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 (874)	8/16/2001 10:29:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1715

Zeuspaul, Ten percent is a start... While you are to be commended for your 40% reduction in usage, most people would consider 10% something of an accomplishment. But..... The thing that generally motivates conservation on an individual and corporate level is price. And pricing for utilities is not as cut and dried as it is in the "regular" marketplace. When you have excess "inventory" (capacity) you can have a "sale", but utilities have a responsibility (imo) to provide for stable capacity and that takes LOTS of money. Thus a significant amount of the profits they were making when their "supply" was cheaper should have been (imo) earmarked for addressing future capacity needs. The amount of which is certainly subject to reasoned debate.(Something I believe was extremely difficult in the CA market. ah yes, those pesky NIMBY voters) But back to the consumer of energy. I just heard a report yesterday that the auto makers are now complaining to congress that they will not be able to meet the requirements for manufacturing an automobile (mandated 80 mph) by 2004. Why? They are saying they can't build one at a cost the consumer is willing to pay. Obviously the do not see the "demand" for such a vehicle. At least not at the price point they have determined to be profitable. Of course if they could put one on the market at a reasonable price, consumers would beat the proverbial path... So my question to you is, if conservation is THE answer, then it would seem to me that HIGH prices would be the best mechanism to drive behaviour. Painfully high prices.... acceptable to you? Or a combination of supply and conservation and stable pricing. Ps... I agree with your point about the storage of excess capacity within public facilities...but as with oil, you saw what happened when Clinton released the "reserve"...bowing to the political pressure of high price due to insufficient supply and distribution. So let's just say I consider it a necessity, but it's only as effective as the pols that "manage" it. Can be a very a risky scheme... <vbg>