA (which is much smaller and much denser than the UK) must also have a shite public transportation system because Alaska!!!! Eagles n' shit! Guns! America Fuck yeah!
Thing is this pathetic excuse repeats ad nauseam across the whole of America. No one cares
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to prefer rail, but America has collectively decided to be OK with the fact that they aren't brokeass socialists and prefer to either drive their larger & faster cars on roads only the Germans could begin to understand--or to fly.
The first time I drove in England I was ready to be impressed by the "M" roads the British car magazines bragged about so much. The reality was disappointing: they compared with the sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One might expect Pennsylvania to be high, but it's only 112/km^2 and California comes in at 93. The only states that approach the UK in density are smaller than half the size of California's largest county.
The US is huge.
Re: Amazed the USA doesn't have a National Grid (Score:2)
Re: Amazed the USA doesn't have a National Grid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Northern Ireland!
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like it's easier to do national infrastructure projects when you have 1/40th of the land area, and zero massive mountain ranges to contend with.
Re: (Score:2)
FERC.
Re: (Score:2)
So California wants to suck up the power from out of state like they do the water !! Just say no to them !!!
Arizona and Nevada have plenty of sunny deserts for making electricity.
They can't make more water.
Re: (Score:2)
So California wants to suck up the power from out of state like they do the water !! Just say no to them !!!
No... No... No... You have it all wrong. They want to export their high prices and make the surrounding states suffer. "Sorry Spokane, you got outbid by Santa Clara for the Upper Falls output generated inside your own city. But we can pick you up in the spot market using LA Solar at $1200/MWh!"
Re: Why connect to CA grid? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy solar panels and whole house battery, then you can net meter and get your bill down to the service fee. Sadly, they won't actually pay residential customer for the solar they produce, it's more like store credit and disappears after a year (or month, depending on your metering).