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: miraje who wrote (266)	5/4/2001 11:56:55 AM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

IMHO the bozos and morons are telling the public what they want to hear - that it's all the power generators' fault. If any of them were capable of using the quarter teaspoonful of brain you might possibly find in their heads if you sank an artesian well, they would cut a deal similar to the one Duke suggested. But nooooo...this is what they are coming up with. Friday May 4 12:38 AM ET Would Boycott Help Power Crisis? By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - There's a limit to how much people will pay for most things in life, but if the cost scares off enough buyers, prices eventually fall. So what would happen if this textbook example from Economics 101 were applied to California's electricity crisis? What if the state officials struggling to maintain energy supplies simply refused to buy power above a certain price and accepted more blackouts this summer? The question would have been absurd just a few months ago and even now the notion seems surreal, given the possible consequences. Inviting even more blackouts inevitably would hurt businesses and frustrate consumers, threatening to further depress California's already slumping economy - the sixth largest in the world. ``It's better to use (blackouts) and break the (wholesale energy) cartel than simply to suffer them,'' said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumer Action Network, a San Diego watchdog group. Refusing to buy enough power to keep the lights on ``would be like playing with fire,'' counters Wells Fargo & Co. chief economist Sung Won Sohn. Buying electricity at the last minute to meet the state's power needs already has cost the California government $5.7 billion in the past 3 1/2 months. The state energy bill for 2001 could reach $50 billion, money otherwise spent on education, public safety and health care, Shames said. Faced with the prospect of a significant budget deficit, some lawmakers think it's time for California to take a stand against the power wholesalers - many of whom are based outside the state. ``We have been over a barrel in so many ways,'' said Sen. Dede Alpert, D-Coronado, who sponsored SB73x. ``Maybe there's a point in the market where (we) just say no and go with the planned blackout strategy instead.'' Economists give the bill little chance of succeeding. The business lost during blackouts would mean more layoffs in a state already skittish over the technology downturn and the looming Hollywood writers strike, economists say. Other ripple effects include diminished gasoline supplies, leading to even higher prices at the pump, and distribution headaches that could leave store shelves bare. Without electricity, Manteca resident Betty Jarzemkoski said she wouldn't be able to help her ailing husband to get out of his motorized bed at home. ``It would be a real hardship for us,'' said Jarzemkoski, 78. ``I'm on a fixed income so I hope they can figure out something to bring down prices. But we need power.'' Despite such concerns, the concept of a buyer's boycott hasn't been flatly ruled out - at least publicly - by Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) as he struggles to reduce the state's staggering electricity bill. The state is spending as much as $90 million per day to meet California's electricity needs and the bleeding is sure to get worse. When the summer heat increases demand and tightens supplies, California might spend more than $1 billion each week, state officials estimate. Extended blackouts pose an even greater cost, economists say. When Northern California suffered rolling blackouts for several hours Jan. 18-19, the economic losses totaled $2.3 billion, mostly from lost profits and wages, estimated the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. Multiply that over several weeks across the entire state, and it becomes apparent why it makes more sense for California to continue buying power at inflated prices, even if leaves the state with deep debts and a ruined credit rating, economists argue. ``Politicians aren't going to willingly turn out the lights because politicians want to get re-elected,'' said Borenstein, director of the University of California's energy institute. ``As soon as people start losing their jobs because the power is off, the public will get tired of the blackouts real quick.''

To: miraje who wrote (266)	5/4/2001 12:03:32 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 1715

We already tossed most of them out as they were in office in 1996 when the "deregulation" bill was passed. Anyone left in office will most likely be tossed in their next election. We have term limits here so most of the 1996 crowd has left or is in another office. By the way, there are power generators being approved quite quickly. The GOv himself has overrode local decisions and given priority status to at least one I know of. We have a peaker plant being built in my area that will be online sometime this July.

To: miraje who wrote (266)	5/4/2001 6:57:19 PM
From: Don Knowlton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Our company (a small manufacturer) just bought $18K of computer UPS equipment to keep our critical computers and telephones up during the expected blackouts. This was money that we would not have spent except for the grace of our politicians. In this downturn, we sure could have used it for other purposes. Seeing the pols shifting blame for their own mistakes onto the electricity suppliers is one of the most galling parts of this mess. And the newspapers don't seem to be digging very much into: 1. What quid pro quo did the pols get from the entities that lobbied them in 1996 as payment for creating the law that led to this mess? What are the details of campaign donations, et.? The pols held Chuck Quackenbush (rightly) accountable for shaking down the insurance companies after Northridge. Who is checking on them? 2. How is the governor allowed to secretly spend $5.7B and rising of the taxpayer's money with no reporting, no accountability, and no serious challenges from the legislative branch?