[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

power to the internet



On 12/26/19 11:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <CAL9Qcx5jGEZzoqmcvusfW9htTwoSVV9Mnf6Xca5VHQLLDSTySw at mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> 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
> that encourages sprawl and construction in ill-suited areas

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.


> , 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 
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