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: Zeuspaul who wrote (358)	5/31/2001 11:42:32 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

I believe that you are referring to what was going on before the State started taking responsibility for energy purchases. Before, the utilities were happy to tell anyone who would listen, that they could not sustain the difference between spot price vs. prices to the consumer. Last summer, I heard an analyst from A large Brokerage firm state, that the publicly owned utilities in CA were losing around $1B a month - and that they would have to get relief from the PUC (to raise rates) soon. Back last fall, the feeling of most politicians (and most Californians) probably was that: 1. The publicly owned utilities are lying and are over stating the difference between wholesale cost of energy and the cost to the consumer just to get a price increase. At the very least, the parent companies were making money hand over fist, and should easily offset what ever losses the local utility suffers. 2. The Utilities were in favour of deregulation in the first place, so if they really are losing lots of money, TS. I don't remember any talk about "pirates" from Texas, when SCE and PG&E were the ones losing money - only after the State took over. Now that the State is running things, there is no transparency-everything a State Secret. The State releases whatever information they want, and keeps the rest secret. I thought, that the Governor said that now, 70% of the States electricity consumption is now covered by long term contracts, but does anyone really know? And if it is, what is the State really now paying to keep the State lit? In fact, I've wondered about that $1900/MW that the State was charged a while back. The State had just had rolling blackouts the two previous days, so why pay $1900/MW? I believe that 1. The State has no intention to pay this amount for the power, they'll dispute it. Try to get an adjustment from the FERC (wasn't a stage 3 at the time?), failing that take it to court. 2. The State purchased this power so that they could show the world that they were being "robbed from Texas Robber Barons". When the State is facing over 200 hours of blackouts this summer, whats a couple more? The Governor could have told people, that he wanted to avoid a third straight day of blackouts, but there was no way that he was going to be held hostage and pay $1900/MW, I believe the CA public would be very understanding and supportive. Maybe the State thought that refusing to buy outrageously priced energy could undercut their argument for a wholesale price cap.