DIYbanter - View Single Post

JosephKK

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 31 Aug 2007 21:38:51 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

flipper wrote in
m:

On 30 Aug 2007 23:44:17 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:

flipper wrote in
m:

On 30 Aug 2007 00:45:12 GMT, Bob Quintal
wrote:
And the grid in California was f#%ked by the right-wing
capitalists like Ken Lay when they forced deregulation on hte
unsuspecting weenies (to use your term)..

No, the problem is the CA legislature 'called' the
'restructuring' deregulation but didn't deregulate. Instead,
they layered on a new set of truly bizarre regulations.

That's your opinion.

Of course.

And it's a misinformed one.

On the contrary, I looked at the 'restructuring' before forming
any opinion, as opposed to you just assuming, without the
slightest shred of evidence to support the notion,. that anyone
who has a different opinion 'must' be 'misinformed'.

California's problem was exacerbated by power grid gaming but the
FERC report pointed out that the ensuing market manipulation was
only possible because of the bizarre regulatory system the
legislature created.

Whose lobbyists created that bizarre regulatory system?

No one's. Lobbyists 'lobbied' and it was your legislature that
decided whether to listen or not and which, if any,
'recommendations' to accept or reject.

It was
lobbyists from the power brokers, that's who.
Why? so that they could use the loopholes they put into the
legislation in order to manipulate the market.

That's certainly one of the standard Chatty Cathy pull string doll
prerecorded 'conspiracy' messages and a canned bugaboo sure solves
the problem of having to think about it... but solves nothing else.

Btw, those 'nasty and evil' industry experts warned California from
day 1 that the legislation was a recipe for power outages and price
gouging, but no one listened.

Just as one example, California regulations artificially capped
the price for in state production while out of state production
was not, thereby creating a forced "two prices for the exact same
product." Guess what that leads to.

It leads to utility companies making a mint by buying cheap and
selling high.

One could almost write a book about just that one sentence.

For one, 'buy low and sell high' is the natural order of things and
who would bother expending their time and energy to start a company,
run a company, or work for a company if there were no profit in it?
Don't you expect to be paid for your work?

Are you using 'utilities' as some general term for 'power industry',
or what? Because one of the problems was the regulations requiring
"utilities" to purchase on the high price spot market, prohibiting
them from lower cost long term contracts, and then requiring them to
'sell low' at regulated rates. Exactly the opposite of your "buying
cheap and selling high." And, as I alluded to in the above "natural
order of things," that resulted in them going bankrupt.

But that was only one of the problems and not related to the one I
brought up. No, when your force, by regulation, a lower in state
price than the open market you de-incentivize the construction of in
state power generation because who in their right mind is going to
build new power plants where they lose money instead of where they
can make a profit?

It also creates an artificial environment that not only enables but
begs abuse that wouldn't be possible without it.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

Study your history a bit more carefully, The legislation was written
essentially as PG&E an SC&E recommend. Guess who they were behodin'
to.