Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Second_Titan who wrote (81194)	12/10/2000 2:34:57 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Quehubo007, Well put. Yes there are significant transmission constraints all over California with load pockets and congested interfaces galore. We just were talking about BPA power to the North of California. The major transmission line coming south from Oregon goes from (using a car analogy) four lanes to two lanes, and needs to be widened. So even if California received more BPA power, I'm not sure that they could get it to the loads in the California system that need the power. California will need likely years, not months to work its way out of these systemic power problems...(Hint: When crunching numbers on California-based companies, cross check whether they have locked in power supplies on a long-term basis. If not then knock a couple of pennies per quarter from earnings estimates). I worked one case with EPA Region IX personnel out of their San Francisco Office in the last two years. Man! They were strident and unbending and suspected all industry personnel of being war criminals or other forms of pond scum. I agree. I'd rather leave people in the dark and risk riots and looting in urban areas than intentionally violate any California environmental laws....