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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (862)	8/15/2001 2:04:56 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

>>That's what happened during an energy glut in the 1980s, You are going back another decade. My post referred to the early nineties. The early nineties is the time frame that would have more significance to the lack of power plants in the late nineties and 2000+. And...how short are we??...the experts indicated (including our energy master the VP) that there was no way California could get through the summer without a significant number of blackouts. Please explain to me 'artificially high rates' and how those worked to increase usage Retail utility electric rates were reduced 10 percent and frozen during the initial implementation of the deregulation plan. This is consistent with the implementation of most other deregulation plans including the Texas plan. By law the regulated utilities were not allowed to sell for less than above mentioned rate. However the reduced rate was still higher than the market rate for juice. Californians could opt out of the utility plans and buy market rate juice at a lower cost. So the utilities were selling juice at higher than market rates. you are telling me that despite artificially high rates and making $$$$ the utilities decided it was in the best interest of the shareholders to create a supply deficit, run the risk of blackouts and economic hardship to the state economy in order to raise profit margins. No, it was in their best interest to eliminate the supply surplus. I doubt they anticipated the crisis as it happened. According to the SCE lawsuit....the projections of the California energy commission were too high and more power plants were not needed. IMO the issue boils down to the required surplus. A market based system will not incorporate a surplus. It is the government that must ensure that excess capacity exists in our power grid. Zeuspaul

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (862)	8/15/2001 2:07:00 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 1715

There were several electric power plants planned. The approvals were winding their way through regulatory when the crisis hit (due to a summer hotter than normal, and power imports from the Northwest less than half of normal). re:"with deregulation the retail rates were kept artificially high" ...I don't know how much money Utilities were making (I guess I could look it up). But electric rates in CA were high. I believe that rates in CA in 1999 for consumers were ~$105 per MWhr ($.105 /KWhr- highest in the western U.S. - I think, I found this at the DOE website). According to info I downloaded from CA ISO, in 1999 the total (wholesale-to the PX) cost of power was an average of $33/MWhr.