> So you're going to say, with a *straight face*, that the
> eco-warriors refusal to allow the construction of new
> energy plants in CA had *nothing* in any way to do with > the rolling blackouts?

Cute, Richard. Read what I said: Nobody conserved their way to a blackout. The problem started with an incredibly poor deregulation scheme. This is the truth, and this is what gives the lie to your facile summation of California's energy problems. You're trying to make the case that we wouldn't be having these problems if the poor energy plants had been allowed to reproduce, but you're ignoring the fact that peak demand for electricity in July and August of 2000 was actually lower than in '99. (These are summer months, and as such, are hotter.) Also consider that the state's capacity for power production in December--when the first outages hit--is 47,500 megawatts. Actual demand when power alerts hit stood at less than 34,000.

You also ignore the fact that California is 49th in the nation in per capita electricity consumption.

You also ignore the fact that 185 new generation facilities were brought online in the '90s, an increase of 4,000 megawatts.

You also ignore the fact that, under California's deregulation legislation, it's to the power utilities' advantage not to build new plants. In fact, post-deregulation, the energy companies have successfully lobbied the California PUC and FERC *against* plans for new energy resource development. In addition, wholesale power generators have held up the licensing of 12 out of 21 plant proposals since 1997. In addition to this, Edison successfully appealed to the FERC to block the construction of 1,400 megawatts of additional power capacity. They said they wouldn't need it until 2005.

Under deregulation, Richard, the state utilities sold most of their plants to private companies. These private companies now control roughly 35% of the state's power supply. They are also aware of any planned outages or maintenance. Further, under the deregulation laws, the utility prices were capped (something the utility companies added themselves); however, supply prices were not. The rest is history.

There are, in fact, additional power plants on the drawing boards in California, but they're owned by the same companies who saw profit increases of up to 600 percent last year in the face of the energy "crisis": Enron, AES, Calpine, Duke, Southern, NRG/Dynegy, and unregulated arms of PG&E and SDG&E. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't going to solve any of the state's energy problems.

Should you require further facts on the energy "crisis," I suggest you do a little research.

> (There's no need for anti-Bush tirades, I've asked you a
> straight question, you can make one of us look foolish by
> giving me a straight answer)

I haven't gone on any anti-Bush tirades, and I don't need to say anything at all to make you look foolish. You're doing just fine all by yourself...