www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67 -> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67
Well the only deregulation the politicians ever monkey with are the financial gyrations dictated by lawyers and accountants. And the only thing they ever achieve is to make the whole system even MORE unfathomable to the average Joe. The obvious technological solution to Californias future energy requirements is to build modern, efficient NUKES with sufficient capacity to assure a safe, abundant and reliable supply. A competitive market achieves efficiency by SHEDDING excess capacity and increasing utilization of existing facilities. On balance, it is also short-sighted and risk averse to investing in new capacity. New capacity is only constructed in response to rising prices dictated by supply shortages. All-in-all, market competition is too volatile to assure a stable and abundant supply. The regulated public utility model served our nation well for many, many decades. IMHO, we should dispense with this free market experiment, return to the public utility concept, and build more Nukes.
Post Reply Private Reply To 5 View Replies To: Hostage Good luck in your next career and a word of advice, learn to listen and stuff the put-down urge. Here was the first stone you threw after bandying a grossly oversimplified comparison: Think about it. You leaped in with your ill-considered comment based upon a pithy suggestion I made to Dog Gone which is part of a conversation I have been having with he, SeirraWasp, snopercod, Randita, Robert357, and Ernest_at_the_Beach, among others for over two years now. DG knows, for example, that I effectively predicted that Arnold would resurrect deregulation because the people who wrote Arnolds environmental plan were part of the same crew who manufactured the shortage on which the power crisis was the payoff. So here it is, deregulation, before Arnold has even been sworn in. Rather than club DG with an I told you so, I suggested how a rational transition from the current debacle to a free market could be conducted without bankrupting scads of small businesses, else the power market in California might more resemble the situation in Russia and the employment market even worse. He agreed that the suggestions made sense and were, if anything, too aggressive toward a deregulated market such as he enjoys in Texas. No, you couldnt, because you werent in on many of these conversations. It was you who assumed superior knowledge with your reference to the breakup of AT&T as if the initial conditions were equivalent to the bogus deregulation of the California power market in its state of artificial shortage. You put yourself above those that have been discussing these issues in detail for two years here without knowing the players. So, you expressed the desire to kill the messenger just like the vicious RINOs who have virtually destroyed the CAGOP by sabotaging conservative campaigns and then claiming they cant win.
StoryIdCp4T0WaebqLqWmdu0odG Most at risk are units that arent under contract to sell power to the states utilities or arent considered critical enough for the grid operator to make capacity payments to keep them available. Absent contracts or capacity payments from the ISO, up to 10,590 megawatts of power plants in the state could be retired after 2004 for economic reasons, generator West Coast Power estimated in a recent filing with the California Energy Commission. There are plants now that exist that can provide power, yet California does not want to pay its bills. To replace those plants with state-of-the-art environmental friendly facilities requires cashola. You see the asses in California want it all, they want state-of-the-art yet they are unwilling to pay for it. For a power company to replace or upgrade its existing fleet, it has to seek board approval by selling one and only one parameter, ROI. That is why it is damned ridiculous that a know-it-all as you claim yourself to be states that ROI does not matter, that a predictable return is all that matters.
These companies are on the verge of bankruptcy because California shafted them and then played victim. These companies tried to shut their plants down on any pretext to stop the hemorrhage of cash, and California accuses them of gaming the system. Your customer base did not want to pay for their Utopian wet dream. And dont kid anyone, that customer base is claimed by the State of California, not the energy companies. Anybody with a modicum of mind left would know that if they do not negotiate price of product or service to a recipient, that recipient is not a customer. The Customer to energy companies doing business in California is the State of California itself, not the residents and businesses of that state, except in instances where commercial companies gained approval to negotiate their own contracts. Which brings us to another refutation: I said that some businesses signed long term contracts that they are very happy with.
Theres a reason Edison International and John Bryson donated over a quarter million for Davis election. And if you referring to the pinhead who got a kickback from SOCAL Edison, that was for $200 thousand on two contracts, not 65. It was an isolated event like the Enron west coast sales rep who decided to get back at Californias bullshit. The bottomline is that California decided several years ago to have a little energy party and invited all those nasty energy companies to join them. After those evil Ken Lays invested millions in purchasing and developing energy assets, California decided not to pay them and went bankrupt, and cried its all their fault. Because California was playing parent to its population, it decided what was best. What does a person or business do if the bills are unpaid and the lights go out? They pay their bills and if it is high, they seek subsidy and a different competing source. California needs to offer tax breaks to businesses, energy assistance payments to low income indigents, and more importantly, they need to stay out of the way of the market. They are out of their friggin minds if they think they can control prices in a capital intensive free market. And then you contradict yourself: My guess is that within two years, the State could be ready to initiate a fully free market on the model of Texas.
Do you really expect anyone to believe such a ludicrous statement? Your perspective is so distorted by your perceptions that you cant read what I wrote. Instead, you attack those with whom you think my position is associated. If producers in a heavily regulated market arent making one on the books, or arent even getting paid, that isnt a profit, is it? So dont compare what is happening or what the leftists want to what I suggested, because neither is the same. To replace those plants with state-of-the-art environmental friendly facilities requires cashola. You see the asses in California want it all, they want state-of-the-art yet they are unwilling to pay for it. Well duh, as a former project engineer in a chemical plant I guess I would know that. First of all, you are assuming that state-of-the-art environmental friendly facilities are environmentally necessary or legally required on the Federal level. They often arent, but are instead the whimsical insistence of CARB, which is often politically rather than technically motivated. I have obtained several air quality permits in the BAAQMD basin and am familiar with how that backward system works. Many CARB mandates arent required by EPA which should have given you a clue considering the pay for play game Davis plays. So I either have to conclude that you still dont understand why those restrictions are in place, or know better and are answering me selectively. For a power company to replace or upgrade its existing fleet, it has to seek board approval by selling one and only one parameter, ROI. That is why it is damned ridiculous that a know-it-all as you claim yourself to be states that ROI does not matter, that a predictable return is all that matters.
Why dont you learn to read what I wrote instead of lumping me in with the people you oppose? I said, Does it really matter that much if the ROI is spread out over five years instead of one as lo...
|
http://csua.com/feed/