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: DOUG H who wrote (901)	8/21/2001 12:55:50 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Hi Doug, Re: Not true sir. I have friends in LA who's rates were not effected while DWP was selling juice WELL above average. Under what condotion can they justify selling power for such astronomical rates other than taking advantage of the situation? I think you may be a bit unclear on the concept here, my friend. What you claim to be not true surely was. The municipal utitilities were responding to an emergency call from the ISO or the Power Exchange to supplement supply during Stage III alerts. This is when the rates being charged by the IPPs were allowed to soar for their peakers that weren't part of the "need to run" scheme. The fact of the matter is that we're being fed a lot of BS about these average prices charged, in that the pricing that the munis charged followed the IPP's peaker quotes and are being used by the writer in the LA Times piece, and by the producer's association in a profoundly devious and deceptive manner. Fact is, the munis were paid what they were because AB 1890 insanely required that all participants on the spot market be paid the highest quoted and accepted offer on $$/Mwh. The lie is that the IPPs have blended their most egregious peaker rates with their longer term contracted "must run" rates and to the naive public, it appears that the munis have ripped off the system. This is completely backwards from what actually occurred, and the way the market really worked. But it is a brilliant bit of spin, I must admit. It even suckered a smart guy like you. Best Regards, Ray :)

To: DOUG H who wrote (901)	8/22/2001 12:08:51 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Zeuspaul said.....The instate utilities rates to their customers were at historic levels. Only marginal power from the most inefficient plants was sold to the state. DOUG H said...Not true sir. I have friends in LA who's rates were not effected while DWP was selling juice WELL above average. You are saying the same thing...rates that are not effected is another way of saying rates were at historic levels. DWP selling juice WELL above average is another way of saying the marginal power from the most inefficient plants...ie the juice DWP sold was the most expensive juice. Juice made from high priced gas in inefficient plants simply costs more and that is the juice they sold to the state. Let's have him tarred and feathered... That clearly is the only thing that will make you happy. A responsible energy policy will make me happy. I have a lot of $ invested in oil and I want it to be around a long time. I wish I kept the article...someone compared time frames using increased rates of energy use in the five percent range vs using our existing resources at the present rate of consumption vs a small decrease in the rate of consumption. The conclusions were dramatic. Increased rates of consumption depleted oil resources in the twentyish year time frame. A decreased rate of consumption extended use out a hundred years or so. IMO a responsible energy plan would have efficiency and conservation as a primary component. Instead our friend the VP seems to have completely missed mark with respect to the demand side of the equation. I believe his feet should be held to the fire. That's my opinion and it ought'a be yours:) Zeuspaul