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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (125418)	1/18/2001 9:58:17 AM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Expect California to try and off-load some of their energy cost on the rest of the country. That is the political way of solving the problem and they will try to use the feds to accomplish it.

To: GVTucker who wrote (125418)	1/19/2001 3:57:13 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Hi GV, RE: "California has not yet recognized that this desire has a cost." Obviously this desire has a cost, but it would help if folks stated what exactly that cost is. The question is, exactly how much more? Is the 1,000 vs 48 figure correct? Or, was that a ST aberration? i.e. what exactly is the estimated cost from the standpoint of LT? RE: "Higher energy costs will also be a convenient disincentive to business to locate in California, cutting back on demand from that end." I disagree. It depends upon the type of the business. Electricity is a larger portion of costs for a manufacturing company, but not for a software company, where electricity is a small portion of the overall cost of doing business. What does concern businesses is, consistent supply so that labor is not impacted. Labor is the most costly item for most businesses. RE: "But when you've got powerful political forces like Cisco blocking a much needed power plant in San Jose, then there is still a lot of work to do, and probably a lot of forced pain." Labor is more important. If Cisco is fighting this because they want to ensure the best environment in order to attract the best talent, that's a pretty strong argument (which doesn't dilute your point). RE: "As to who will pay right now for the problems, there won't be any federal bail out." I know who is paying - the companies are through downtime on outages. And a portion of that wasted money could be redirected to PGE (as higher electricity payments) for solving the problem. Why doesn't the government simply get out of the way with the pricing structure? It doesn't make sense to hold one firm (PGE) down to lower prices, while the one half gets to bankrupt the other half. Sounds like they both need to be free of pricing regulation. RE: " shareholders of PCG and EIX will be out" Who are these folks? RE: "Duke Power will come in and buy the assets for a song, with the stipulation that they be allowed to charge market rates." Sounds like a good idea to have a backup provider. Better to have reliable, expensive power than highly expensive downtime. Btw, why wouldn't you issue stock to a lawyer? Regards, Amy J