FN: Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[Bang]

What Arizona should really do is sell the power to Mexico. Then illegal immigrants can put it into the back of pickup trucks and smuggle it in to California.

~Bang

[twa]

That's how I suspect it might work out if it ever happened. However, I think it's a lot of hot wind at this point.

Yes.

The only thing preventing open energy trading is state regs(Arizona's)/contract terms,and Arizona itself needs to look at expanding generation capabilities to meet it's own needs...Unless it cuts off LA:evilg:

Electricity may not be very storeable, but it is certainly marketable (Lord knows Texas sells it)

[Ax]

Wonder if the *******s from Cali are following our stupid President, Attorney General, and other government officials who are getting all indignant about a law they haven't even read?

[Mooka]

Don't see how Arizona can do that.

Los Angeles and CA owns parts of those power plants.

* For example:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Ownership

* Arizona Public Service: 29.1 percent

* Salt River Project: 17.5 percent

* Southern California Edison: 15.8 percent

* El Paso Electric: 15.8 percent

* PNM: 10.2 percent

* Southern California Public Power Authority: 5.9 percent

* Los Angeles Department of Water and Power: 5.7 percent

[The Evil Genius]

There is always a market for energy

http://www.kirotv.com/surveyresults/23578405/detail.html?section=news&coid=23578405

True - but at the jacked up prices that California is paying. Or even better, the prices in the 2002 that were caused by fraud and never repaid to California?

[Teller]

The one thing I have yet to see any of the boycotters, or their supporters, do is offer up a better solution.

(Besides, of course, ignoring the law, granting amnesty, and penalizing US industry.)

There's more than enough brilliance to go around on this issue.

[twa]

True - but at the jacked up prices that California is paying. Or even better, the prices in the 2002 that were caused by fraud and never repaid to California?

They could try generating their own,but then that would crimp their green image and regs ...or make them face reality.

Hey Arizona helping them cut energy waste would be the green thing to do right?

Give a hoot,don't pollute

[The Evil Genius]

Solar solar solar solar solar.

Provided it ever becomes cheap.

[Mooka]

They could try generating their own,but then that would crimp their green image and regs ...or make them face reality.

Hey Arizona helping them cut energy waste would be the green thing to do right?

Give a hoot,don't pollute

They do generate their own power.

In Arizona.

[twa]

Solar solar solar solar solar.

Provided it ever becomes cheap.

Price is not the object,stand on the principle.

Your freedom awaits,pay the man at the door.

[btfoom]

Solar solar solar solar solar.

Provided it ever becomes cheap.

Unfortunately, that's like saying Geothermal, Wind, Tidal

Provided it ever becomes feasible/cheap.

[Larry]

Honestly, I don't think it would work that way. I think what would happen is that Arizona would sell that power to Nevada or Utah or Washington and whatever state/states bought it would bump the price and turn around and sell it to California. Arizona would increase cost to cover anyproduction expense increases and whoever bought it would bump the price to California. Arizona would make out, whichever state purchased the energy would make out and California would pay more because they can't go without the Power.

That's how I suspect it might work out if it ever happened. However, I think it's a lot of hot wind at this point.

Agree with you on both points.

Electricity is pretty much a commodity. It gets traded all over the place. If AZ doesn't sell to CA, then they'll sell to X, and X will sell to CA. After adding in a markup.

(OTOH, I would also assume that the reason they're selling to CA, right now, is because CA offered them a better price than anybody else.)

And I also agree. This is political grandstanding, on both sides. Summer entertainment.

[Teller]

Unfortunately, that's like saying Geothermal, Wind, Tidal

Provided it ever becomes feasible/cheap.

I'm for every alternative source of energy we can possibly use. But it seems like that discussion often omits the need to power vehicles. And isn't our vehicles that are allegedly causing most of the greenhouse-gas problem?

(This post really isn't directed at you. You just happened to be the one to mention alternative means of powering, heating, and cooling our homes.)

[Larry]

Electricity may not be very storeable, but it is certainly marketable (Lord knows Texas sells it)

Problem is that right now, it really isn't very ship-able.

That's one of the initiatives that Obama was pushing (I don't know what's become of it): A national power grid, kind of a "electricity interstate", designed to allow electricity to be cheaply transported cross-country.

One of the reasons for this is that the best places for alternative energy like wind or solar, are places where nobody lives, and therefore there's no customers for it.

[Prosperity]

I'm for every alternative source of energy we can possibly use. But it seems like that discussion often omits the need to power vehicles. And isn't our vehicles that are allegedly causing most of the greenhouse-gas problem?

(This post really isn't directed at you. You just happened to be the one to mention alternative means of powering, heating, and cooling our homes.)

can't electricity take care of all those needs? Electric cars charged from alt energy power plants would be pretty "green"

[Larry]

I'm for every alternative source of energy we can possibly use. But it seems like that discussion often omits the need to power vehicles. And isn't our vehicles that are allegedly causing most of the greenhouse-gas problem?

(This post really isn't directed at you. You just happened to be the one to mention alternative means of powering, heating, and cooling our homes.)

Well, for one thing, there are all-electric vehicles right now. And creatures like the Volt, which are all-electric for routine driving, but can burn gas for long trips.

But from what I've read, Hydrogen isn't a bad way of turning electric power into "gas in the tank". It isn't a source of energy. But it is a way to make energy portable.

[Destino]

I'm for every alternative source of energy we can possibly use. But it seems like that discussion often omits the need to power vehicles. And isn't our vehicles that are allegedly causing most of the greenhouse-gas problem?

(This post really isn't directed at you. You just happened to be the one to mention alternative means of powering, heating, and cooling our homes.)

The answer has and always will be electricity. The reason is simple: You can make it however you want from any other power source.

Plus electric engines are quiet and offer much higher response performance than internal combustion... and I WANT THAT. haha

[Larry]

The answer has and always will be electricity. The reason is simple: You can make it however you want from any other power source.

Plus electric engines are quiet and offer much higher response performance than internal combustion... and I WANT THAT. haha

That, to me, is why electricity is the "currency" of energy. (No pun intended.) (Well, OK, pun intentionally pointed out.)

It's a pretty universal form of energy. Almost any form of energy can be turned into electricity. (If through no other means, than by converting energy X into heat.) And it can be converted into almost any other form of energy.

(That's also why, when I was proposing that the government encourage alt energies, that it do so by encouraging people to build alt energy power plants. It allows the alt energy to enter the market place without having to develop any form of infrastructure for handling that energy.)

[Mooka]

To clarify Pierce is not threatening to shut off the power, Arizona can't do that. (from his own words)

What he's saying is that if LA is going to boycott Arizona, then they should boycott the 25% of their power coming from Arizona.

[Teller]

The answer has and always will be electricity. The reason is simple: You can make it however you want from any other power source.

Plus electric engines are quiet and offer much higher response performance than internal combustion... and I WANT THAT. haha

I don't disagree, and I'll take the better torque you can get out of an electric engine all day long. The problem is, no one has invented a battery that's effective for someone outside of biking distance from work. (An exaggeration, but you get the point.)

[twa]

To clarify Pierce is not threatening to shut off the power, Arizona can't do that. (from his own words)

What he's saying is that if LA is going to boycott Arizona, then they should boycott the 25% of their power coming from Arizona.

Don't be confusing the situation with facts dang it,we got a insurrection to plot.

Larry why not go to air cars that do not have the environmental impact of electrics?

It seems electric vehicles is simply shifting environmental damage.(though both are flawed at present)

Perhaps the work with capacitors will breakout though.

[Predicto]

I don't agree. I grant you, some modification would have to take place but the reality is that Eastern States are dying for Energy now. So are Western States. The cost associated with redirecting energy to other parts of the US would be paid for in spades if it ever came to that. Short term, there may be some issues but in the long run, I don't see any way Arizona would lose money.

"some modification?"

We are talking about electricity.

You can't generate electricity in Arizona and just ship it to Connecticut. By the time it gets there, you will have lost 99 percent of the juice.

[nonniey]

The payback to California is to cost yourself billions of dollars of lost revenues? Is that like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

I wonder what they will do to the other major cities (like Seattle) who have also threatened to boycott? Shut down all the Starbucks?

You have a point. If it was up to me I'd just add a surcharge to all power provided to California at a rate that would offset any financial losses the boycots cause (likely not legal though under rules governing interstate commerce - but then are the boycotts legal?)

[Predicto]

You have a point. If it was up to me I'd just add a surcharge to all power provided to California at a rate that would offset any finacial losses the boycots cause (likely not legal though under rules governing interstate commerce - but then are the boycotts legal?)

Yeah, the boycotts are legal. Not very smart, but definitely legal.

[ABQCOWBOY]

"some modification?"

We are talking about electricity.

You can't generate electricity in Arizona and just ship it to Connecticut. By the time it gets there, you will have lost 99 percent of the juice.

The distances between Nevada and Utah are pretty much consistent with California. The Grids are the same because California actually buys electricity from these states already. Essentially, we all share the same grid so there really is very little need to make whole sale changes to the infrustructure. This is the reason price increases in California effect all of our energy prices out West.