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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : CPN: Calpine Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (181)	12/12/2001 7:37:27 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 555

Roger, what do you think of MIR here in the high teens?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (181)	12/12/2001 8:20:50 PM
From: inesa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 555

Roger, Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part but I think your pronouncing the deregulation movement "dead" is too much. I think it is fairly common knowledge among those who care to know that California's energy market was never truly deregulated. Similar trip ups have occurred in other industries when the deregulation movement takes hold. Eventually things settle down for the Free Market to work its wonders. Inesa

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (181)	12/13/2001 1:46:08 AM
From: Clement	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 555

Roger, Quite frankly, the market has done no such thing in pronouncing the energy markets dead. In fact it has worked in several states. California was simply a dumb market where political forces did not fully allow incentives to take hold nor create the incentives to create a true market. With respect to the Enron failure, things have changed marginally. Will congress want to make regulatory changes? Perhaps, but bear in mind the President still must sign it into law and his office's position is to allow markets to work. What has been happening to Calpine is merely pure panic. And frankly it was dumb -- as you can see from the knee jerk reactions (today's trading was very much indicative of that). Californian events have not linked deregulation to high prices and uncertainty given California's deregulation wasn't much of a deregulation at all. I think that the NYT's article was in fact somewhat motivated by the mistrust in deregulation which is very much unfounded. The problem was in the execution. Much of Calpine's growth model is dependent on displacement of aging plants. Consider Calpine's business model that would not have existed without deregulation. Calpine is one of the companies that is building clean natural gas plants that are also the lowest cost out there. Contrast that with the disincentives for efficiency with utilites. Contrast that with the falling spot prices for electricity which Calpine argues is a function of greater competition to begin with -- so deregulation is working. Those who have the best spreads do so through innovation and doing what is effective/efficient. Clement

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (181)	12/13/2001 6:13:49 PM
From: Bob Rudd	Respond to of 555

<<simply recognizing that deregulation as we have known it is dead>>Deregulation as they did it in California is certainly dead...but it was so ill-conceived it was DOA, IMO. States are at different stages and many are looking to learn from the Ca. debacle eia.doe.gov I would guess that deregulation will be considerably further along in 5 years than it is today, but short of where it would have been forecasted to be prior to the Ca. problems. Doubt they will just go back to old style regulated utilities.