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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (151920)	6/9/2001 10:17:54 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

Dear third, you talk of the 30 bucks for the natural gas. But from that article you don't mention " and the limited availability of credits for nitrous oxide emissions." from the same article. The pricing no doubt is based upon a set of rules agreed to that balances the cost and the profit. Now uncle EPA comes along and says well you can only run this plant 20 days a year and such and over that you pay gaziga bucks. So when no surplus supply of cheap or regular generation is available one has to pay for the power that is available and the EPA says you will pay thru the nose for dirty power. But third you just go along and think that everyone is out to cheat everyone and when stupid idiots don't plan for power and run out it's someone else's fault. 100% certifiable vacant liberal mind. Not the ability to create cheap power is based on planning for load variations. Again, this is what the retards in California did. From your article. Also, the purchase was "out of market," meaning the ISO called on the plant to produce electricity even though it was not bidding into the California wholesale energy market at that time, because it was hoping to save its emissions credits for times during this summer when demand is expected to be even higher. The South Bay plant is extremely inefficient, the company said, and running it in January meant that would shave time off its ability to run during critical summer months. Duke's high charges were first revealed in yesterday's editions of the Charlotte Observer. Duke also sought to shift some of the blame to the state by asserting that it offered California long-term contracts for power at $50 per megawatt hour but Davis turned them down. More accurately, what occurred was that Duke asked the governor and the Public Utilities Commission to loosen restrictions on long-term contracting so the state's utilities could contract with Duke, but government officials declined. tom watson tosiwmee

To: ThirdEye who wrote (151920)	6/9/2001 10:42:44 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks, the article helped me understand what was really going on. Wonder who wrote the headline which created a different impression? Duke's high charges were first revealed in yesterday's editions of the Charlotte Observer. Duke also sought to shift some of the blame to the state by asserting that it offered California long-term contracts for power at $50 per megawatt hour but Davis turned them down. More accurately, what occurred was that Duke asked the governor and the Public Utilities Commission to loosen restrictions on long-term contracting so the state's utilities could contract with Duke, but government officials declined.