Quote Originally Posted by MarcR View Post
So you provide an alternative viewpoint, the site for the guys creating the policy I disagree with... I cannot say that I am convinced by the viewpoint of the people who set the policy, just because they made it.

On the About: page "The California ISO Board of Governors reviews and approves the annual ISO budget, shapes policies and approves grid planning and market design changes". I'm sure you will agree that is also not an impartial source.

They go on to say... "The shift to a clean, efficient and modern grid is essential to California's economy and its environment." Nothing could be further from the truth...how does one quantify clean, efficient and modern? What is needed is reliable cheap energy within the constraints of the pollution measures. Now, those pollution/emissions limits will make sense in a local measurable environment weighing up the economic and environmental health benefits. That is not something ISO addresses.

Next...

If the California plan was so good, energy would be more readily available and cheaper, not less reliable and more expensive.

As much as I like real figures/numbers, I am going to put forward this opinion... I will add the source and you can get the numbers to back it up yourself...

California has lived on the trope of being the hub of technology startups and innovation for decades. California’s economic success has long been touted and celebrated, none more so than the technology gold rush in the Bay Area.
But despite California’s seemingly never-ending economic growth, the Golden State is now being recognized as one of the worst places to do business in the nation.

The whole story here... https://www.pacificresearch.org/cali...e-poor-scores/

In my opinion, the non scientific environmental policies and legislation in California are closely tied to the business climate in the state. It is an arguable point that most individuals are not as well off economically (in California) as they were five years ago, or compared to red states. There are many factors at play here, and that is why I am just stating it as a discussion point, worth looking into, unless one is a "climate crisis" proponent, in which case there seems to be no room for discussion.
You're certainly correct that the CA ISO thinks highly of itself! And for sure their page self promoting and slathered in marketing speak. I just find the data they provide to the public to be relevant, regardless of if one agrees or disagrees with their policy. The data helps me better understand energy supply, solar included, as well as peak demand times and what the energy mix is at particular times. I don't think most people know how fluid energy supply is, and that site, self promotion aside, provides a nice way to view this information.

And I didn't say California's plan was so good. I only meant to say that for whatever flaws California's power grid has, they are not the fault of solar. When PGE turned off the power to 2.1 million people it was not because the grid failed, or because it was overloaded. It was because, in their judgment, it was a safety risk to leave power lines energized in very hot and dry conditions for a forecasted wind storm.

To your point on how California is doing as a whole, it is certainly a hot topic. But as it relates to renewable energy supply, I don't think that correlates well. Texas produces more wind power than any other state because it's a good idea and the math works well, not because of partisan politics. California is the top solar producer, but 3 of the top 5 solar producing states are "red states" (Texas, Arizona, North Carolina), again, because the math pencils out well.