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.

Strategies & Market Trends : IPPs and Merchant Energy Co.s -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom pope who wrote (149)	9/23/2002 3:32:00 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3358

The extend of the damage may not be known until all the lawsuits start rolling in. I wouldn't touch EP right now, even though it's been halved. Kyros

To: tom pope who wrote (149)	9/23/2002 3:49:09 PM
From: RCMac	Respond to of 3358

Does this imply that $200MM is the extent of the damages, or can FERC impose punitives? Tom, I don't know anything about the statutory framework governing FERC and the markets it regulates, but it would be extremely surprising if a federal agency were empowered to impose punitive damages. I would assume FERC has the power to impose fines of some sort, probably on a statutory schedule, but IMO, a $200 million exaction by FERC, based on the actual economic damages as proved up by the injured party, would surely far exceed any fines per such a schedule. (Of course, it wouldn't be terribly surprising if California's $200 million claim turned out to be a vast overstatement of the damages number California could actually prove up.) My law practice never touched on FERC matters, so this is subject to correction by anyone who knows more about the specific statutory scheme involved. Another matter: I agree that it would be useful to have AES on the list. --RCM