YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsPower Plants California

Power Plants California

March 18, 2008
Re "Deregulation deja vu," editorial, March 10 Your editorial about the California Public Utilities Commission's recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions overlooks several issues. Assembly Bill 32 requires the Air Resources Board to address emissions from power plants in California and from the 20% to 25% of imported energy, which produces more than 50% of emissions. The first-deliverer approach makes sense because it places the regulatory obligation close to the source.
July 19, 2006 | From Bloomberg News
BP and General Electric Co. said Tuesday they had agreed to develop fossil-fuel-fed power plants in California and Scotland that bury carbon dioxide underground to reduce emissions. The two companies said they might form a venture to build as many as 15 power plants in the next decade, including those previously announced in Carson in Los Angeles County and Peterhead, Scotland. BP, based in London, and GE, based in Fairfield, Conn.
June 22, 2006 | From Bloomberg News
To capitalize on increasing electricity demand, NRG Energy Inc. plans to spend as much as $16 billion on new power plants in California and other states, including nuclear reactors in Texas, the Princeton, N.J., company said Wednesday. The 10-year expansion, to be financed through partnerships and borrowings, would increase the company's U.S. generation capacity by 46%, NRG said. The new plants would generate 10,500 megawatts, enough power for about 8 million average U.S. homes.
January 14, 2004 | Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned a rule, announced early in the Bush administration, that would have weakened the Clinton administration's energy efficiency standard for home air conditioners. The ruling was the latest blow to White House efforts to ease regulations that businesses consider too burdensome.
June 27, 1988 | DONALD WOUTAT, Times Staff Writer
In what was termed a landmark development in the nationwide dispute over who should pay for nuclear power plants, California officials and Pacific Gas & Electric agreed today on a unique settlement of the controversy over the $5.5-billion Diablo Canyon facility. The proposed 30-year settlement calls for the plant's performance to dictate how much money PG&E will realize. The more electricity is generated by Diablo, the more revenue the San Francisco-based utility will realize.
The state Public Utilities Commission, which is investigating whether electricity generators profiteered in the California market this summer, said the power-plant owners are refusing to produce key documents and asked federal regulators for help. In a filing Monday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the PUC asked the federal commission to force several generators to respond to subpoenas for documents about their finances, costs and electricity trades.
May 21, 1990 | From Reuters
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the federal government has exclusive legal power over federally licensed hydroelectric power plants and that individual states cannot impose environmental regulations on the projects. Writing for the court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor rejected the pleas of California, 43 other states and environmentalists seeking to give state agencies the authority to regulate water flow to power plants.
SACRAMENTO -- Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer sued two electricity companies Monday, alleging that they exert illegal control of California's electricity market and should be forced to sell power plants. Lockyer sued Reliant Energy of Houston and Mirant Corp. of Atlanta in federal court in San Francisco. He accuses the companies of violating federal antitrust laws, stifling competition and illegally driving up prices.
September 14, 2005 | From Times Staff and Wire Reports
Duke Energy Corp. said Tuesday that it would close power plants in California as part of a plan to shut its money-losing wholesale power and trading business. The company, based in Charlotte, N.C., said it would be unable to turn a profit in its Duke Energy North America subsidiary without risking more money in trading and marketing.
Los Angeles Times Articles