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: Pete Young who wrote (81494)	12/13/2000 2:17:46 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Pete, BPA by statute sells to both public and private power parties. But those say 20 megawatts that Mr. Hurwitz turns back to the market (albeit at a profit) for reallocation may also be the 20 megawatts that keeps other people's dwelling heated and them from freezing in the Pacific NW winter. We are again back to the great dilemma/choice of today's environmental movement. Would you force Kaiser to use its BPA power allocation it (apparently) has by contract to run its factory if you knew it would cause 20 homeless people in say Seattle to freeze? Or would you leave the allocation process to a faceless, neutral market? Also BPA too sells its excess power into the Cal ISO market and makes a killing now and then just like Kaiser. In fact BPA did that again last week. Should BPA be able to sell public power into California's markets? It helps keep electricity rates lower in the Pacific NW. However it costs Califorians a bundle...But on the other hand it does keep the lights on and helps subsidize the cumulative impact of California's poor land use and environmental planning decisions.... I'm not trying to be glib here- These are tough political questions.... BTW- BPA is under federal investigation for its sales into the California markets last summer...