SI
SI
discoversearch

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: DavesM who wrote (1171)2/28/2002 9:32:07 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1715
 
Hi DaveM,

Thanks for the clarifications. I was unaware of AB 265.

Curious about the MTBE lawsuit from Methanex. I was certain that Methanex is suing the State, and not the U.S. taxpayer for the decision..... I'll have to revisit this one.

-R.



To: DavesM who wrote (1171)3/1/2002 12:12:22 AM
From: Zeuspaul  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1715
 
In an earlier post I mentioned that the State Legislature rolled back prices. This happened in SDG&E territory (as they were the only utility that deregulated consumer electric rates - no cap?).

There was no cap.



To: DavesM who wrote (1171)3/1/2002 12:24:31 AM
From: Zeuspaul  Respond to of 1715
 
Currently, I think the State is fighting to keep MTBE in gasoline formulas. It is the EPA that wants its removal.

The state was fighting to replace MTBE with better alternatives than ethanol. However the ethanol lobby had more clout with the Bush administration. California doesn't think it should be required to subsidize the corn farmers.

Zeuspaul


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News