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: Hawkmoon who wrote (506)	6/14/2001 9:19:43 AM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1715

One thing that also doesn't get mentioned often enough in this whole capacity shut down issue is the factor that permitting plays in the process. As an example, part of Enron's capacity has been specifically permitted by the state of California to operate only a few hours per year, literally less than 200 hours per year. Because of the limited nature of these permits, Enron only operates this capacity when the price of power is very high. Otherwise, this capacity wouldn't be profitable. The state could create additional capacity immediately by allowing this peak usage capacity to operate more hours. It hasn't happened yet.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (506)	6/14/2001 11:42:00 AM
From: portage	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

Hawk, that's a non-answer with far more speculation than the support offered in the articles and through examinations by FERC's own and other economists who have looked at the situation. The intent and effect is obvious. You sound like the guys who'll always say we need more studies every time 95% of the scientists provide more evidence of global warming. The reality is that several of them have taken near criminal advantage of the California system, and FERC has done nothing about it, although their job is to do just that. Why do you guys keep talking about more plants when 15 are approved and half that many already being built ? And more are on the fasttrack ? How deaf are you ? If you think we'll sit here while Cheney, Lay, and others take home $30 - $80 million bonuses while our people lose jobs and homes because of their pals gaming this situation that fellow Republican Pete Wilson set up (not 99.9% of California consumers who had no influence on it) you are f*cking nuts. At least this new FERC guy Pat Wood seems shrewd enough so far to realize they're cutting their own throats by acting this way if they want dereg to continue. But I'll still have to see it to believe it. I'm done arguing with the platitudes that you guys are spewing. Yeah demand and supply will come into balance - but not instantly because there is no free and easy entry or quick building of plants. Demand did not increase but a few percent from the prior year during the blackout gougings -- price gouging was driven by the supply all taken off line at once, to an extent way outside the normal standard deviations. Insiders even admitted this, if you read the articles, which apparently you didn't. In the short run, this outright fraud and manipulation will be stopped, accounted for, and recompensed, or there will be radical change to this situation by the force of political will. I for one will support anything to squeeze these gougers out of our market and replace them with other owners, or re-regulation if that's what it takes. Lower costs (in theory) with wild swings, manipulation, and volatile markets are no way to run the lifeblood of an economy - give me somewhat higher costs with stability, reliability, and no yuppie vampires playing computer games with our economy. In case you didn't notice, we did sign a lot of long term contracts, but they tried to force them extraordinarily high during the period they had shut down supply and were gaming for higher prices.