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: gamesmistress who wrote (439)	6/11/2001 3:21:17 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

OT OT OT: Please don't read this! It has nothing to do with Power.... <g> Hi Gina, Re: They ran on a platform of saving Germany from the "unbridled capitalism" of the Weimar Republic. Uhh, I think you may be confusing "hyperinflation" and ruined markets with "unbridled capitalism". And completely disregard the incredibly onerous burden of war reparations, but other than that, I kinda agree with you. Hitler got the German economy on a war footing as soon as he could. This is what created the recovery in the German economy. Much as the Gulf War was enough to turn the corner on the first Bush recession. (Hey, I'm not blaming GHWB, I'm just noticing who was at 1600 Pennsylvania at the time.) Now, since we know how the 90-1 recession ended, and we now in one in everybody's mind except the most intransigent beancounters, I wonder what is coming in the Mid-East?? , but logically, if there are price caps now, the US government should have stepped in to support the price of oil when it dropped to $10 and oil companies were laying people off left and right and consolidating to survive. Right? Yes, I agree it would have made tremendous sense to do so. The mechanism should have been SPR, fe.doe.gov which has oil in reserve at an average cost of over $27/bbl. Wise administrators at DoE would have taken advantage of the bargain, and stabilized the market at the same time. Of course, this would create a holy mess with Congress, which would have had a field day crucifying the DoE for raising/stabilizing the price at the pump. Maybe the FERC should come up with a better definition of "just and reasonable" prices. "Cost plus" belongs to regulated utilities and the old AT&T. Nobody tells Microsoft to sell at "cost plus". Gina, I was in the construction business for over two decades. Whenever I could secure a cost-plus contract it was greatly preferred over a fixed price contract, and "spot pricing" was unheard of because it was so absurd. Considering that Californians are going to be using electricity for as long as the state exists, it seems to me to be the height of folly for A.B. 1890 to have demanded Spot market and Day-Ahead market prices take precedence over long term contracts. I'll beg to differ with others on this thread who suggest that unbridled capitalism is the basis of this nation's future wealth. What I see clearly is that the continuance of wise contract law and the enforcement thereof is the bedrock of our society. There must be a fair exchange, and a stable one for the economy to work. The spot and day-ahead provisions of A.B. 1890 are absolutely anathema to anyone who wants to plan for rational investment. It is a market that was created for the power marketers. Prior to CAISO and the de-regulation regime, I was privy to the "wheeling" of wholesale power in Roseville, CA. This was the hub that served Northern California. The largest player was PG&E, with Palo Alto, Santa Clara and some other public power entities also involved, along with DWP, and DWR. My contact there made it absolutely clear that this was a good place for adrenaline junkies. "Wheeling", which is what ISO does now, can be an exciting challenge, particularly when price swings can make or break a utility. It is this adrenaline rush that A.B. 1890 so completely satisfies. It has nothing to do with providing a stable, long term sensible utility-provided commodity that is absolutely crucial to the success of the modern California economy. It has everything to do with an addictive personality type who is driven to games and gambling. That type is personified in Ken Lay, or Jim Donnell. Willing to roll the dice for a big score. Why the rest of society should be strapped to the addictive personalities of these two and the other blue-eyed sheiks of the power cabal is completely beyond my understanding. Don't people realize how completely maladaptive this whole game is? Well, we know at least one contributor here, whom I've put on ignore, who is completely at a loss to comprehend this situation. :) So let me flip the question to you. If the absence of a "cost-plus" price for electricity means that the California economy is sent into recession and thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of households go BK, have we achieved a good result? Ciao, Ray

To: gamesmistress who wrote (439)	6/11/2001 6:00:12 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 1715

All that you say is absolutely true, Gina. But then I guess Raymond would say I have a closed mind. Perhaps he doesn't want to be "confused" with facts? Terrence

To: gamesmistress who wrote (439)	6/11/2001 9:27:24 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 1715

Gina, You make the best point of all. Two years ago the oil states and the WORKERS in the oil industry - not the "barrons" were getting their financial lives ruined. I do not remember the hue and cry for price supports to help these people. When the left screams for oil price supports they may have a little credibility. Ya know - wasn't Jefford's interested in price supports for milk - but that is ok - farmers are good people by political definition. They are worthy of price supports. After all - think of the corn that goes into methanol - waste!