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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Ox who wrote (3708)	4/24/2001 9:36:55 AM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Let me add that the price of failure is often very high. In my distribution business, if my employees fail to load a truck properly and the product gets damaged as a consequence, I usually have to throw away the damaged goods. My costs go up due to my error and I can't pass on the expense to the end user. I end up eating the cost. If I design a database and I fail to envision all the issues that will need to be handled by this system, my costs will go up from re-writes or redesign. Each time I error, the costs go up or my profit level goes down. Assuming the customer gave me all the necessary information up front, can I pass the cost of this error on to the customer if the failure was in my planning or design? Now if I will go out of business due to my failure, I will go to the customer and explain that I will need additional money to complete the project. The customer has 2 choices. Start all over with another vendor or trump up and get the work completed. Neither is a good situation for the customer but depending on the nature of the failure, the customer has a choice. CA's failure over the past few years is now costing the state billions. Who's to blame? Does it really matter who's to blame or should the focus be on solving the situation? Who should take responsibility for the additional costs? Who should take responsibility for the poor planning by the govt, regulatory and utility companies? Sure seems to me that no matter what happens, it's the consumer who should take the responsibility. They elected the officials. They sat back like Nero and fiddled while the city burned. They kept shouting NIMBY, BANANA....over and over again. Now they shout....the feds should bail us out. Hmmm....

To: The Ox who wrote (3708)	4/24/2001 10:44:20 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

You seem to be looking to the federal govt to solve a problem created by the state. Not at all. You seem to agree with me that there is a national energy crisis when you indicate most of the nation has had their energy bills double and triple during this period of high commodity prices, The federal government should attend to a national energy plan that includes guidance to states in their choice of fuels. The feds should consider national security issues and the long term vitality of the nation with respect to energy supplies. The national trend towards natural gas without adequate supply is a serious issue. The increased dependence on foreign sources of energy is also an area of concern. It is a bit naive to believe that the nation doesn't have an energy problem IMO. The lack of a quick response by everyone involved 1. Power plant permit procedures have been streamlined. 2. End user electric rates have been and are being adjusted upwards in a tiered system. Now the state wants the rest of the nation to bail them out, I don't recall any statements to that effect. California is paying more for its juice than any other state. Capping wholesale prices isn't a bail out. I don't know what you pay for juice....How about a wholesale cap at a level three times your retail cost...fair enough? How does that cost you anything? Those of us in Illinois have seen our NG bills triple, our electricity costs double and our gasoline prices soar. I have very little sympathy for folks in CA who want to be sheltered from the market place Why? You and the rest of the nation are sheltered from the market place. California utilities are at the top of the rate scale. usafa.af.mil The linked table does not fully reflect what California pays for juice. For example the $112.58 per 1000 KHW is not what San Diegans owe. The figure is closer to $300 per 1000 KWH for 2001 when you add in the transmission costs. ucan.org The difference between the $112.58 and $300 number is in the balancing account. The customer owes the full $300...the due date of the balance has yet to be established but is in the relatively short term. SCE is also near the top of the list. Last month's average cost for juice was 0.253 cents per KWH according to my electric bill. Add a nickle + for transmission and it works out to about $300 per 1000 KWH. Pacific Gas and Electric is also towards the top....over the top when full costs are considered. LADWP is in the upper half at $100 per 1000 KWH. The difference with LADWP is their rate is based on Cost plus as I am sure your's is vs the market rate based figures of most of the California utilities. Not all of the cost of juice is reflected in end user's bills at this time. That does not mean this bill goes unpaid. The end user will still pay the bill. In the currently planned scheme the balance will be paid by the end user through repayment of long term bonds on their electric bills. If a power producer charges $30 per 1000 KWH to California and charges $10 per 1000 KWH to another state and the power producers cost is $15 per 1000 KWH....who is subsidizing who? Zeuspaul