🚀 go-pugleaf

> Now answer this: when rolling black outs were in effect last year, why
> was the SF Bay Area hit with them multiple times (something like
> 15-20....my house was hit twice) while LA only got hit once?

Because the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power doesn't rely so
heavily on out-of-state power.  In fact I think LA DWP had surplus power
during the power "crisis".

> smog problem. SF is not one big parking lot of idling cars stuck on
> thousands of miles of jammed freeways from Irvine to Glendale and Santa
> Monica to Pomona.

SF Traffic is pretty close to being as bad as LA.  Besides, Sacramento has
to deal with the more stringent smog rules and they don't have nearly the
traffic problems as San Francisco.  What Sacramento does get is smog
generated in SF.  If the smog from SF simply blew out of the city and didn't
affect other areas of the state, then I'd say fine, leave them alone.  But
that isn't the case.

Matt





"Michael Wise" <nospam@no.spam> wrote in message
news:nospam-CABAF6.09440505072002@news.easynews.com...
> In article <8D14C8B5A45gfdsfhs@fjksd.com>, ellay@nearucla.edu (Ellay)
> wrote:
>
> > >I haven't heard any reports of peoples' cars failing Smog II
> > >en masse in the areas where it's been instituted so far, have you?
> >
> > But why do People in Los Angeles have one set of rules and those
> > in San Francisco have another?
>
> SF has 1/5 the population of LA making far less cars in SF as well as no
> smog problem. SF is not one big parking lot of idling cars stuck on
> thousands of miles of jammed freeways from Irvine to Glendale and Santa
> Monica to Pomona.
>
> Now answer this: when rolling black outs were in effect last year, why
> was the SF Bay Area hit with them multiple times (something like
> 15-20....my house was hit twice) while LA only got hit once?
>
>
> > Shouldn't the laws be applied to all
> > in the state instead of having the very liberal tree-hugging city of
> > San Francisco be exempt from certain laws about air pollution?
>
>
>
> --Mike