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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblomov who wrote (54703)	1/5/2001 3:10:58 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

ROFLMAO DAK

To: Oblomov who wrote (54703)	1/5/2001 3:29:28 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Ob- I don't think CA "needs" power either. The state has plenty. It's just "unaffordable." The term came from the article. It sounds like regulators failed to close a loop hole allowing producers to legally skirt the cap. nctimes.com Evidence of laundering After the first reduction, from $750 per megawatt hour to $500 in early July, evidence emerged of "megawatt laundering" by power traders. Frank Wolak, a Stanford economist and chairman of the Independent System Operator's market surveillance committee, had predicted that in-state generators could legally avoid the Independent System Operator's price cap by selling electricity to subsidiaries in other states on the "day-ahead" market of the power exchange. The next day the companies could bring the power back by selling it to the Independent System Operator on the daily emergency market. In July, the Portland, Ore.-based firm Economic Insight noticed trading behavior that resembled megawatt laundering. Sam Van Vactor, president of the economics firm, said that power trades were stacking up for transmission north to Oregon on the day before power was needed, but power lines were actually more congested coming south to Los Angeles on the following days. An investigation by the Independent System Operator found that while evidence of the practice did exist, the effects on the market were minimal. So ISO says. But then the traders switched to the more lucrative bidding up off-peak hours when it looked like ISO board of governors had scheduled a meeting to fix the loophole and slap them down (outlined in second article I posted.) They must have been making some $$$.