"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 09:10 AM 1/23/01 -0800, Josh wrote:
> >I'll take the obvious and presumably dumb option: finish deregulation
>
> Awww...... you take all of the fun out of it..... Specifically, I was
> hoping for a response from certain listmembers that somehow associated the
> California "deregulation" with supply-side economics.
Here's a quote from Time magazine (on line at
Ironically, new construction was one of the aims in 1995 when the state, whose
environmental laws make it a utility builder's nemesis, launched the nation's
first and most sweeping electric deregulation plan. Enthusiastically endorsing
the scheme were utilities, lawmakers and environmental and consumer-advocate
groups. The goal enunciated by Republican Governor Pete Wilson was to bust up
the monopolies held by utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern
California Edison (SCE). They in turn would be free to purchase and market
power in the state as well as to pursue business elsewhere. PG&E, for
instance, owns 30 plants outside California.
Conversely, out-of-state operators were supposed to flock to California. These
new competitors would help bring down electric rates that were among the
highest in the country. "To be charitable," Wilson told TIME last week, "no
one fully foresaw the dimensions of the increase in demand."
In sum, California dismantled its private power-generating industry without
securing adequate power supplies. The Big Three utilities, which in addition
to PG&E and SCE include San Diego Gas & Electric, sold off plants to outsiders
like Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C., and Reliant Energy of Houston and became
middlemen. But the state wouldn't allow these new intermediaries to enter
long-term purchasing agreements for fear they would be locked into fixed-price
contracts as prices dropped. Their purchases had to be made on the so-called
spot--or cash--market, and prices were low at the time."
Lets also mention that the state house had been occupied for 16 years by
Republicans up until 1998 and that this dereg plan was their baby.
> >And, as always, if it gets too expensive to live in CA there are 49 other
> >states, many of which are much cheaper to live in and don't threaten to fall
> >into the ocean regularly. :)
>
> Personally, I most confess to a little Schadenfreude excitement over all of
> this. Hopefully some of the businesses in California will notice that in
> my hometown of Western New York we have a tremendous supply of extremely
> cheap electricity thanks to ol' Niagara Falls.
>
I'll bet that that's just what Bush and his minions have in mind while
orchestrating this thing. And if you don't believe that check out the
distributors profits for the last month or two. And while you're checking out
those profits, check the oil companies record breaking profits for 2000. Our
pain is their gain, apparently. How coincidental that it happened in a
presidential election year too. Again.*
Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*see 1980
