Talk:List of power stations in California

Scattergood missing

Then nearby El Segundo plant is listed, but the larger Scattergood is missing (tho somehow Google brought me to the page on a search for Scattergood). The location given for the El Segundo plant is actually the nearby refinery. Scattergood is located just south of the Hyperion treatment plant, and 1 km north of the El Segundo plant.

I'll try to come back and fix this, but wanted to quickly note it for the record. (I'm trying to sort out the current capacity of Scattergood, after the 2013/2014 repowering). I'm going to have to go look it up in a database... Bob Kerns (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Geysers' Power Plant?

What about the geysers' power plant operated by Calpine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.61.128 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The list is far from complete. Feel free to help expand it. Eeekster (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Peaker Plants

These would be useful to list. I was searching for information on one in Stanton, Ca and would like to know where these are as well. It is a reputed to be 98MW, for instance.

I suspect there are a lot of these which be informative to have a list of. I also don't know the correct term as far as whether the correct technical term is "peaker" or not.

I will try to find some resources on this and get back to this article. Very nice for what it has now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jws (talk • contribs) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of power stations in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413195611/http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-ca-s.htm to http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-ca-s.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413194400/http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-ca-n.htm to http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-ca-n.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203022346/http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=47 to http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=47
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202221534/http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=38 to http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708112425/http://www.calpine.com/power/plants.asp to http://www.calpine.com/power/plants.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618161753/http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=133 to http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comprehensive map

For those looking for a more detailed map, this article California OKs PG&E Plan to Replace Gas-Fired Power Plants with Battery Storage has a bunch more detail. II | (t - c) 19:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Intermountain Power Plant

Should the Intermountain Power Plant be listed here? It's not in California, and we don't list any other power plants that are not in California even though there are many of them that supply power to the state. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: I added it because it has what I would call a unique relationship/presence: Both it and the HVDC line to it, Path 27 were built by the LADWP specifically to supply power to LA. Very few other power plants that I am aware of were built for CA (some of Hoover Dam's turbines, IIRC, and a portion of Palo Verde Nuclear) but most imported power comes from plants not built specifically to supply power to CA, and not built/owned/operated by California entities/municipalities. Also, because the Utah connection to Path 27 was built for LADWP, I have read that solar power built in Utah which arrives in CA through that connection can be considered "CA generated renewable", for the sake of CA's renewables mandate...and there are plans to build a solar farm there and connect it to Path 27.(I can find the source for that if we need.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here either, based on the name of the article. Perhaps if it were called "Power stations generating power for California" or something like that, but as it stands, I think the title pretty unambiguously would exclude power stations not located in California. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your points, but this is a weird special case, as I detailed above. Maybe we could add a special header at the bottom stating it's unique situation and list it there by itself, kind of like a list with a large asterisk next to one item that shows it is a special case? ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It generated (until last few years) 20% of LA's power, so this plant is not insignificant.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Pie chart in the infobox

I think the pie chart would look better if the numbers added up to 100%. The way it is now I get an unexplained white slice.. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: The unexplained white slice = 1%. If I change the current slices to single decimals (xx.x) the slice would be 0.5% thick. Or we could include an "other" category which is (coal + oil + other). I'm fine with either way, or another way.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

But you didn't like my solution? GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know why you had done that. (the rounded natural gas and decimals for everything else.) That would be fine also. Sorry for the confusion.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)