Arizona Utility Official Threatens to Cut Off Electricity to Los Angeles

[chemisttree]

In response to LA's threatened boycott of all things Arizona, an official of Arizona's version of a Public Utilities Commission (http://www.azcc.gov/divisions/administration/about.asp" !

This is getting uug-lee..

 

[waht]

That's like Russia cutting off gas to Ukraine.

 

[chemisttree]

That's like Russia cutting off gas to Ukraine.

Was Ukraine threating a boycott of Russian goods? I don't think so. That dispute had to do with Ukraine's theft of gas being transported to the EU and a dispute of transit prices of that gas through Ukraine.

A little different from what is going on in AZ don't you agree?

 

[waht]

A little different from what is going on in AZ don't you agree?

The motives are different yes, but still it's an economic warfare.

Some of those comments are amusing:

I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.

 

[Evo]

You just can't make stuff like this up.

 

[BobG]

Considering how contentious city water rights are becoming in Colorado, I think the best solution for Colorado is to divert as much of the water in the Colorado to the Front Range as technologically possible.

Enough pipelines and Arizona and Los Angeles won't have to argue about electricity anymore.

That's only half kidding. When they decided on how much water Arizona, California, and other downstream states should receive, they set an absolute number based on one of the wettest years in history when they should have set a percentage. It's gotten to the point that Colorado suffers during the dry years because downstream states still have to receive their allocated amount regardless of how much that leaves for Colorado.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Priceless. Make a threat the federal government would disallow for reasons of keeping the peace and national security... that will surely stimulate your economy. Didn't AZ learn anything from the MLK Day issue? I suppose this is what comes of living in a dusty ****heap.

 

[Char. Limit]

This is hilarious... Best comedian I've seen yet! This is such a great caricature of what Arizona's doing right now!

Wait... This is real?

 

[chemisttree]

Perhaps Mr. Pierce is basing his own boycott on California's stringent penal code regarding illegal aliens.

Section834b (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=6328

I wonder if previous contact with law enforcement officials is more or less stringent than this law?

Papers please? NO ICE CREAM FOR YOU!

 

[mheslep]

The motives are different yes, but still it's an economic warfare.

Some of those comments are amusing:

Well if you like militaristic terms, LA took first blood, not Az. It is also an apropos response, given how LA is so irresponsible in finding time to allow power companies to build/upgrade in the area, but finds plenty of time to blow hard about Az.

 

[mheslep]

Considering how contentious city water rights are becoming in Colorado, I think the best solution for Colorado is to divert as much of the water in the Colorado to the Front Range as technologically possible.

Enough pipelines and Arizona and Los Angeles won't have to argue about electricity anymore.

That's only half kidding. When they decided on how much water Arizona, California, and other downstream states should receive, they set an absolute number based on one of the wettest years in history when they should have set a percentage. It's gotten to the point that Colorado suffers during the dry years because downstream states still have to receive their allocated amount regardless of how much that leaves for Colorado.

Apparently Az uses http://www.cap-az.com/operations/recharge/recharge-in-arizona/water-sources/" to desalinate, Az could skim 1.8GWe off Palo Verde Nuclear's 4GWe alone (i.e a little more than the cut going to LA) and replace their entire water supply from the Sea. Oh, add some largish 50 miles of pipes and pumps coming up from the Gulf of California.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Well if you like militaristic terms, LA took first blood, not Az. It is also an apropos response, given how LA is so irresponsible in finding time to allow power companies to build/upgrade in the area, but finds plenty of time to blow hard about Az.

This is not relevant to the discussion. The failures of LA are numerous, but that does not change the absurdity of this "threat" in response to boycotts that were discussed from the moment that this law was proposed. In any case, LA will have the backing of the federal government in this, for better or worse, whereas AZ is looking to be SUED by the federal government. In military parlance, they are fighting a losing battle of principle with real bullets, and they are outgunned and surrounded. Surrender or perish. :)

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Apparently Az uses http://www.cap-az.com/operations/recharge/recharge-in-arizona/water-sources/" to desalinate, Az could skim 1.8GWe off Palo Verde Nuclear's 4GWe alone (i.e a little more than the cut going to LA) and replace their entire water supply from the Sea. Oh, add some largish 50 miles of pipes and pumps coming up from the Gulf of California.

The west as a whole is built on the illusion that their water usage is not only sustainable, but scalable to an increasing population. It is not. I recommend the book: The Cadillac Desert, written in '86. Water right issues are even older than the issue of immigration, with the writing on the wall for decades.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps Mr. Pierce is basing his own boycott on California's stringent penal code regarding illegal aliens.

http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=6328

I wonder if previous contact with law enforcement officials is more or less stringent than this law?

Papers please? NO ICE CREAM FOR YOU!

Notice that is if people are arrested. The police are supposed to get your information to put on record and if in that process they find you are an illegal alien they are supposed to remand you to the custody of immigration authorities. It is fully legal and constitutional and in reality is not very stringently enforced which has had CA conservatives up in arms the past few years.

 

[Char. Limit]

There are Californian conservatives?

I do want to say that I'm not surprised that the anti-immigration laws in California aren't strictly in force. Considering both the fact that Hispanics form 37% of the population, a helper, and the fact that California is the main home of La Raza, as well as the notorious liberality of the state, I'm not surprised.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are Californian conservatives?

I do want to say that I'm not surprised that the anti-immigration laws in California aren't strictly in force. Considering both the fact that Hispanics form 37% of the population, a helper, and the fact that California is the main home of La Raza, as well as the notorious liberality of the state, I'm not surprised.

Yes but the conservatives here probably look liberal to most conservatives elsewhere. An old coworker of mine came here from Georgia; he said he thought he was liberal until he got here. And we have a 'conservative' governor you know ;-p.

I think that the primary reason this particular law is not enforced very strictly is because of the number of people who are arrested on a regular basis. The system has a hard enough time just processing them normally, getting sued left and right by immigrant rights groups would just place a larger burden on the system. There are 'sanctuary' policies in some cities too. LA* got in a spot of trouble when it was found out that they were taking illegal juveniles who had been arrested and packing them off to low security juvenile facilities in smaller inland cities, to 'hide' them I guess, where upon they would usually just walk out of the facilities and go back to committing crimes and running with their gangs. The 'Inland Empire' was not very happy about this.

*edit: actually I think this was San Francisco, maybe both.

 

[Char. Limit]

Yes but the conservatives here probably look liberal to most conservatives elsewhere. An old coworker of mine came here from Georgia; he said he thought he was liberal until he got here. And we have a 'conservative' governor you know ;-p.

I think that the primary reason this particular law is not enforced very strictly is because of the number of people who are arrested on a regular basis. The system has a hard enough time just processing them normally, getting sued left and right by immigrant rights groups would just place a larger burden on the system. There are 'sanctuary' policies in some cities too. LA* got in a spot of trouble when it was found out that they were taking illegal juveniles who had been arrested and packing them off to low security juvenile facilities in smaller inland cities, to 'hide' them I guess, where upon they would usually just walk out of the facilities and go back to committing crimes and running with their gangs. The 'Inland Empire' was not very happy about this.

*edit: actually I think this was San Francisco, maybe both.

Sorry to inform you, but Spokane residents know that the "Inland Empire" consists of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.

Joking aside, I see your point. I suppose that would be a factor.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

CA conservatives? Oh yes, northern and southern. You think a bunch of liberals elected the Governator?! I am baffled by the American obsession with "liberal" as a dirty word, and conservative as a virtue. Ideologues on all sides are inherently blind, and bound by their political bases. People chatter about Bush being conservative, but his military policies were anything BUT conservative. Obama is liberal, but he's mainly centrist, and saddled with a greedy and incompetent congress. His policies on gay participation in the military is verbally liberal, but practically conservative.

In the end, the threat from AZ is an empty one, and those always weaken a position. This is not about declared political allegiance, but rather a complex interplay of special interests, both financial and social. America is paralyzed by polarization, but so few seem to ask "cui bono?" The beaurocratic lifers do, business and banks do, and the politicians who dodge important issues while they gin up outrage over "values". Now you have this ridiculous law, because the immigration is an emotional issue, and that has been so completely exploited for political positioning that legislation at the federal level does not proceed, and your states go berserk. A bit like education and abortion policies. It is the best system for such a large country, but it is still laughably inept. Perhaps an inept and greedy system is preferable to one that can exert a more authoritarian hold.

 

[chemisttree]

Notice that is if people are arrested. The police are supposed to get your information to put on record and if in that process they find you are an illegal alien they are supposed to remand you to the custody of immigration authorities. It is fully legal and constitutional and in reality is not very stringently enforced which has had CA conservatives up in arms the past few years.

I choose to read that law as, "...any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."

Maybe a comma would help... (or a law degree)

 

[gmax137]

... Az could skim 1.8GWe off Palo Verde Nuclear's 4GWe alone (i.e a little more than the cut going to LA) and replace their entire water supply from the Sea. Oh, add some largish 50 miles of pipes and pumps coming up from the Gulf of California.

The california utilities (Southern Cal Edison, So Cal Public Power, and LA Dept of Water & Power) own (and, they paid for building) about 30 percent of the Palo Verde facility. So a good fraction of that power isn't really "Arizona's" to hold back.

... Perhaps an inept and greedy system is preferable to one that can exert a more authoritarian hold.

Now that's something we can agree on.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The california utilities (Southern Cal Edison, So Cal Public Power, and LA Dept of Water & Power) own (and, they paid for building) about 30 percent of the Palo Verde facility. So a good fraction of that power isn't really "Arizona's" to hold back.



Now that's something we can agree on.

I did not know that first part of your post, thank you for the information. For the second part, it's sad that we agree on such a bleak view, but at least incompetence finds it difficult to rule our lives. Why can't we all agree on happier things; I know, I really think puppies are cute.

Need some "up" after the oil, and AZ, and the rest

 

[mheslep]

The california utilities (Southern Cal Edison, So Cal Public Power, and LA Dept of Water & Power) own (and, they paid for building) about 30 percent of the Palo Verde facility. So a good fraction of that power isn't really "Arizona's" to hold back. ...

We'd have to see the ownership agreement. It may well be that minority ownership guarantees them only a share of the revenue stream, not control over where the power flows.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

We'd have to see the ownership agreement. It may well be that minority ownership guarantees them only a share of the revenue stream, not control over where the power flows.

Do you believe that the same federal government that stops sports strikes would allow LA blackouts? Consider the liability for the utility as well.

 

[Proton Soup]

Do you believe that the same federal government that stops sports strikes would allow LA blackouts? Consider the liability for the utility as well.

how about a 33% price hike ?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

how about a 33% price hike ?

I don't know enough about the law to guess, but I'd predict that such a thing could be done for a time at least.

 

[gmax137]

We'd have to see the ownership agreement. It may well be that minority ownership guarantees them only a share of the revenue stream, not control over where the power flows.

Well yes, without knowledge of the agreement anything is speculation. But really, the utility companies are in the *power* business, they aren't investment groups (especially in 1976 or so, when the Palo Verde deal was being put together). So, I would think their interest in the Palo Verde plant is as a generation source. But yes, that is speculation on my part.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I choose to read that law as, "...any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."

Maybe a comma would help... (or a law degree)

Perhaps reading the line in its entirety, as well as the beginning of the section immediately following, will help clarify?

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

I do not see any problematic interpretations arising that would require a law degree to divine the meaning.

 

[WhoWee]

how about a 33% price hike ?

Is that before or after "cap and trade" causes price increases?

 

[Char. Limit]

Is that before or after "cap and trade" causes price increases?

After. I don't think I support the Arizona immigration law (doesn't this thing have a name?), but I definitely abhor boycotts against a state, no matter what it's done. So, I'm thinking Los Angeles deserves to feel the burn a little... raise the prices as high as you can, Arizona!

Now if Arizona could just get around to retaliating against the west side of my state, we'd be good. Because they totally deserve it, siphoning our taxpayer money to pay for their college stadium AND boycotting a state, grumble grumble grumble...

 

[WhoWee]

After. I don't think I support the Arizona immigration law (doesn't this thing have a name?), but I definitely abhor boycotts against a state, no matter what it's done. So, I'm thinking Los Angeles deserves to feel the burn a little... raise the prices as high as you can, Arizona!

Now if Arizona could just get around to retaliating against the west side of my state, we'd be good. Because they totally deserve it, siphoning our taxpayer money to pay for their college stadium AND boycotting a state, grumble grumble grumble...

I don't think the threat was ever real. However, the AZ Governor made me laugh when she said they might turn the power off if CA doesn't pay their bill.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Isn't living in LA punishment enough? :)

 

[mheslep]

Well yes, without knowledge of the agreement anything is speculation. But really, the utility companies are in the *power* business, they aren't investment groups (especially in 1976 or so, when the Palo Verde deal was being put together). ...

Yes I was going to counter that today many of them look like investment groups (e.g. Duke Power) , but I think you are right about the 1976 era.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Yes I was going to counter that today many of them look like investment groups (e.g. Duke Power) , but I think you are right about the 1976 era.

Shouldn't the contract be on record in the relevant courts? Does anyone have access to Lexisnexis? Maybe we really could discuss the details and see if this is pure posturing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't living in LA punishment enough? :)

Lots of bars, clubs, good restaurants, beaches, pretty ladies in scant clothing... yeah I feel punished. ;-)

 

[tiresmokindad]

In response to LA's threatened boycott of all things Arizona, an official of Arizona's version of a Public Utilities Commission (http://www.azcc.gov/divisions/administration/about.asp" !

This is getting uug-lee..

Thanks for the information and news! If Arizona will continue to cut the power, I think the city will begin to have a bad situation.