To: Maurice Winn who wrote (7711 ) 8/26/2001 12:06:28 AM From: portage Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559 It's really very simple Maurice. For 100 years we had an excellent, reliable and fairly reasonably priced regulated supply of energy (until PG&E went out and built a few nuclear plants with massive cost overruns, then had to find a way to pass along the booboos. And they're not even decommissioned yet). In about a year and a half, we went from spending about $7 billion on power to a projected $70 billion under dereg, though it's been scaled back since the gamed and real shortages of the winter have settled down. Now, the state is proposing to issue $5 billion in bonds to ensure a 15% surplus of power, which the private sector can't be counted on to build - why should they cut into their fat pig of artificial shortages and price gaming ? Meanwhile, the private sector will supply and distribute the energy - but not get away with manipulating it due to artificial shortages that they induce. Let's see : $70 billion - $7 billion = $63 billion in additional charges over a few years -- that $5 billion will be a worthwhile investment, I'd say, even with true increases in the wholesale rates - and it may be that only a portion of it needs to be spent. Your blind adherence to your theories and your rampant hyperbole is puzzling in face of the realities of what private sector companies exercising market power have shown they will do, and did do here. But it doesn't matter, sputter all you want, we're not going to adhere to your stifled doctrines. Funny how much more smoothly things have gone since the FERC price caps removed the incentives for gaming, in spite of Big Time Dick's stern warnings. There's a difference between a real price signal and a gamed price signal. Come visit us some time if you get hungry for some Korma or Biryiani. But I wouldn't worry about it being served to you cold in a dark, dusty plaza somewhere.