Hit this poll and help AZ shut the power off to Calfruit

[david86440]

I doubt there is a law stating you have to supply power to another state. Especially one that sucks as much as Arnoldville.  Bill T.

I think it would be covered under FERC regulations that you can't shut the power off.

I work in the power industry and they pretty much control every aspect of electrical generation in this country.

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability.asp

   Electric Reliability
Congress and the President in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the FERC important new regulatory authority over the reliability of the nation's bulk-power system. Mandatory and enforceable reliability standards and a strong reliability program are critical elements of that new authority. Visit our Electric Reliability Section

[tombogan03884]

There's always "Unscheduled Maintainance" . It shut Berlin down pretty tight 

[Rastus]

Sorry to break everybody's heart but AZ can't do it.  I'm in Ventura County right now and LA news is talking about it.  The power plants and infrastructure that feed LA from AZ are partly OWNED by LA's Dept of Water/Power.  That means that the power being sent is already owned by LA so AZ can't stop the feed.

I would think just because the transmission lines leading to LA are owned by LA that is not a deterrent.  

If LA owns part of the power plants then things are more complicated.  Partial ownership does not denote management or control over a property except where specified by contract.  If the contract does not guarantee the power then oops.  If it guarantees a portion of the power that is generated and does not specify delivery if power is not generated, only delivery if generated then oops again.  

Pay a liberal lawyer and hook up a judge that will say what you want....just like LA would do and laugh all the way through the convoluted process whilst there are appeals.  Let us say they miss a payment and a court order is issued that supports shutting off power...no one goes to jail for shutting off the power it was court supported.

Tom's observation that unscheduled maintenace does occur is a fact of life.  LA can threaten along with BHO all they want...every time they want to investigate who shut off the power throw the switch...they will knuckle under and forget it if there is an LA left after a couple of days of no power.  I am sure all of the new immigrants and their families will contribute to social harmony and peace.  A few billboards strategically placed in LA telling where the rich neighborhoods that have homes with cash falling out their doors are located (the mayor's neighborhood, the city councilmen or whatever they are called neighborhoods) coupled with the prospect of no power for a couple of days might be a wake up call...might be, they are way over the top on being arrogant.  If they love their illegal citizenry and the victim class they foster so why worry...their LAPD will certainly support them and keep them safe...right?

For normal people it would be hard to be smug when your city is burning and your neighborhood is being raped and pillaged.  Sort of like threatening to whip someone's ass when they are beating the crap out of you...not much of a threat in light of the one with the big mouth being the one on the losing end.  You might get a lucky punch in and knock a tooth out...but you are still gonna get your ass whipped and be the loser.

[billt]

I'm sure there are clauses about turning down the amount of power transmitted in heavy use times. L.A. went through a lot of "brownouts" several years back because of this. We're heading toward our hottest month of the year, June. It is not uncommon for us to steadily hit the one teens in June. It's unbelievable how much power Maricopa County consumes during those times. Air conditioning is not a luxury in those temperatures, it's a necessity. Who's to say, let alone prove, we were throttling down the outbound amount because it is needed locally.

L.A. rarely hits 100. Many of the older homes there have no A/C, or even heat because of the steady temps. When the Santa Anna winds come in it can heat up, but never for more than a couple of days, and even then 100 is about max. Here 100 is Springtime temperature. It's supposed to hit that today. I doubt that letter would have even been sent if it wasn't a possibility, or something that could in fact be done. It will get them bitching, and that's the name of the game. Aggravate your opponent until they shut up or go away. Preferably both.   Bill T.

[fightingquaker13]

I would pay good money to see it happen, and not ust over the issue either. I am a not so closeted Ayn Rand fan (though I'd never name a child after her as Dr. Paul did) ;.D Still the idea of a producer saying "You want to tell me how to do business or you'll boycott me? I'll do you one better, you're cut off, go rub two sticks togher if you want to cook or have lights." appeals greatly to my less than better angels. No soup for you, you self righteous bastards!
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[bulldog75]

California there is a saying that applies to you. The toes you step on today may lead to the ass you have to kiss tommorow.

[david86440]

I don't think any of you fully understand the amount of regulation and scrutiny involved in the power industry today.

You do not want to be caught doing maintenance or anything else that will affect reliability during high demand periods and if you should happen to trip and go offline it isn't long before the regulators are onsite doing an investigation.

The penalty is a very large fine and possible  prison time for screwing with NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) and FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Most plant managers that I know don't really want to take any risks that would put them in jail.

I work for a company that is listed below with a multi-million dollar fine and I can assure you that the ones involved are no longer employed.

From a compliance and enforcement perspective, the remedial authority affirmed by the
court must be considered in conjunction with the enhanced penalty authority granted to FERC by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under that authority, FERC now also can impose civil penalties
of up to $1 million per day per violation; criminal penalties of a fine of up to $1 million and/or
up to 5 years in prison also may be imposed. Together, FERC’s Section 309 remedial authority
and its civil penalty authority highlight the need to prevent violations and to take other
measures to minimize the impact should such violations occur.

Federal regulators levy $350,000 fine for massive FPL blackout. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced today that it would levy a second fine for the FPL outage in 2008 that left millions of people without power.

In Re Noble Energy, Inc., 130 FERC ¶ 61,175  (March 12, 2010)    $4,000,000 Civil Penalty $160,487 Disgorgement   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of open access transportation policies, including circumvention of the posting and bidding requirements for released capacity, flipping, the shipper-must-have-title requirement, and violations of the prohibition on buy-sell transactions.

Florida Blackout, 130 Ferc ¶ 61,163 (March 5, 2010)   $350,000 Civil Penalty   Civil Penalty Resulting From Violations Of Mandatory Reliability Standards For The Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 (2007).

Florida Blackout, 129 FERC ¶ 61,061  (October 8, 2009)   $25,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty resulting from violations of Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs 31,342 (2007).

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 128 FERC ¶ 61,269  (September 21, 2009)   $5,000,000 Civil Penalty
$25,000,000 Disgorgement   Civil penalty resulting from violations of market behavior rule 18 C.F.R. §284.403(a) (2005).

Enserco Energy, Inc., 128 FERC ¶ 61,173  (August 24, 2009)   $1,400,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty resulting from violations of the Commission's open access transportation program, including, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions, and violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re Amaranth Advisors., et al 128 FERC ¶ 61,154   (July 8, 2009)   $7,500,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. §1C.1 (Natural Gas Anti-Market Manipulation Rule).

In re Southern Company Services, Inc., 128 FERC ¶ 61,013   (July 8, 2009)   $350,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of buy-sell transactions and shipper-must-have-title requirements.
In re Wasatch Oil & Corp. and Wasatch Energy LLC, 127 FERC ¶ 61,322   (June 30, 2009)   $320,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions.

In re ProLiance Energy, LLC, 127 FERC ¶ 61,321   (June 30, 2009)   $3,000,000 Civil Penalty $195,959.44 Disgorgement   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions, violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements and violations of buy-sell transaction rules

In re Sequent Energy Management, L.P. and Sequent Energy Marketing, L.P., 127 FERC ¶ 61,320   (June 30, 2009)   $5,000,000 Civil Penalty $53,728.18 Disgorgement   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions, violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements and violations of buy-sell transaction rules.

In re Piedmont Natural Gas Co. Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,319   (June 30, 2009)   $1,250,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions.

In re Puget Sound Energy, 127 FERC ¶ 61,070  (April 22, 2009)   $800,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions and self-reported violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements.

In re Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 127 FERC ¶ 61,069  (April 22, 2009)   $1,100,000 Civil Penalty $232.423.40 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement and compliance reporting resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions.

In re Louisville Gas and Electric Co., 127 FERC ¶ 61,068  (April 22, 2009)   $350,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. §284.8(h) posting and bidding requirements, improper release and acquisition of discounted rate capacity through flipping transactions.

In re Jefferson Energy Trading, LLC, Wizco, Inc., Golden Stone Resources, LLC, 126 FERC ¶ 61,040   (January 15, 2009)   $585,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, in connection with an attempt to engage in multiple affiliate bidding to impair the pro rata allocations in an auction.

In re Klabzuba Oil & Gas, F.L.P., 126 FERC ¶ 61,040   (January 15, 2009)   $300,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance reporting resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, in connection with an attempt to engage in multiple affiliate bidding to impair the pro rata allocations in an auction.

In re ONEOK, Inc., 126 FERC ¶ 61,040  (January 15, 2009)   $4,500,000 Civil Penalty
$1,914,945 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement and compliance monitoring resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, in connection with the submission of multiple affiliate bids to impair the pro rata allocation mechanism in an auction.  Also violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements and open access transportation requirements.

In re Tenaska Marketing Ventures, 126 FERC ¶ 61,040   (January 15, 2009)   $3,000,000 Civil Penalty
$1,972,842 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement and compliance monitoring resulting from violations of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, in connection with the submission of multiple affiliate bids to impair the pro rata allocation mechanism in an auction.
  
In re DCP Midstream, LLC, 125 FERC ¶ 61,359  (December 23, 2008)   $360,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance monitoring reporting resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

Sempra Energy Trading LLC, 125 FERC ¶ 61,360  (December 23, 2008)   $400,000 Civil Penalty
$7,959 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement, and compliance monitoring reporting resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re Cornerstone Energy, Inc., 125 ¶ FERC 61,234  (November 26, 2008)   $325,000 Civil Penalty
$121,825 Disgorgement   Civil penalty and disgorgement resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re NorthWestern Corporation and NorthWestern Services, LLC., 125 FERC ¶ 61,233  (November 26, 2008)   $450,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance monitoring reporting resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement and failure to obtain a certificate of public conveyance and necessity under section 7of the NGA.

In re Integrys Energy Services, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,089  (October 24, 2008)   $800,000 Civil Penalty
$194,506 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement, and a 1 year compliance monitoring plan resulting from a self-report for violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements and circumvention of the posting and bidding requirements for released capacity.
In re Enbridge Marketing (U.S.) L.P., 125 FERC ¶ 61,088  (October 24, 2008)   $500,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance report resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re Duquesne Light Company, 123 FERC ¶ 61,221  (May 29, 2008)   $250,000 Civil Penalty
$1,000,000 Compliance Plan   Civil penalty and at least $1,000,000 designated for a comprehensive compliance plan for violations of FERC cost allocation procedures, the electric quarterly report filing requirement, and the standards of conduct.

In re Edison Mission, 123 FERC ¶ 61,170  (May 19, 2008)   $7,000,000 Civil Penalty
$2,000,000 Compliance Plan   Civil penalty and at least $2,000,000 designated for a comprehensive compliance plan for violations of 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) (2007), which imposes a duty to provide accurate, factual, and complete information in communications with the Commission upon electric power sellers authorized to engage in sales for resale of electric energy at market based rates.
In re Entergy New Orleans, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,219  (March 11, 2008)   $400,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty resulting from self-reported violations of the Commission’s shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re Constellation NewEnergy – Gas Division, LLC, 122 FERC ¶ 61,220 (March 11, 2008)   $5,000,000 Civil Penalty
$1,899,416 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement, and a compliance monitoring plan resulting from self-reported violations of the Commission’s capacity release policies, including circumvention of the posting and bidding requirements for released capacity, violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement, and violations of the prohibition on buy-sell transactions.

In re BP Energy Company, 121 FERC ¶ 61,088  (October 25, 2007)   $7,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance monitoring plan resulting from self-reported violations of competitive bidding regulations, shipper-must-have-title requirement, and prohibition on buy/sell arrangements.
In re MGTC, Inc., 121 FERC ¶ 61,087 (October 25, 2007)   $300,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and compliance report resulting from self-reported violations of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

In re Gexa Energy, L.L.C., 120 FERC ¶ 61,175  (August 21, 2007)   $500,000 Civil Penalty
$12,481.41 Disgorgement   Civil penalty and disgorgement resulting from a self- report of violations of the FPA.

In re Cleco Power, LLC, et al., 119 FERC ¶ 61,274  (June 12, 2007)    $2,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1-2 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for a violation of a 2003 Settlement agreement by sharing 9 employees and sharing prohibited market information between different Cleco companies.

In re Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, 119 FERC ¶ 61,174  (May 21, 2007)   $2,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty resulting from a Commission referral for a violation of a Commission order to allow installation of a receipt interconnection.

In re Calpine Energy Services, L.P., 119 FERC ¶ 61,125  (May 9, 2007)   $4,500,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1-2 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements.

In re Bangor Gas Company, 118 FERC ¶ 61,186  (March 7, 2007)   $1,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of shipper-must-have-title requirements.

In re PacifiCorp, 118 FERC ¶ 61,026 (January 18, 2007)   $10,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of OATT and Standards of Conduct.

In re SCANA Corporation, 118 FERC ¶  61,028  (January 18, 2007)   $9,000,000 Civil Penalty
$1,800,000 Disgorgement   Civil penalty, disgorgement, and a 1 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of OATT.

In re Entergy Services, Inc., 118 FERC ¶ 61,027  (January 18, 2007)   $2,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1-2 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of OATT and Standards of Conduct OASIS posting requirements.

In re NorthWestern Corporation, 118 FERC ¶ 61,029  (January 18, 2007)   $1,000,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 2 year compliance plan resulting from a hotline call for violations of Business Practice Standards for OASIS Transactions.

In re NRG Energy, Inc., 118 FERC ¶ 61,025  (January 18, 2007)   $500,000 Civil Penalty   Civil penalty and a 1 year compliance plan resulting from a self-report for violations of ISO-NE Market Rule 1 and the Commission’s Market Behavior Rules 1 and 3.

[Solus]

He said they would renegotiate the contract should LA persist in it's goal of damaging the AZ economy.

My assumption is that when they are able to work for a higher and perhaps unaffordable price, they will do so.

[ratcatcher55]

I would pay good money to see it happen, and not ust over the issue either. I am a not so closeted Ayn Rand fan (though I'd never name a child after her as Dr. Paul did) ;.D Still the idea of a producer saying "You want to tell me how to do business or you'll boycott me? I'll do you one better, you're cut off, go rub two sticks togher if you want to cook or have lights." appeals greatly to my less than better angels. No soup for you, you self righteous bastards!
FQ13

Dr. Paul proper name is Randal. His wife starting calling him Rand.

[tombogan03884]

Dr. Paul proper name is Randal. His wife starting calling him Rand.

Mothers are like that.