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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (87011)	12/16/2000 8:40:51 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 132070

This is interesting: >>``What we're talking about here with Kaiser and these other companies is basically a potential windfall from reselling what amounts to a federal asset,'' Mosey said. ``They need to start looking at the corporate ethics side of the equation,'' he said. ``I think that is what the Secretary (Richardson) is saying. We are following his instructions. He wanted us to explore what we could do and that is what we are doing.'' << Even though I work for a "generator," I see these guys as having signed a contract for power -- if the contract didn't specifically tie to Aluminum production I don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. Simply a business decision. It isn't Kaiser's fault .. In the same way it isn't the fault of generators in the NW that California regulators are idiots ...to order them to supply CA at what Richardson deems a fair price "after the fact" amounts to taking by fiat, IMHO. If the energy secretary wants to step in and save CA, let 'im do it but only at the market price ... truth is: it is the feds who encouraged the nuts in CA in the first place.