On 12/26/19 11:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
To reanswer the question posed though, is still the same ; $$$. If network operators take the position that the electric utility supply should be more reliable than it is, then they need to start influencing and lobbying for ways for that to happen. If not, they will have to increase investments into local generation or storage capacity to bridge those gaps.
You seem to imply that regulation is inherently bad; however the scenario that you describe (power failures impacting 911 service) is only a concern to an operator if there is a legislatively define deterrent. California suffers from an unusual combination of a dry climate that is getting dryer and political decisions that made sense in the short run but are now showing their long term consequences, notably land use
In article <CAL9Qcx5jGEZzoqmcvusfW9htTwoSVV9Mnf6Xca5VHQLLDSTySw@mail.gmail.com> you write: that encourages sprawl and construction in ill-suited areas
, and a regulator that keeps short term consumer prices down at the cost of reliability and long term stability. None of this should be a surprise to anyone familiar with the situation. PG&E is especially egregious as it has extremely high rates and
If we stopped construction in all of the ill-suited areas, we'd stop construction all together, and tear down much more. We have it all here: earthquakes, floods, fires; often the trifecta. We could certainly be smarter, but the nature of the geography here is both a blessing and a curse. piss-poor maintenance. Where does all of that money go? Execs and shareholders. And if some random nyc hedge fund gets its way it's going to get even worse. I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but whatever it is cannot have those perverse incentives. Mike