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 (909)	8/21/2001 8:35:20 PM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Respond to of 1715

These damn public sector Pirates are at it again- "SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 21, 2001--Pacific Gas and Electric Company today announced it is asking the Sacramento Superior Court to require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to abide by state law and hold a public hearing before determining whether its $13 billion in power purchase contract costs are just and reasonable and should be charged to electric retail ratepayers. ``There is evidence that DWR is attempting to overcharge electric customers in PG&E's service area by over $1.4 billion in 2001 and 2002 alone, but DWR is refusing to hold a hearing on whether its costs are reasonable and supportable,'' said Roger Peters, Pacific Gas and Electric Company's senior vice president and general counsel. ``DWR should not be given a blank check to pay for its high-priced power contracts. The public needs to be able to review DWR's contracts and hold them accountable for the billions of dollars they are spending.'' **************** DWR claims they are not subject to any stinking law!!

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (909)	8/22/2001 1:20:57 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 1715

There was according to my recollection a "mandate" for 80MPG vehicles by 2004 Message 16207429 The program was started in 1993 with a goal of building four-door cars with triple the fuel economy and no penalty in cost or safety, a target that then-President Bill Clinton compared to putting a man on the moon. _______________________________________ My point about the market is where we disagree. I don't see it a the responsibility of the Federal Government to "impose" minimum standards on gasoline consumption. I might agree if we were energy independent and if our excesses did not effect other nations. We are dependent on foreign sources of energy many of which are in unstable parts of the world. The scientific community, the world community and a majority of Americans believe global warming is a real concern. It affects everyone if cars are polluting, if someone drives an inefficient vehicle, then the person adversely affected is himself. Generally efficient cars pollute less and produce fewer green house gasses. Pollution standards are based on parts per million. So given two cars that meet the same pollution standard and one is twice the efficiency as the other....the efficient car will place half the pollutants in the air. When your tail pipe causes my health to deteriorate then the government has a role to play. I am for incentives, but I have a problem with "mandates". IMO we need to move forward with a diversified approach. I think the mandate that manufacturers post city and highway MPG ratings on cars is a good thing. The mandate should be extended to pick up trucks too. Manufacturer A may not divulge the info as they feel it may put them at a competitive disadvantage if Manufacturer B does not divulge the same info....IMO the info should be divulged. A properly implemented mandate levels the field. Zeuspaul