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 : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (177)	4/3/2001 7:21:35 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 1715

Hi DavesM, Regarding the news article you directed me to, it quotes a Sempra Energy spokeswoman as saying: She said those changes included a ``huge'' increase in demand in the Pacific northwest stemming from a drought there and an unusually cold winter. I live in Bend, OR and I can assure you that the Pacific Northwest has had an unusually warm winter, with my heating bill running 10% less than it did in the winter of 1999-2000. There is no "huge" increase in demand here. Furthermore, her logic is completely warped. The drought is real, but that is a supply problem not a demand issue. Additionally, California traditionally has sent surplus electricity to the Pacific Northwest during the winter months in a trading arrangement whereby we reciprocate with California in the summers, when electrical demand is lowered in the Pacific Northwest. Her statements are completely disingenuous and galling. I'm incensed that the reporter of this "news" article would not see through her bogus claim that City Attorney Hahn should be faulted for being non-responsive to a Sempra phone call subsequent to the lawsuit being filed. Hasn't she heard that the American legal system is based on more than hearsay and verbal assurances of innocence? Doesn't this reporter have a responsibility to stick to facts and not allow Sempra to grandstand? Best, Ray