Also, did they just take the average of the line loadings in a summer peak case lol. Like, how did they possibly calculate that and not do something insane.

I have a zoning code you could take a look at 😉

@jessedjenkins.com, this might interest you.

I don't think the transfer capacity matters too much. I think the main reason people want to go with SPP instead is they aren't CAISO, physics be damned.

My fear is that this will primarily benefit retirees who don't have huge incomes but are in fact quite wealthy in their savings.

What are your thoughts on doing a deferral rather than an exemption? If the issue is a lack of cash, then they can pay it once they sell the property. We already offer substantial subsidies to homeowners (e.g. homestead exemption). Or provide a house subsidy that renters can get too?

Can you say more about #2? Would there be additional requirements beyond AMI?

I'm just a steady state guy, I'm naturally frightened by transients :P

We got into this on the other chain: bsky.app/profile/wors...

Thanks! Yeah, so it's in the realm of achieveable but not practical without some pretty substantial overbuild (but with where inverter prices have continued to head, who knows).

What's the comparative size of a fault current from a turbine compared to it's steady state output? Greater than an order of magnitude?

Not trying to minimize the long road ahead here, but it seems like there's no fundamental impediment to replicating the signal of a fault current using a computer and a battery (of sufficient size).

I thought there was work being done on ride through to handle that? Locality matters, but the required current surge is finite. Seems like an issue similar to having sufficient spinning reserves (which also have locality baked into procurement)

But then you have a coordination problem and those are never easy.

Yeah, I'm curious about the role storage could play. If you had properly configured power electronics (that's a big if), it seems like the substantial amount of batteries we're likely to have on the grid would be capable of large current injections in aggregate.

I really hope the mayor can sit down with council and figure out how we make sure affordability is truly funded by the public (like it should be!) rather than hoping the changes just happen to pencil out.

While I think there's legitimate concerns around the effects on city budgets with councilmember charland's bill, it at least makes a direct financial compensation rather than hoping those balance out.

What is more opaque is how the financial benefits of removing parking minimums and height bonuses compares against the financial costs of supplying affordable housing if it comes at the developers expense. It seems dangerous to assume those two will balance.

Why not allow enough housing to both absorb the people who want to live here and also force landlords to reduce rents? We know it is possible, Austin is a burgeoning city and yet rents fell 6% this year due to oversupply. That can be supplemented with public funding for deep affordability.