thank you for proving my point. the CPUC doesn't set rates, it just
determines what crap PGE is trying to get money for...PGE did such a
good job with the money it had been charging for pipeline maintenance
that I'm sure the CPUC will gladly allow them to raise the rates for
more of the same
and all those mandates have not caused any blackouts. in fact the last
time there were blackouts in California it was due to the efforts of
utilities to get the gov't to deregulate rates and voila we had Enron
California uses 50% less energy per capita than the national average, in
fact it uses approximately 25% of the energy of the biggest user
Wyoming. I guess it pays to be a conservative
damn, I'm paying between 8 and 11 cents depending on time of year, those
damn jacked down conservative rates sound sooooooooooooo appealing
just out of curiosity how may KWH's do you use? my bill this month was
$25 and that includes a $14 fixed infrastructure charge...and I wasn't
hurting for any conveniences
On Friday, December 12, 2014 2:13:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Of course the CPUC sets the rates. Without their approval, the rate
increase cannot go into effect. And in the end, either you have
very stupid regulators that are allowing CA electric companies to
rake in extraordinary profits that are many times those in other states,
or else all the mandates, restrictions, etc that your lib nut govt
has put on those utilities is the reason for the high prices.
Let's see what the LA Times, a lib paper, has to say:
"One recent study predicts the cost of electricity in California alone could jump 47% over the next 16 years, in part because of the state's shift toward more expensive renewable energy."
There you have it. EXACTLY what I told you.
Here, from the Desert Sun:
"Organizations like The Utility Reform Network, though, have criticized efforts to create a two-tier system. Reducing electricity rates for above-average energy use, Hawiger said, limits the incentive for excessive energy consumers to conserve."
"The solar energy industry has also criticized utilities' rate-restructuring efforts, arguing that lower rates for above-average energy users would reduce the incentive for those users to install rooftop solar panels."
"Californians are starting to pay for the cost of the state's Draconian environmental laws.
Wholesale electricity market prices spiked about 70 percent over last year. So reports the Independent System Operator that manages California's electric transmission and distribution line grids. "
See, they want you to pay MORE, to save the whales. You don't shove cap
and trade and solar down people's throats without consequence.
So, if you enjoy that,
fine. But don't lie and say it's the utilities that are to blame. Everyone
knows that utilities are regulated, that the regulators approve the rates,
the rate structure is set by law, so even if the utilities were screwing
you, which they aren't, then it would still be the govts fault for letting
in happen. Capiche?
I thought we were talking about the extreme high cost of electric in
CA, not blackouts. You must be thinking back to CA's last massive
failure, when they managed to royally screw things up. That was when
there were blackouts.
I'm not surprised. CA has driven most industry that uses a lot of energy
out of the state. They also have 10 illegal aliens living in one house. So,
it's not surprising that when you take the total electric used and divide
by the number of people, you get a lower number than Wyoming. And they are
still paying more for their energy used than Wyoming.
sad that you don't see how well deregulation, which is what you posit
would lower the high cost of electricity in CA allowed enron to game the
system and cause the blackouts
no, I was thinking when enron gamed the system after the electric
companies were deregulated. I especially enjoyed how they shut down
power plants for "maintenance" during the peak usage periods, wheeled
electricity out of state only to wheel it back into CA at a higher price
wow, when you are wrong, you are WRONG:
California is the nation's leading industrial state, ranking 1st in
almost every general manufacturing category: number of establishments,
number of employees, total payroll, value added by manufacture, value of
shipments, and new capital spending. Specifically, California ranks
among the leaders in machinery, fabricated metals, agricultural
products, food processing, computers, aerospace technology, and many
They also have 10 illegal aliens living in one house. So,
and here I thought per capita meant per person, whether they live in
groups of ten or one. perhaps you've tried to conflate per household
with per capita
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 2:21:10 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
What you fail to see is that CA didn't deregulate the electric system.
They only claimed to *partially* deregulate it and in fact what they
created was their own unique universe, with typical bizarre rules. They
forced utilities to sell off their generating capacity, then required
them to buy the power back on a newly created *exchange* system. It
was not even close to a free market system.
It wasn't deregulated. You libs pretended to partially deregulate it,
while creating a unique and bizarre environment that the utilities had
to operate in. For example, they were prohibited from contracting long
term for power and had to buy power essentially day to day on some
bizarre energy exchange that was created. That is not deregulation, it's
not free markets. So, no wonder you got screwed.
It's also the largest state by far, so if you just look at total numbers,
sure it doesn't look so bad. What do you expect? And many of the
companies that are there, have nice office facilities, headquarters,
but they sure don't build much there. When's the last time Intel built
a fab in California, for example? Not since the 70's. Apple build much there? They fled, moved jobs to places like Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico and Ireland to
run away from the nightmare you libs created.
You put the lights and AC on in a house with 3 people and a house
with 10 illegal aliens packed in, which has a lower energy usage per
capita? You libs just aren't good at math. Or much else.
The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy
Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States
state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by
market manipulations, illegal shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas
energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices. The
state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's
largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly
harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing.
Drought, delays in approval of new power plants, and market
manipulation decreased supply. This caused an 800% increase in wholesale
prices from April 2000 to December 2000. In addition, rolling
blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable
supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail
California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of
the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by
energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy
traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand
to increase the price. Traders were thus able to sell power at
premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value.
Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges,
this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins,
causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and
near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.
The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation
legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890)
and Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and
was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in
California's spot markets.
so it was a policy of a republican governor
which means it should also be number 1 in per capita electric usage, but
sadly it isn't
so if you just look at total numbers,
If I was to expect anything it would be for you to admit that since
California is apparently the nations leading industrial state, your
statement that CA has driven most industry that uses a lot of energy out
of the state to be a lie, but I never expect conservatives to admit when
they are wrong
And many of the
nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that CA is nations leading
it takes much more energy to cool a house of 10 people with AC than it
does to cool a house of 3 people
and you'd still be wrong: CA electrical usage by household is about 30%
lower than Wyoming, but there are states that have lower household
consumption than CA, but they also don't have as much industrial usage
it must hurt to be as wrong as frequently as you are
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:28:47 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Thanks for confirming what I just told you. It was not deregulation.
Wiki calls it partial deregulation. Even that is probably not correct.
They substituted one regulated system with another poorly conceived one.
The utilities had to buy their power from exchanges. The utilities could
not contract long term for energy, lock in cheap rates. That isn't
And nice try in the attempt to pin it on Pete Wilson. Yeah, the
stupid thing was passed when he was governor. So, he has some responsibility.
But the Democrats controlled the legislature, they crafted the bill,
they voted for it. And Wilson was long gone before any crisis resulted.
I guess Democrat Grey Davis, the still heavily Democrat legislature
and all the state regulators were just too dumb to see what was happening
and do something to correct it? I bet you blame Bush too.
You really need to take a course in basic math.
How many fabs or any manufacturing facilities does Intel have in CA today?
Apple? I suspect those "industrial" numbers include companies like
Intel, Apple, Google, that actually don't manufacture a damn thing in CA. They
have their headquarters there, they have their engineering there, but
manufacturing has long since fled. Intel closed all it's fabs in CA
and fled to Oregon, NM, Arizona, Ireland... AMD did too. I'll bet they
are still on your list of "industry". Industry <> manufacturing.
More typical lib loon nonsense. Does it take as much energy as it
would if those 10 people were living in 3 separate houses? That's
the obvious point. Good grief.
so now we ask how did deregulation occur and the answer is: business
asked for alternatives to power monopolies, the CPUC listening to its
constituency declared its intent to deregulate, republican Jim Brulte
introduces AB 1890 and all the republicans are now happy. so if you want
to blame the mess, blame it on the gov't responding to (republican)
do you not understand the fact that California is apparently the nations
leading industrial state?
and of course there must be no manufacturing because being the nations
leading industrial state means there must be less manufacturing than
typical conservative nonsense: it was you that said 10 people in ONE
yes, you will keep weaseling what you think you mean in order to promote
your conservative nonsense
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
The Democrats that controlled the state legislature at the time it was
passed were on holiday? MIA? or just stupid? Of course they deserve a
good part of the blame. And again, it was years from the time that
CA substituted a new byzantine regulated system for what was already regulated.
And then for years, Pete Wilson was gone, but the Dems couldn't change it,
see what was happening. You had Dems in control of the legislature, a
Dem governor. I suppose it's Bush's fault too.
Industrial <> manufacturing jobs. Do you not understand that CA is also
the largest state, so comparing it to FL or DE is meaningless?
Simple questions. What does Intel, $28Bil in revenue build in CA?
Apple? If it's such a swell environment for manufacturing, why did they
That's right and it was you who couldn't do the simple math to understand
the energy used by a house, when divided by 10 instead of 3,
results in lower per capita energy usage. A house with 10 occupants
will use somewhat more energy than one with 3, but anyone with a brain
knows that per capita it's going to be less in the house with 10.
Actually Alaska is the largest state so you are also geographically
California has about 11% of the total american population and about 14%
of the american manufacturing establishments and about 11% of the total
manufacturing jobs...so you desire to compare it by area is not only
foolish, but wrong as usual 11% population ~ 11% total manufacturing jobs
who cares who builds what in CA? CA is the leading industrial state.
what does Intel build in Wyoming? what does anyone build in Wyoming?
hell even Texas which is basically #2 only has about 50% of the
manufacturing jobs that CA has
but since you don't know how to research, here's a link to most of the
manufacturing companies in CA
do you understand that per capita means per person? it doesn't matter
how many people live in a house, what matters is that CA in total has
the lowest per capita energy usage of any state in the US and that
despite having the largest industrial base
A house with 10 occupants
anyone with a brain knows that you wouldn't compare per capita to per
household, but just to make it fun, 3 houses would actually use more
electricity than 1 house
On Monday, December 15, 2014 3:08:59 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
You're confused again. Who measures manufacturing "establishments"?
Like, what the hell is that? Let's look at maunfacturing jobs as a
percent of non-farm employment. California is at 8.2% Indiana is 17%,
Wisconsin 16%, Iowa 14%, Michigan 14%..... There are 31 states ahead
of California. How about manufacturing as a percent of state gross product?
California is 11%. Indiana is 30%. There are 29 states ranked higher.
And no, I'm not geographically challenged. We're not talking about
geographic size, we're talking about manufacturing relative to total
state economic output or population size. That's clearly what I meant
when I said CA is the largest state. The above fairly reflects where
CA ranks in manufacturing when you look at it in terms of percent of jobs
or percent of economic output.
I guess you don't because you want to count manufacturing "establishments".
Noboby really gives a rat's ass about that, because you could have 100
small manufacturing "establishments" and then you could have a Ford.
CA is the leading industrial state.
It's not an issue of what Intel builds in CA. The issue is Intel is
a prime example of a company that was founded in CA, that had multiple
fabs in CA employing tens of thousands. They fled and today they dont
build a damn thing in CA. Same with AMD and most other semiconductor
compannies. Does Apple build anything in CA anymore? Why do you think
Intel fled to AZ, OR, NM, Ireland, if CA is such a great place for
manufacturing? You libs killed the golden goose.
Of course I understand it. If you divide the energy usage
of the same kind of house by 3 people and then instead cram 10
illegal aliens in it, which gives you the lower per capita energy
usage? Does it mean the house is suddenly using less energy?
That some miracle has been achieved? Of course not.
once again, who cares? but since I gave you a link from the census
bureau, it only makes sense to beleive that the census bureau did the
measuring. but then again, since you don't challenge the jobs, CA with
the largest chunk of total population having approx the same percentage
of jobs speaks loudly to size
so now CA has the largest state economic output. thank you
and you'd still have 11% of total manufacturing jobs
libs killed the golden goose while creating the largest goose farm.
right, facts don't matter to conservatives, only your anger
per capita isn't being used to measure energy use per house but energy
use of the entire state, but you knew that, didn't you?
On Monday, December 15, 2014 8:07:20 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Apparently you do, because *you* brought up the number of "manufacturing
establishments". Which of course is a joke. You could have 100 local
sheet metal shops instead of one Ford. Of course no economists care
about that. So, you're right about the who cares part, but it was you
who brought it up, not me.
but since I gave you a link from the census
You're failing math again. California has 8% of non-farm employment
in manufacturing. Indiana has 17%. 17% is not "approximately the
same percentage". Counting down the list, 31 states are ahead of CA.
That's why you're reduced to counting "manufacturing establishments".
Companies like Intel, AMD, Apple who once had large
manufacturing head counts in CA, now have none.
Which means what? I never denied that, or said otherwise.
I could redraw some state lines, make big states out
of small ones, and they'd have a big economic output too. And
big economic output <> being a good place for manufacturing.
California is a huge state. Told you before. As a percentage of
non-farm employment, CA is 31 in manufacturing jobs.
Yes and that's why I told you that in CA, where you have 10 illegal
aliens crammed into a house that normally 3 people would live in,
it lowers the per capita energy consumption. When you have people
living in a 500 ft studio, because all the taxes, regulation and
kook lib ideas have jacked housing costs to the roof, you're going to
use less energy than people living in a 3 bedroom house in OH.
Does that make it a good thing, that per capita energy consumpiton
is lower in CA, like you're achieved some revolutionary thing?
PS: If you libs could learn to trim, it would be a good thing.
I brought it up because you don't believe that CA is the largest
Manufacturing state, apparently because Intel doesn't make chips there.
Of course to you 100 sheet metal shops employing 100's of people is less
important than one Ford
I also counted manufacturing jobs
once again, who cares. CA has Douglas, Hughes, Lockheed, McDonnell
Douglas, Rocketdyne, Tesla, Aerojet and many more
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:06:58 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
I never said CA isn't the largest manufacturing state. If a state
is large, it can still be a less favorable environment for manufacturing, but
because of it's shear size, still be #1. That's why we look at
manufacturing jobs as percentage of employment, manufacturing output
as a percentage of gross product. When you go to put a plant somewhere,
do you look at what state has the most manufacturing output? Or do
you look for which state has the lowest taxes, less regulation, less
looney lib laws, necessary skilled workforce at reasonable wages, etc?
And factor in cost of energy too. That's where this started.
And yes, one Ford is better than 100 sheet metal shops, employing 100.
100 x 100 = 10,000 Ford employs 250,000
And it's not just Intel that fled the state. CA was the birthplace of
the semiconductor industry. All the semi manufacturers had all their
fabs there. Today, IDK of any that still do. There might be some small
boutique ones, but the majors all fled. And in many cases it was not
internationally, it was within the USA. That's why Intel is a good
example. Do you think they went to OR, AZ, NM because they liked the
Now try normalizing it for the size of the state.
Most of which are living off the largess of the US taxpayer in the
form of defense contracts. The high costs of your lib state just get
passed on to Joe taxpayer. That's why they survive. Other industry has
fled. Just imagine if you had a more favorable business climate there, what might be.
I see Douglas is on your list. Must be a real old list. Douglas
became McDonald Douglas. It *was* a major aircraft manufacturer. McDonnel
Douglas was bought out by Boeing. Which brings us to a relevant news
item from just this year:
Boeing shutting down C-17 military transport production early
By John Gillie
Staff writerApril 7, 2014
Boeing will shut down production of the last major aircraft built in California in mid-2015, three months earlier than it had predicted, the company said Monday.
The closure of production at Boeing's 1.1 million-square-foot assembly plant in Long Beach will mark the end of production of large aircraft in California, once the center of the aircraft industry in the United States.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/04/07/3137516/boeing-shutting-down-c-17-military.html#storylink=cpy
Again, you really are math challenged. If I put 10 people into a house
instead of 3, it lowers per capita energy consumption for both the
house and the entire state.
so it take 250000 employees to build one Ford? no wonder American auto
manufacturers relocate overseas
You don?t hear many people talking about how great California?s
manufacturing industry is doing. In fact, it?s regularly called out as
an industry in demise in the state. How then do we account for the data
? which shows that over the past decade, California?s manufacturing
industry has been one of the state?s primary engines of economic growth?
According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the California economy has grown by 16.6% over the last ten
years, and 2.6 percentage points of that growth can be attributed
directly to California manufacturing. Looked at another way, nearly
one-fifth of the state?s economic growth in the past decade has been due
to this one industry.
It doesn?t seem to make sense ? given the constant barrage of stories
about manufacturing operations being shipped overseas and the industry
being in decline nationwide. The big misconception has to do with
employment vs. output. While manufacturing employment in California and
throughout the United States has indeed declined over the years,
manufacturing output has followed a completely different trend. Even
after adjusting for inflation, the value of California?s manufactured
goods increased by 26.8% from 2003 to 2013 (the most recent data
available). This has far outpaced the industry?s performance in the rest
of the nation. After netting out California, manufacturing output in the
remainder of the United States grew by 17.1%, much less than the growth
seen in California.
nah, you can do it for me
and those defense contractors don't get that largesse in the other
states where they add manufacturing jobs?
which must make all those conservatives who hate government largesse to
defense companies very happy
if it does, it must mean that the people in the house are very efficient
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:18:55 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
2.6 out of 16.6? And this you are bragging?
Looked at another way, nearly
I keep telling you, you're math challenged. 2.6/16.6 = .156
That's not "nearly a fifth".
I already did.
Of course they do. It's just that companies that can stick it to the
govt to recoop the high costs are much better able to survive in CA.
Those that can't, ie those that aren't living off govt contracts, most
of them have to flee.
Irrelevant. It's a good example, along with semiconductors of another manu
facturing industry where CA was dominant, that's gone. Even Detroit
ain't that bad. They still actually manufacture cars there.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:29:18 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
Which proves what, exactly? The second reference say that CA uses 31% less
energy than the US average. A bullet point later, they say it's due to the
mild CA climate. Then they say that CA still pays about the same amount
for electricity as the rest of the USA, because the rates are so much
higher. Less usage due to climate, higher rates due to CA moonbeam policie
The first link is totally dishonest, ignoring the major fact that
CA mild climate leads to lower energy usage.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.