Blackout California

The shutdown of the leaking Aliso Canyon underground gas storage facility has caused a loss of about 70bcf of stored gas that Southern California utilities have historically counted on to see them through the hot, high-demand summer months. The California Independent Service Operator (CAISO), which manages the California grid, estimates that as a result all customers should expect to be without power for a total of 14 days this summer. Some 21 million Southern Californians stand to be directly affected.

Are blackouts on such a scale likely? It seems they are. According to Business Insider

SoCalGas uses Aliso Canyon to provide gas to power generators that cannot be met with pipeline flows alone on about 10 days per month during the summer, according to state agencies. In the summer SoCalGas strives to completely fill 86.2-billion cubic feet (bcf) Aliso Canyon to prepare for the upcoming winter heating season when gas demand peaks. State regulators, however, ordered the company in January to reduce the amount of working gas in Aliso Canyon to just 15 bcf and use that fuel to reduce the risk of gas curtailments and power interruptions this summer. State regulators will not allow SoCalGas to inject fuel into the facility until the company inspects all of its 114 wells.

And from the Wall Street Journal

But the pipelines can only bring in about 3 billion cubic feet of working gas a day into Southern California, below the daily demand, which gets as high as 5.7 billion cubic feet.

Figure 1: Remedial work in progress at Aliso Canyon

Aliso Canyon has a capacity or 86bcf but presently contains only 15bcf, representing a shortfall of 71bcf. How much gas generation does this represent? According to the conversions given in the BP Statistical review it’s 7.7 TWh. And how much gas does Southern California consume in the summer, which will continue for about another three months? Data are scanty, but the following approximate calculations based on 2014 data provide an indication.

According to the California Energy Commission Almanac the three largest Southern California Utilities generated 128 TWh in 2014, the last year for which data are available:

  • Southern California Edison Company (SCE) – 82.849 TWh
  • Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) – 27.628 TWh
  • San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) – 17.670 TWh

To this total we must add generation from a number of smaller municipal, rural and irrigation district utilities, According to the Almanac these aggregated about 13TWh in 2014:

  • Anaheim – 2467 GWh
  • Burbank – 1331
  • Glendale – 2109
  • Imperial Irrigation District – 3700
  • Pasadena – 1174
  • Riverside – 2324

Bringing the total to 141 TWh.

Then there are a number of even smaller utilities which I have assumed, somewhat arbitrarily, will raise the total to 150TWh in 2014 (which I further assume will not be that different to the 2016 number).

And how much of this will be gas generation? According to Southern California Edison 44% of California’s total generation in 2013 came from gas, and according to the California Energy Commission the 2014 number was 41%. I have assumed 40% for calculation purposes. This gives 150*0.40 -= 60 TWh of gas generation in Southern California.

And how much of this gas generation is used during the three summer months that remain in 2016? According to this graphic from EIA average demand in these months is about 26GW compared to about 23GW for the rest of the year, which gives 28.5% of total annual gas generation in July, August and September.

Figure 2: Average California daily load by month, 2011-14 (data EIA)

Which in its turn gives 0.285*60 = 17.1 TWh of gas generation in Southern California during the remaining summer months. The 7.7 TWh shortfall in the Aliso Canyon storage represents 45% of this, indicating that Southern California utilities will indeed be quite heavily dependent on what they can get through existing pipeline networks for the rest of the hot season once the 15 bcf currently stored at Aliso Canyon is exhausted.

Compounding the problem is the California Duck Curve, a product of the large amount of solar capacity that California has added in recent years.

Figure 3: The California “Duck Curve” (data GreentechMedia)

What the added solar capacity has done is increase the ramp rates that gas-fired plants must meet to follow load during peak demand periods. As can be seen ramp rates have already increased by a factor of about three since 2012. If insufficient gas is available during ramp-up periods the lights will likely go out.

So will Southern California suffer blackouts? Right now it doesn’t look good, but there are too many variables, chief among them being the weather, to say for sure. It is interesting to note, however, that the response of the California Public Utilities Commission to this terawatt-hour crisis was to demand more megawatt-hour battery storage:

The California Public Utilities Commission wants Southern California Edison to expedite plans to acquire electricity storage using batteries to help prevent potential blackouts.

This, I think, stands as a telling commentary on the state of knowledge of the people who are currently writing the rules.

This entry was posted in Energy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Blackout California

  1. Todd D. says:

    Thank you for this analysis. According to CA gov’t web site, natural gas produced 118TWh for 2015, total generation was 195.8TWh, so 60% of in-state generation is natural gas, correct? . Seems to conflict with the 27% figure?
    On another note, you might find this post interesting regarding California electricity imports

    • Todd: The numbers I have for 2014 (also from the California Energy Commission Almanac) show 121.9TWh of gas and 296.8TWh of total consumption, which gives 41% natural gas. The problem is that the total consumption number includes 109.3TWh of “net imports”, which are mixture of coal, gas, hydro and renewables but which aren’t segregated by category. This makes it impossible to calculate California’s actual energy mix. But you’re right that 27% is too low, so while everyone in Europe is asleep I’m going to up my assumption from 25% gas to 40% gas and modify the text accordingly.

  2. Dave Rutledge says:

    Hi Roger,

    Timely topic. Todd is correct on the natural gas share for in-state generation. CAISO covers about three quarters of the state generation, so its numbers will be lower than the energy almanac that Todd links to.The CAISO numbers for the past 366 days for in-state natural gas production are 88TWh total and about 10TWh in each of the months July, August, September, and October. April is the low month, at 4TWh.


    • Hi Dave:

      I’d forgotten that people on this side of the Pond are still awake 🙁

      Anyway, as I pointed out in my comment above Todd’s estimate of 60% gas generation is likely too high because it ignores imports, which made up 37% of California’s 2014 electricity consumption. It would be nice to have imports segregated by generation source but I can’t find any data on this. Do you know of any?

      • Todd D. says:

        Good point about 60% referring to in-state only. If the other article I linked to, by Jude Clemente, regarding CA’s import issues does not break it out, could be difficult to find.

      • Dave Rutledge says:

        Hi Roger,

        These is given as total systems power.

        The 2015 numbers should come out in August.

        The imports will presumably not have pipeline or gas storage limitations.


        • Roger Andrews says:

          Hi Dave

          Thanks for that useful information. It shows that California got 44.5% of its electricity from gas in 2014 when imported gas generation is included (the 2013 number was 44% according to SCE). It’s also interesting to note that 15% of California’s electricity came from “unspecified sources of (imported) power”. I wonder what these sources were.

        • Thinkstoomuch says:

          They may not have this natural gas issue in other places.

          But how much interconnection capability do CA to power surpluses in other places have?

          Giga watts in Texas do nothing to help CA without a highway to get it there.

          I posted a graph that shows how much CAISO imported in the past. It had CAISO Thermal as well. Seems like there is not all that much slack unless they built some new connectors recently.

          Unfotunately we will see.


          • Bob Meinetz says:

            T2M, in the name of promoting “regional energy markets” Pacificorp will join the CAISO grid in 2017. It doesn’t take much digging to appreciate somewhere north of 95% of the firm’s electricity is generated by burning coal. California is not only outsourcing one-third of its electricity – beginning next year, it will be outsourcing a significant percentage of its emissions.

            I would expect CO2 emissions are just as bad for climate whether they come from Wyoming or California.


      • mike h says:

        if you send me an email address, I can send you a daily breakdown.

  3. Asteroid Miner says:

    Blackout: Serves them right for closing their nuclear power plants.

    • Willem Post says:


      Here is some good news, finally.

      Sweden was going to phase out its nuclear plants, but found to replace 8849 MW of operating nuclear capacity, it needed to have 22,300 MW of IWTs (lasting at most 25 years), at about $2 million per MW, or $45 billion, PLUS for peaking and filling-in, about 8600 MW of gas-fired CCGT plants (lasting at most 40 years), at about $1.5 million/MW, or $13 billion, PLUS about $6 billion for grid build-outs, for a total of $64 billion, PLUS, as a side “benefit”, significant social unrest due to siting IWTs, etc. The combined system would produce about 64.8 TWh/y.

      Because wind energy is near zero many hours of the year (in New England and Sweden) and wind peak output is wind-dependent, whereas peak demand is people-dependent, gas-fired back-up plants are needed for peaking and filling-in. Sweden also has a large hydro plant capacity that could perform a part of that service.

      Instead of going the expensive wind and gas-fired route, Sweden reversed a 30-year-old ban on building new nuclear plants and decided to build 9000 MW of new nuclear plants (lasting at least 60 years), at about $5.5 million/MW, for a total of $50 billion, to replace aging existing nuclear plants, on the SAME sites. The plants would produce about 63.8 TWh/y. The EU and US should take note.

      There was also the question of what to do during Sweden’s winter, when electricity demand for space heating soars, and with IWTs often in
      shutdown mode, due to extreme cold, and with solar output at near-zero during most of the hours of the winter. New England should take note.

  4. gweberbv says:

    “But the pipelines can only bring in about 3 billion cubic feet of working gas a day into Southern California, below the daily demand, which gets as high as 5.7 billion cubic feet.”

    And the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is: Without the generation by solar would this mismatch further increase or decrease?

    • Euan Mearns says:

      That’s not the right question Gunther. The right question is what form of generation would best match natural gas and best serve consumers? And what would be the appropriate level of capacity margin?

      • OpenSourceElectricity says:

        The right qiuestion is “what solves the problem of power supply most economically. MAybe it’s neccesary to decrease prices in the area of the duck belly and increase them in the evening.
        Thise rate plan:!ut/p/b1/hc5BCsIwFATQs3iC_CS1icsvxvSX2lhTtGYjWZWCVhfi-Y3SnaizG3gDwwLrWBjjY-jjfbiO8fzqIT-VtEJuM0HO1wqQe7OxTSUNZgkcE4AvQfi3P7DwJlxbLMgD2e08AypVC0p5rtfqA-yUSGBvKrfkArSYwMKCKUqXQNtIINlA7RElQD6BHydvlw4G6mdPmzQ8Bw!!/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ is not designed to decrease the duck-belly.
        The duck curve requirest highest prices at 18:00-23:00, and low prices at 10:00-17:00.
        Here the same:
        Pricing so far moves power consumption from the daylight time (9:00-18:00) into the evening (18:00-24:00) increasing the “duck belly” problem.
        This is a problem of ink in the riight forms on some sheets of paper, and to solve this does not take time, but the will to do it.

        • Thinkstoomuch says:

          I believe that Roger is wrong on the duck curve problem and its impact “in summer time”. Not that it is really a problem as we are now talking a storage problem not a response curve problem. Might even be worse without the duck curve, possibly.

          I did not follow your references. really slow connection. But I had looked at it in the past. I am putting a graph link below, again from my fat finger and CASIO data.

          Graph has the demand curves (without the renewables subtracted) from the CAISO page renewables page again. Choose 19 Aug fairly randomly (dog days of August and weekday). And the renewable from last year. Then the data from March 31st of this year for comparison.

          Pick a day and I can generate the graph if you don’t like that day. May take a few days depending on what I am doing and if I Have a internet connection.

          Graph shows that the current billing plans while not perfect are closeish to good.enough.

          For what it is worth.

          • T2M;

            The “duck curve” problem isn’t something I came up with. I’m just showing the industry perspective.

            California has been trying to flatten out daily electricity demand since the Oil Embargo of 1974/5, to the point where according to my last count the major utilities now have no fewer than 46 different billing rates depending on where you are, who you are and the time of day. This rate structure has, however, made little difference to the shape of the demand curve.

          • Thinkstoomuch says:


            My poor communication skills are at fault again.

            I meant in the summer it isn’t a duck curve. More or less a steady ramp until around 18:00. Then flattens out until 2100 or so.

            Staying at a campground in Utah with no service so I don’t have the graph handy to post. Doing laundry and reading on the phone.

            Duck Curve is a early winter and spring thing when demand is actually 30 or 40 percent lower.

            So not really a problem in this situation.

            Though all those rates demonstrate the insanity of demand side control of usage quite well, thank you.

            My apologies for being unclear.

            Probably made another5 or 6 more points unclearly here.


        • Joe Public says:

          Heck, those California TOU prices are steep.

          For comparison, in UK my June 2016 electricity contract (admittedly the best I could find, & I’m better equipped than most to compare the labyrinthine deals on offer) is daytime = 11p/kWh & 7-hours nighttime at 6.1p/kWh. Plus £77 pa standing charge.

          With my usage pattern for 2,700 kWh pa, the average price over the year ~13p/kWh

      • gweberbv says:


        with regard to the current crisis, California does not suffer from a problematic combination of energy sources per se but from the fact that the natural gas supply has (at least) one single point of failure (the Aliso Canyon storage facility).
        Now, everything that reduces the usage of natural gas is a good thing.

        • Thinkstoomuch says:

          Yep due to past poor decisions they have to deal with Heinlein’s “bad luck”. Also known as “6 P’s”, “Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.”

          Look at the graph I posted. They got rid of their coal (almost), Getting rid of their nukes. Invested heavily in intermittent energy sources that don’t provide the bang for the buck.

          Leads to a single point failure. Surprisingly it fails. Now they have to figure a way to survive it. Pretty much one of the main things this blog has been about avoiding from day one. Of what I have read anyway. (Thank you all.)

          And from Roger’s post the response seems to say that they still haven’t learned. How is it one of the most expensive electricity rate states seems to go through this process on a decadal basis?


    • Thinkstoomuch says:

      This graph may help. It is from data provided through CAISO Renewables page. Fat fingered copy/paste into one spreadsheet by me. Remember this is not all CA power usage.

      So more or less the Solar added to this point replaces the lost nuclear plant. Sound familiar.

      They are fortunate that hydro is better this year. And how much Interconnection capability is there is why that was added.

      Have a good day,

  5. GeoffM says:

    I wonder how many politicians and civil servants think that a megawatt hour is a huge amount of electricity.

  6. Greg Kaan says:

    Good article, Roger 😉

  7. Andy Dawson says:

    Just to add a sombre thought:

    The authors of which make a good case that the 2003 New York Blackout – which took place in midsummer, but lasted only about eight hours – led to around 90 excess deaths compread to a “non-blackout” day. The official count was six deaths, but that include only the most direct causes.

    Now, it’s fair to say that many of the causes of excess mortality could be managed better in a “planned blackout” than they were in New York – but against that, California is hotter (the New York outage wasn’t during a heatwave), and probably has more of an air pollution problem.

    Given that – on the figures quoted by Roger, and assuming 21 million Californians, verusus 8.5 million New Yorkers – 14 days versus 1/3rd of a day – simply applying the same mortality rate suggests that this will kill perhaps 9,000 Californians.

    • robertok06 says:

      Talking about costs related to a large-scale blackout… the Swiss industrial association has run a study which has estimated at 20 billion swiss francs/day (more than 20 billion US $) the economic losses due to forced closure of industries, lost/damaged food and goods, etc…
      Switzerland has 8 million citizens, CA 5 times as many…

  8. Lest we forget, California suffered a series of major power outages in 2000/2001. The root cause? Deregulation.

    The California electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001 was a situation in which California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices. The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts (and) one of the state’s largest energy companies collapsed. Drought, delays in approval of new power plants, and market manipulation decreased supply. This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price. Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry’s revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001. The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890). Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California’s spot markets.

    • Bob Meinetz says:

      Roger, the root cause of California’s current problems is exactly the same as it was in 2000-2001 – the repeal of FDR’s Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA).
      PUHCA prohibited energy holding companies from buying natural gas from their own subsidiaries, marking up its price, then selling it to their captive ratepayers – at the marked-up price.
      This obscene fraud is rampant – and legal – since the 2005 repeal of PUHCA. How is the repeal relevant to the California Electricity Crisis of 2000-2001? That crisis was the result of a 1993 exemption to PUHCA granted to a company named Enron.

  9. Andy Dawson says:


    not deregulation per-se – rather, “bodged deregulation”. Other countries that had gone earlier suffered no such problems (indeed, we saw a collapse of wholesale prices, leading to its own particular problems), and the Swedes and other who were with us early similarly saw no shortages. Even in the US, early deregulators like the PMJ Pool didn’t get hit by blackouts and rising prices.

    California’s deregulation issues were down to a few particulars – rising demand and a history of making it all but impossible to bring new capacity on line; restricted interconnection to other states – and above all, the retail price cap, making it impossible to send any sort of price signal.

    • Andy: You’re right that the 1990-91 fiasco was caused by botched deregulation, but California is, well, different. It is in fact difficult to think of another jurisdiction that has been more poorly served by its elected representatives, particularly from the energy standpoint. (Joke – why is California like a Granola bar? Because it’s full of fruits, nuts and flakes).

      But there is one parallel between California and Europe. In both cases utilities went/are going bankrupt because they didn’t/don’t get paid enough for their electricity to keep their heads above water. The origins of the problem are quite different, but in both cases the root cause is deregulation that opened the electricity to a “free market” that turned out to be a lot less free than its progenitors intended.

      • Bob Meinetz says:

        Roger, no utilities are going bankrupt because they “didn’t get paid enough” – they’re guaranteed a negotiated fair rate of return on equity (ROE).

        In the case of PG&E, the company’s holding company, Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation, drained its utility subsidiary of $7 billion and cashed it out.

  10. Dave Rutledge says:

    Hi Roger,

    I would give some blame for the California electricity crisis to the canceling of the Sundesert and Bodega Bay nukes. They might have been enough to get us through without trouble.


    • Greg Kaan says:

      Fixing the steam generators at San Onfre rather than closing it would have helped too.

    • In the early 1980s my company was in a joint venture with SDG&E to develop Salton Sea geothermal, and even back then they were wondering where their next megawatt was going to come from.

  11. Thinkstoomuch says:

    This is a stacked chart for electricity for 2015 in just the CAISO area using their data to show where the power comes from. It is rather complicated with 11 inputs broken out by day for the year. Thermal which is the top input, and it consists almost entirely of natural gas (from what I can determine).

    Make of it what you will. But I feel it puts Roger’s points in a sharper light. Course that is me thinking again. 🙂

    A comparison to 2016 so far.

    This post has led me to some rather scary thoughts about where the recent cheap electricity in FL comes from. Better to be prepared, I guess.

    Have fun all,

    • T2M:

      Here’s your graphic plotted up:

      I show it because it’s a good example of the problems you run into trying to make sense of the California electricity sector. In this case the problem is that you can’t believe the results. California’s average daily generation, or consumption, or whatever the plot shows didn’t stay almost dead flat at around 580GWh from January through June, then suddenly go bananas from June through mid-October before returning to a stable 580-590GWh level in November and December. Either there’s a problem with your data compilation or CAISO’s data are bogus – I suspect the latter 🙂

      • Thinkstoomuch says:


        Not sure I agree.

        If the data is bogus then the feds and the CAISO are both in on it. Not to say that isn’t possible. 😉 Or even that they are not based on the same data but regulators get teachy about the accounting and taxes.

        The chart pretty much agrees my recollections of my electric bills in the early 90’s. My memory being a rationaliing thing, it is not of much value.

        Please, take at look at this.,1&geo=000000000004&endsec=vg&linechart=ELEC.SALES.CA-ALL.M&columnchart=ELEC.SALES.CA-ALL.M&map=ELEC.SALES.CA-ALL.M&freq=M&start=201001&end=201604&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

        And this,1&geo=0000000001&endsec=vg&freq=M&start=201001&end=201604&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0

        Lastly this one,1&geo=000000000022&endsec=vg&linechart=ELEC.SALES.NV-ALL.M~ELEC.SALES.OR-ALL.M~~~~~&columnchart=ELEC.SALES.NV-ALL.M&map=ELEC.SALES.NV-ALL.M&freq=M&start=201001&end=201604&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

        The first is an EIA chart of electricity sales (monthly) in CA from January 2010 to April 2016. Second is for Arizona. Last is a combination of OR and NV.

        Nevada shows some of the same problem just over a 6 month scale Nov to Apr flat Apr to Nov is not. Not three months of bonkers. But it is 2 sharp ramps up then down..

        Also consider CA 34.4 to 42 north latitude. Elevations go from sea level to dang near 10,000 ft (I Think). Not to mention the sea breeze (which we referred to as June gloom when I was in San Diego brought clouds every morning) and then the Santa Ana winds (Think Hair dryer into the LA Basin, which I am sure you are familiar with having lived in Arizona even if they weren’t called that).

        Not having a great deal of difficulty believing the numbers as the natural gas wall heater I had in Huntington Beach (which rarely kicked on) would be laughed at in Tahoe, around Shasta or parts north.. When there is snow on the ground. Things sort of balance out in the state scale.

        Until the summer really hits I imagine the northern and higher parts of the state power consumption sort of balances.

        I need to contemplate this a lot and look at some climate conditions and population concentration locations versus energy usage before I can agree. Along with a bunch of other things. Which will probably take a while. To be honest not sure it is worth the effort right now. Though I am getting ready to climb into the tent so attitude may change by morning. 🙂

        There is a reason until they screwed up their state government it was one of the most popular locations to move to after WW2. Even temprate climate with a relatively few bad periods.

        Yep more things to consider. Thank you.


      • Thinkstoomuch says:

        Roger I do appreciate your patience and instruction to a more or less ignorant me!

        I went thru and did some more charts. What the daily shows is a little misleading and makes most of my previous post less relevant. Should have waited until morning to reply. My Apologies. Long day and all that leads to poor decision on my part.

        This is a simple line chart of the monthly totals but not divided by input source. Much like figure 2 in the original post.. Which is actually showing daily demand curves by month. I think? figure 2 would then show much the same thing, I believe. So I will include the chart on demand curves minus renewables from the CAISO data set.

        Monthly chart for 2015.

        Which looks different than the one that shows daily energy usage. Used the same data set.

        For 2011 to 2015.

        The monthly demand curves minus renewables taken on the last Wednesday of each month in 2015. Seemed best way to keep things equal over the year. Though Dec may screw that up due to the holidays. I have not figured a way to make all things equal. Suggestions welcome. As this is pretty much a spaghetti chart.

        So like always in my opinion a little thought saved me a lot of work trying to figure out how to prove the impossible. I hope. 😉

        Thank you,

        • T2M;

          First let me say how refreshing it is to have someone who looks at the data before posting comments. And who, i might add, is nowhere near as dumb as he makes himself out to be.

          Your monthly chart for 2015 looks a lot more plausible than the detailed chart I printed above. And you say they both use the same data set?

          i’d like to spend more time on this but I have to break off and write Blowout now.

          Do you still live in California?

          • Thinkstoomuch says:


            First DO what you need to do to feed *my* curiosity about things. You do it way too well to interrupt on the little things, this is comparatively unimportant. Additional time for my contemplation is probably a good thing.

            For the base data set. It is from the hourly data on the CAISO site through the the renewable links.


            One of your previous posts on CA led me to them(most of the posts here lead me to interesting stuff and thoughts). I then input into excel (while I was still home, update it as possible) and play with it.

            So yes they are the same data set which compares to the EIA data and yours. Though there may be some errors here and there I am somewhat sure of what I did.

            I appreciate the kind comments but I tend to be opinionated, argumentative, disorganized, perfectionist, contrarian and impatient(no particular order as they change after the first). Also I possess poor written communication skills. Good thing about poor connections in most of the areas I am in is it curbs these to an extent. 😉 Composing things in word then rereading them multiple times is mostly a good thing. Until I spend too much time in my own head. Then other people don’t always understand meanings because they haven’t looked at multiple versions of what I finally post. Not really all that smart you just get to see a somewhat polished finished version of my long, tortuously circuitous thoughts.

            As is evident in what I was trying to say last night that I should have waited until morning one post would have looked much cleaner and neater. 🙁

            I no longer live in CA, got out in 1995. Now live in FL from Nov-ish to May-ish rest of the time on a motorcycle tent camping in a lap around the rest of the US, sort of. Generally avoid cities, California and northeast of Western NY State, where I grew up). With.ten years in VA in between.

            Good luck with the blowout I am looking forward to it.


        • Thinkstoomuch says:

          Another comment for those who have time, inclination and/or skills.

          I realized this morning I forgot the most important link. 🙁

          This link is the way I get the data. Duh!!!!

          Date can be changed in the numbers portion. yyyymmdd format. So if you can program it is easy to import all the data back to April 20th, 2010. I used macros and functions in excel. Then multiple manual copy/paste (paste special, text format) actions.

          Result comes out like below. If added comes out to the daily pdf output which shows the MWH output. of each of the renewable sources for that day, if you replace the “.txt” with “.pdf”. I can’t figure the reason they say the breakdown is in MW vice MWH in the header. In other pages they state that it is an average of the hour’s data.

          Also the linking page states “… The information provided is as accurate as can be delivered in a daily format. It is unverified raw data and is not intended to be used as the basis for operational or financial decisions.”

          As a disclaimer: I am missing data from one hour in 2016, none in 2015, a day in 2014, plus 2 other hours, none in 2013, none in 2012, 2 days in 2011, 2 days 16 hours in 2010.

          07/01/16 Hourly Breakdown of Renewable Resources (MW)
          1 954 199 180 352 1795 0 0
          2 954 193 183 347 1382 0 0
          3 956 196 183 342 1071 0 0
          4 956 196 183 341 780 0 0
          5 956 202 184 342 786 0 0
          6 957 208 184 345 801 0 0
          7 959 218 182 355 795 645 0
          8 958 226 181 374 462 2806 2
          9 957 238 181 379 529 4808 161
          10 955 228 182 370 470 5875 218
          11 948 226 180 371 447 6559 329
          12 926 235 180 403 406 6950 590
          13 918 237 187 410 466 7002 564
          14 916 239 188 409 741 6908 445
          15 915 238 187 406 1213 6557 344
          16 916 239 187 485 1526 6264 374
          17 917 239 187 487 1681 5377 265
          18 916 238 187 486 2106 4169 248
          19 930 238 187 482 2300 2355 102
          20 946 237 183 481 2314 551 0
          21 950 239 181 426 2081 0 0
          22 953 225 182 393 2144 0 0
          23 954 193 181 351 2163 0 0
          24 955 179 181 336 1867 0 0

          Hourly Breakdown of Total Production by Resource Type (MW)
          1 3480 2284 9166 9695 3287
          2 3060 2284 9070 8968 2972
          3 2748 2286 8134 9305 2818
          4 2457 2284 8105 9211 2670
          5 2470 2284 8453 8954 2675
          6 2494 2285 8612 9429 3120
          7 3155 2286 8468 9990 3179
          8 5009 2287 8114 9937 3181
          9 7252 2286 7825 9734 3070
          10 8298 2286 8316 9556 3106
          11 9061 2285 9181 9218 3222
          12 9690 2284 9500 9252 3507
          13 9784 2285 10163 9095 3586
          14 9845 2285 11043 9099 3765
          15 9860 2284 11999 8885 4118
          16 9990 2283 12450 8919 4536
          17 9154 2283 13305 9047 5134
          18 8350 2286 13601 9421 5397
          19 6593 2286 14220 9828 5516
          20 4711 2286 14292 10148 5621
          21 3877 2285 13817 10598 5531
          22 3897 2284 13090 10291 5118
          23 3843 2284 11395 10074 4399
          24 3518 2285 9846 9702 3912

          That is just a copy and paste from the link’s page. Formatting is some what destroyed on this commenting on this page. Comes out in regular, neat, orderly, columnar manner on the webpage.

          That is the way I get the data anyway.

          Anyone can feel free to tell me how they think I screwed up. It will not be the first or last time that this happens.


  12. And all of this just to avoid nuclear power, the safest means of power production – including Chernobyl – a plant that was “illegal” everywhere else in the world, having the primary purpose of making plutonium for bombs and having no containment structure. And the only “civilian” nuclear power plant to ever have or cause radiation induced deaths. See

  13. Greg Kaan says:

    The Aliso Canyon facility remains closed and the second largest gas storage, McDonald Island in San Joaquin County has also been closed due to leaks. Meanwhile the summer heat has arrived. The outlook seems bleak.

Comments are closed.