My guess when I read it was that they meant that more power can reach the consumers either by upgrading the grid (lower transmission losses) or by increasing the output at the power plant. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
That's probably more true in the US where you have several regional markets not connected to one another, and where generally networks cover larger areas and are probably less redundant than they can be in Europe (but that's just me guessing on that last point, maybe I'm wrong) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Calling rg! Calling rg!
STAT! STAT! STAT!
Bring your I Ching and Tarot Deck!
We need you to make sense of It All.
But if you, given your expertise and experience, aren't sure what they are talking about then the authors have a serious communication problem, at a minimum.
The statement presumes that there are multiple power networks that are not connected, and that periodic surpluses exist within these disconnected networks. If all zones are running close to or at capacity, though, then better transmission lines probably wouldn't help much at all.
But I know nothing about this stuff.
