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: Aggie who wrote (84904)	1/21/2001 8:13:29 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

PGO & POGWS FWIW, I picked up a chunk of PGO on Friday, and I repurchased the POG warrants (POGWS) that I sold a few weeks ago. Razor

To: Aggie who wrote (84904)	1/21/2001 9:24:30 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

The California civic leaders have proven their ineptitude. The utilities signed on and supported the plan and made some bad business decisions on their own. There is plenty of blame to go around. My opinion is that the free market economy takes all precedance over all, and if a municipality can cut a better deal, go get'm. But regulation which seeks to impose better economic performance, outside of market forces, will fall flat on its face every time. NOT true. The private and public utility industry has been regulated and it did not fall on its face. Indeed the complete opposite...American industry became predominant and old ladies and orphans had a safe place to put their investments. The deregulated utilities fell flat on their face after the botched deregulation plan was implemented. Your PSEUDO free market utility plan is an EXPERIMENT and so far it is not working...blame it on bad law if you want but it doesn't change the fact that it is not working. You want to substitute ifs, buts coulda's and woulda's for WORKED for a century and was still working...that's utter foolishness IMO. There wasn't even a good reason to execute the change. Power was cheap but Wilson and his republican free market illusions wanted it cheaper and every one knows that a free market will bring down the costs...he has been proven wrong and a whole bunch of others went down his yellow brick road. There is plenty of LA LA Land on both sides of this issue. You may think I am reacting to the California nonsense. Not really. Ever since the first oil embargo I have been amazed at the lack of foresight of the national energy planners...or lack there of. With your line of thinking we don't need any as the free market takes care of all. So we wait for some foreign dictator to turn off our lights and who do we blame...the free market?? Zeuspaul

To: Aggie who wrote (84904)	1/21/2001 11:47:01 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Power problems (deregulation) not limited to CA Customers who shopped for new electricity suppliers under the Pennsylvania's ``Customer Choice'' program began returning to the company in February, 2000 and are doing so again this winter, resulting in an increased load of 175 megawatts, GPU explained. Under the ``Provider of Last Resort'' rules established under the state's energy restructuring plan, the company is required to supply these customers with electricity. Since it was unable to contract ahead for this power, GPU pointed out, it has to be purchased in the open market at prices substantially higher than the company is permitted to charge its customers. GPU has to purchase the electricity because the company's power plants were sold as part of the deregulation plan. In early December, GPU Energy asked the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to defer for future collection power costs exceeding what its subsidiaries -- Metropolitan Edison and Pennsylvania Electric, both of which are doing business as GPU Energy -- are allowed to recover through rates set by the commission. That petition pointed out the sale of its provider of last resort obligation, which was proposed by the commission's rules, failed last spring when no suppliers submitted qualifying bids. On Friday, responding to requests from others for the commission to dismiss GPU Energy's December filing, the company asked the commission for interim relief, saying California's "experience demonstrates that substantial impairment of earnings and a substantial loss of cash flow will most assuredly follow if wholesale supply costs continue to skyrocket out of control. ``In order to avoid a similar situation in Pennsylvania, a reasonable deferral mechanism should be established before these financial impacts substantially deteriorate the company's financial health,'' the company's statement said. Also pending before the Pennsylvania commission is a request for approval of GPU's planned merger with FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE - news) . That transaction, approved by shareholders of both companies in November, would create the sixth largest U.S. electric distribution system, serving 4.3 million customers between Toledo, Ohio, and the New Jersey shore. biz.yahoo.com