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 (904)	8/21/2001 1:52:34 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Doug, Apparently we are talking past each other. Superficially, AB 1890 is the culprit, all right. But it'd be a foolish mistake for me to accede to the notion that Steve Peace et. al. wrote that POS because the legislature thought it would benefit the citizenry of California. Nope, he allowed it to be for the most part written by the attorneys for the IOUs because they were paying him to be allowed to do so. Check back on the campaign contribution record of Mr. Peace during the 1996 campaign season and it'll become obvious who's responsible for AB 1890. Unfortunately for the State of California, Peace was no Jesse Unruh (the most famous Speaker of the California House until Willie Brown broke all the rules and all the records) who famously said: "If you can't take their money and then vote against them, you don't belong in politics." Well, Steve Peace doesn't belong in politics. The rest of your reply seems to be a non sequitor and non-responsive to my post. I fail to see why. But, que sera sera. It seems that not only did $10B disappear from the state's coffers recently, but the truth, and sound analysis, are now missing as well. Regards, Ray

To: DOUG H who wrote (904)	8/21/2001 2:23:23 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that when the State DWR took over power purchases that AB 1890 was for the most part, ditched (as the Governor probably declared a state of emergency allowing him to ignore AB 1890). As far as munis charging more than IPPs, it is also my understanding that unlike IPPs muni power sales may not be under the authority of the FERC. Another possible reason for higher prices from the DWP, is that the State could have possibly used the DWP as a vehicle to mask its power purchases from marketers (with the DWP getting a 15% markup for their trouble).

To: DOUG H who wrote (904)	8/22/2001 12:22:43 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 1715

Still, a situation where the California government is responsible for a situation they seek to blame someone else for the problem. The responsibility of monitoring electric power moved from the state to the feds with the FERC the watch dog. California needs to position itself so it is once again in a responsible position as the FERC has demonstrated they can not or will not control...in their words... a dysfunctional system. We spared our air and water We have some of the dirtiest air depended on out of state producers We had our own power plants. We forced our utilities to sell them so we could benefit from increased competition...boy did we get duped.