Like dejavu all over again wrote:
Thanks for dispensing with any notion that a greater supply of power should lead to a lower cost, which would lead to greater consumption, which would spare the grid from potential damage. The law of supply and demand is just fantasy in the land of the liberals and would never work in non-specific markets like the rest of the world. And thanks for letting the world know that despite there being quite a few "laws of economics", that there aren't actually any "laws if economics." You obviously have sat in many classrooms seats and are so smart that you see right past what is intuitively obvious to the average idiot on the street.
What a pitiful response. You are clearly out of your league. Apparently, the lesson needs to continue.
#1) SUPPLY AND DEMAND IS A MODEL OF PRICE DETERMINATION WITHIN AN ISOLATED MARKET
This is clearly what you are having problem with. First off, the Supply and Demand concept is what is known as a "model", a theoretical concept that allows us to explore the possible outcomes if certain variables were to change, i.e. price goes up, quantity demanded goes down, ceteris paribus. this last part, which I don't expect you to understand at all, essentially means "with other conditions remaining the same".
Models are descriptions of reality, and not reality itself. This is different from Physical Laws, which work everywhere in the universe, and remain unchanged since their first discovery.
In short, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
#2) YOUR AMATEUR ANALYSIS IS HILARIOUS
IF California and Arizona were one energy market (which they are not), a greater supply of power MAY lead to a decrease in price, which MAY lead to a greater consumption if low prices were sustained for a long period of time.
Hate to break it to you, but people don't monitor electrical prices on an hourly basis and decide to crank up their consumption. low prices over a period of time can lead to greater consumption but it is not instantaneous.
not that any of this matters, because the two states are separate markets
#3) CITING WIKIPEDIA FOR ECONOMIC "LAWS" DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING
Wikipedia can be a great resource as a first step in researching a topic. But, and be careful to re-read this part, It is not a peer-reviewed source. The economic literature is made up of journal articles that have gone through a vetting process called "peer-review" with makes sure idiots like you don't get their shitty articles published. There actually has to be a certain amount of quality, logic, and justification to have something printed. Wikipedia does not have rigorous review by career economists and is essentially the website equivalent of a graduate student's master's thesis.
But, of course, do I really need to tell you all this? After all, this is intuitively obvious to the average idiot on the street, is it not?