Maybe you're onto something...

The situation seems to be one where there is a series of papers, written by professional staff at a high level of expertise, reviewed and contributed to by an array of involved major industrial organizations and various stakeholders specializing in the field.

The number of highly qualified professionals involved in the production of this policy and paper is very high.

You say they've made a fundamental lexical error in spite of the fact that they define their usage with precise, unambiguous language on the first page of the document being adopted.

I thought it was just a matter of laziness towards reading combined with a preference for disruption over discussion, but after reading your post 25, I'll admit you raise a real possibility I hadn't considered.

The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition

The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition

America's Power Plan
October 28, 2013

...Another side of the coin is what the politicians think of the energiewende. Critics abroad seem convinced that German leaders will come to their senses and change course on energy. Based on what the leaders say in their official documents, these critics are likely to be disappointed.

First, some background. There are two federal ministries responsible for energy, the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). Until the recent election these were headed by Peter Altmaier and Peter Rosler. (Rosler has resigned due his party's loss in the recent election.)

With near unanimous support, the German parliament adopted legislation in 2010 that sets ambitious targets for carbon reductions, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and commits to a phase-out of nuclear power. According to Altmaier, the environment minister for the Merkel Administration, “this is unprecedented and brings to an end decades of public debate in Germany.”

While much international attention is paid to the rapid growth of solar energy and the phaseout of nuclear power, the legislation is a comprehensive energy policy, covering transportation, heat, and electricity use across the whole economy.

Or you could just be civil...

I suppose, then, that it's back to the beginning again. I strongly urge anyone still reading to review the thread.

After reading the wrong document (post 8) you clearly stated that the CPUC was making the "same mistake" that the uninformed "technical" journalist had made (post 15). You tried to backtrack with a qualifier, but you are clearly stating that the CPUC document is wrong and, by implication, that the people who wrote it are less informed than you.

Perhaps you should worry less about tossing snark at other DUers and more about simply reading with comprehension and accuracy, for the CPUC docs are actually very clear when they define that in this document, "MW represents the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate". (pg 1, APPENDIX A)

Appendix A, btw, is the document actually being adopted.

The CPUC is issuing a policy that "prescribes" the purchase of a certain amount of storage. For their purposes it isn't necessary to define that storage in terms of amount delivered over time. I explained why in post 10, but you chose to call that "techno-garfel" rather than consider that you were off-target.

I then gave examples to demonstrate why the time element of the storage to be purchased isn't predictable enough for a prescriptive approach to be used at this stage. One important goal of the policy is "cost effectiveness". There would be severe negative impacts to that if they tried to determine in advance the hours of storage involved in all of the different applications.

I see from your continued nervous snark that you understand specifying the time dimension would be a ridiculous approach to pursue but that is what your criticism is about - they chose to use the faceplate peak power capacity of the resources being purchased rather than get into the depth of delivery that might suit each of those resources best.

I posed legitimate questions related to the actual policy under discussion.

That would contrast sharply with your contributions to the thread. You have asserted (from "reading" the wrong document) that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power based on the fact that they specified an amount of storage based on the peak power capacity of the storage resource in terms of the maximum discharge rate. Now that you are faced with germane questions that put your claim in doubt, you want to flee the scene.

Before you go, please tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store?

Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

Nuke builder demands more money from Finland

US Homeowners Want Solar, Find Two New Reports

California's Public Utility Commission doesn't know the difference between energy and power?

How does prescribing the depth of capacity assist the CPUC effort?

You are showing your true self yet again.

Tell us, how much energy "should" an EV battery store? Or how about a home, commercial or industrial storage system? Is there a specific number of watt/hours they should each be expected to deliver, and if so, how many hours are going to be optimal in order to reach the cost effectiveness goal that is a central feature of the policy?

I mean, if they already have the knowledge that allows them to prescribe the best size for each storage medium, then why are they even doing this?

The document (PDF) PP referred to is from the CPUC

In other words, you think you are correct but you aren't even reading the correct document.

Well, at least that is consistent with your prior efforts here.

So you think of CPUC documents as "technical journalism"?

And that the California Public Utility Commission doesn't understand the difference between power and energy?

I don't think you are correct.