auto58194@hushmail.com wrote

Huh? Let's make this simple. How is California's lack of power plants causing natural gas prices to rise? Plants that don't exist don't use gas and don't contribute to shortages.

California's importing power from elsewhere, so why didn't these other generators commit to natural gas suppliers?

In the energy business it is commonly assumed there is lots of natural gas in Alberta and BC. So much that most exploration companies do not bother looking for it until they has a market. In the business it is often jokingly stated that natural gas will be obsolete before we release it all from the reservoirs. If you decide to build a natural gas powered electrical generation facility to provide full-time capacity you are looking at a lead-time of at least a couple of years. With a lead time of two years the supply would be available. The delivery system may be a problem as in this day and age it can take more than two years to get approval to build pipelines in populated areas. Put your power plant in the boonies and you solve part of the problem. Basically there are two natural gas delivery systems coming out of Canada. The main system starts in northeast British Columbia on the east side of the continental divide, runs through Alberta collecting more capacity and then heads east. There is a branch going to Toronto and Montreal, the main population centres in Canada. There is another branch which heads to the Chicago area. If you check your commodity prices you will note buyers attached to this system pay much lower prices than those offered to California buyers. There is no shortage of supply in this system, you can tell by the prices. California is not directly connected to this supply system and can not benefit from this abundant supply. On this side of the continental divide there is no longer an abundant supply. One of the local gas transmission companies wanted Canadian consumers to pay CAN$500 million to increase supply through increased residential and industrial rates. We the consumers refused as we didn't need the capacity for our own use. The transmission company wanted the consumers to assume their risk with our dollars. The transmission company invested some of their own capital to do part of the connection. If you want to give them CAN$325 million they will finish finish the link between the two systems and there will be a glut of natural gas on this side of the continental divide. They know if they invest the money themselves they will loose their current price premium so they ain't doin it with their money. Commit to some long-term supply contracts at today's prices and it would completed within a year. I live out in the burbs in what was once a rural area. No one ever thought the city would grow this big. Many years ago they built a coal fired power plant less than a couple of miles away. It was down wind from the city and no one cared about the pollution back then... Around about 10 years ago they changed from coal to natural gas fired boilers. This power plant sits there mainly unused. The local tree hugger types whine too much about the pollution. The facility is not small, probably enough capacity for a city of 250K. It is used only at peak times and in emergency situations. When there are low reservior levels (which is part of your problem) it is used more often. In a properly planned electrical system this type of extra capacity is considered essential. These plants were never intended to be used fulltime so they tend to have low natural gas storage capacity and smaller inbound pipelines. In your system you are using facilities such as these for full-time power generation. In your state these plants has a quota of pollution they are allowed to produce on an annual basis. A number of these facilities had reached their annual quota of emissions so they shut down for maintenance. Since they were never intended to be used full-time they require some down time. Within the last two weeks your state government lifted the pollution quotas and pressured the operators to bring these plants back on stream.

Hint: transmission losses aren't a recent discovery.

You caught me by surprise on this one. I assume you are talking about electricity as if a gas delivery system has losses you tend to very quickly become aware of it.

Either you're confused or you're trying to use the cold winter as an excuse to create a strawman for your anti-Californian views.

I don't believe my view is anything other than an accurate description of what is plainly stated between the lines. In this part of the world there are very detailed analysis printed in the local media describing the mechanics of what is happening in the energy market. Just from your reaction you can see why this view would not be popular in your neighbourhood. Energy production is big business in western Canada and a lot of people are making big dollars from the consumers in the northwest. The actions of the California voters have made this possible. I just wish I was still in the energy business rolling in dollars rather than whining about paying an extra $1,000 per year for heating. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "The Physical Layer Experts" http://www.fbn.bc.ca/cable1.html