If I understood it correctly, the title is very misleading. It's trying to compute percentage of values where the total sum can be either negative or positive.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario: California added 90 GW worth of new power plants, Texas added another 360 GW, and New York decommissioned old power plants totaling 350 GW. Assuming all other states remained the same, the national power capacity increased by 90+360-350=100 GW.
But if I say "California added 90% of net new electricity capacity," it gives a very misleading impression. The fact that this is silly is clear when we consider Texas: it added 360% of net new electricity capacity!
More fun happens if Iowa decommissioned additional 110 GW of power plants. Now the national net increase is -10 GW, and California contributed -900% of that.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an electricity expert. Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario: California added 90 GW worth of new power plants, Texas added another 360 GW, and New York decommissioned old power plants totaling 350 GW. Assuming all other states remained the same, the national power capacity increased by 90+360-350=100 GW.
But if I say "California added 90% of net new electricity capacity," it gives a very misleading impression. The fact that this is silly is clear when we consider Texas: it added 360% of net new electricity capacity!
More fun happens if Iowa decommissioned additional 110 GW of power plants. Now the national net increase is -10 GW, and California contributed -900% of that.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an electricity expert. Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.