SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: flatsville who wrote (56372)1/10/2001 4:00:44 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 436258
 
I think I understand your argument now. Pacific Gas and Electric and California Edison made a profit in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, so it's ok if they operate at a loss in 2000, and 2001.

The "artificially high" rates in 1996 were part of a deal - the rates were frozen until certain debts were paid off or March 2002, whichever comes first. From what I have seen reported, the profits WERE used to pay down the debts. You keep saying that Pacific Gas and Electric and California Edison were "raking in the dough" and gouging their customers, when in fact they were using the profits to pay off business expenses, as they were obligated to do by the terms of deregulation.

sacbee.com

In fact, Pacific Gas and Electric is claiming that the debts were paid off as early as May, 2000 or at the latest, August, 2000.

BTW, the 1996 capped rate of 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour is higher than the 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour paid in South Carolina in 1995!

scana.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News