The Gray Davis Recall

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    doesn't Cali have some huge percentage of theiir budget locked into education? my understanding was they passed laws saying they couldnt touch .edu dollars, and they've been screwed since.



    i wonder if that means the kids will be smart enough to calculate out the intreest on $38 billion of debt.......






    I guess that's why my tuition just got a 20% hike
  • Reply 22 of 37
    cdong4cdong4 Posts: 194member
    the fact is that illegal immigration has had a significant effect on public education, there are just way too many kids for public schools... if california (regardless of who is in office) figures out how to get around the issue without kicking out illegal immigrants, then the education and debt problem will be around for a long time... I say make driving tests mandatory on a yearly basis, driven and written, charge a little bit, have the money go solely to education... bam
  • Reply 23 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CDonG4

    the fact is that illegal immigration has had a significant effect on public education, there are just way too many kids for public schools... if california (regardless of who is in office) figures out how to get around the issue without kicking out illegal immigrants, then the education and debt problem will be around for a long time... I say make driving tests mandatory on a yearly basis, driven and written, charge a little bit, have the money go solely to education... bam



    Ooh, or control spending in other areas! Bam!
  • Reply 24 of 37
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I never understood this. What does the state of california have to do with the energy system?
  • Reply 25 of 37
    skipjackskipjack Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    I never understood this. What does the state of california have to do with the energy system?



    A brief and not necessarily correct answer:

    (I apologize for any inaccuracies and admit that I am writing this off the top of my head and did not do any supporting research. I also apologize in advance to those who believe I am sidetracking the thread, since this is a reply to a specific post rather than to the specific subject of the thread.)



    The State of California had regulatory agencies to set the price that the energy distributors could charge.



    Some years ago, Californians voted to deregulate the system and let market forces determine the cost of energy.



    The deregulation was not complete and there were still restrictions on the energy distributors. For instance, they were prohibited from entering into long term contracts with the energy suppliers. Even during the "energy crisis", they were not able to secure long term contracts and had to buy energy at the spot price, while the state still limited the amount they could charge, and in some cases, the energy distributors were actually subsidizing the consumer. This is one of the factors that drove one of the companies, Pacific Gas and Electric, into bankruptcy. One question I have is that after PG and E went bankrupt and the state took over the procurement of power, one of the first things Governor Davis did was to secure long term contracts and stabilize the cost of power. This was the very thing he and the state had prohibited PG and E from doing and which was, I believe, a contributing factor to the crisis in which the state is now in, since the state used its billions of dollars in surplus to ensure that consumers could receive power at reasonable prices.



    (I believe the state surplus was about 11 billion dollars at the time. It went from PG&E subsidizing energy costs to the state subsidizing the energy costs and exhausting a good part, if not all, or the state surplus.)



    My criticism is not that the governor was unwise in making long term contracts, because he did that in the best interest in the citizens of the state to ensure they had access to power. The long term contracts minimized the manipulation of the energy market by the energy suppliers and contributed to "calling their bluff". Only after the situation had stabilized did we find out that much of the energy crisis was caused by the manipulation of the energy market and only in hindsight can we say that Governor Davis' long term contracts were a bad investment. I would fault the governor for squandering the state surplus only if it can be proven that he knew the market was being manipulated. (I do fault him for not allowing the local utilities to negotiate long term contracts. I would think that he would have been able to issue some sort of executive order to allow this, just as he could have eliminated MTBE from our gasoline by now - but that is another story.)



    The failure of deregulation in California has other states concerned because they are also considering deregulation. However, deregulation in California was not implemented well because the state still controlled prices.



    Is this what you were looking for, or did I not understand your question?



    P.S. Did Stanford's tuition go up by 20% At the University of California and California State University, the Regents recently (last week?) voted a 30% increase in tuition. That is in addition to the 10% increase earlier this year. As a side note, the amount represented by that 30% increase is almost twice the total tuition cost I (or rather, my parents) paid for my freshman year at Berkeley 30 years ago ($212/quarter). The increase at CSU is $238/semester and the increase at UC is $1097 (per year, I assume).
  • Reply 26 of 37
    skipjackskipjack Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Likewise think about the fact that the blackouts were PLANNED. Doesn't that just raise a little suspicion?



    I don't think there was a conspiracy. The state could predict its expected load based on historical data. It knew there was a possibility that it could not meet the demand. There's a balance between letting everyone suffer unpredictably, or letting certain areas plan for an expected outage while guaranteeing as much as possible that all other areas would not be. And just because an area was scheduled for the rotating outage did not mean that it would lose power, regardless of whether sufficient energy was available. Some areas never lost power even though they were in an area scheduled for a contingency outage.
  • Reply 27 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Skipjack

    I don't think there was a conspiracy. The state could predict its expected load based on historical data. It knew there was a possibility that it could not meet the demand. There's a balance between letting everyone suffer unpredictably, or letting certain areas plan for an expected outage while guaranteeing as much as possible that all other areas would not be. And just because an area was scheduled for the rotating outage did not mean that it would lose power, regardless of whether sufficient energy was available. Some areas never lost power even though they were in an area scheduled for a contingency outage.



    If they could predict the demand they could also buy the electricity to cover it without worrying about the insane prices on the spot market as well.



    Nick
  • Reply 28 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    If they could predict the demand they could also buy the electricity to cover it without worrying about the insane prices on the spot market as well.



    Nick




    Doesn't quite work that way. Can't build a plant overnight. Energy demand was unexpectedly high that summer and our plants weren't enough. After being blindsided by our stupidity in not building enough plants ten years ago, we examined what the new power needs were during that crisis and used THOSE NEW FIGURES to develop the rolling blackouts.
  • Reply 29 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Doesn't quite work that way. Can't build a plant overnight. Energy demand was unexpectedly high that summer and our plants weren't enough. After being blindsided by our stupidity in not building enough plants ten years ago, we examined what the new power needs were during that crisis and used THOSE NEW FIGURES to develop the rolling blackouts.



    You do know that California is 47-49th in per capita energy use right? You really can't use much less than we do and just about everyone strives to be efficient here. This was true before and after the blackouts. To me it just seems a bit too convenient that we "just happened" to use more energy that one summer and "just happened" to have to sign expensive long term contracts to fix it. Isn't it amazing that we haven't had a single blackout or issue since then. They still haven't fully rolled back deregulation.



    I assure you that if Davis were named Bush the same people defending him would be screaming to high heaven about how suspicious and BS that sounds. Heck they blame Bush anyway and he hadn't even taken office yet. But don't blaim Davis when his signature is the one on the contracts.



    I have no doubt some spot market manipulation occured. However it is just as likely that we sunk ourselves by having so few people capable of meeting our always unique demands that we add with "good intentions." We have laws saying we have to buy every watt of alternative power produced no matter the cost. We have laws that idle plants even during high demand because the pollution credits they have to purchase become too expensive, etc. The one constant in the middle of all this is Davis. He is thus blamed.



    Nick
  • Reply 30 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You do know that California is 47-49th in per capita energy use right? You really can't use much less than we do and just about everyone strives to be efficient here. This was true before and after the blackouts. To me it just seems a bit too convenient that we "just happened" to use more energy that one summer and "just happened" to have to sign expensive long term contracts to fix it. Isn't it amazing that we haven't had a single blackout or issue since then. They still haven't fully rolled back deregulation.



    I assure you that if Davis were named Bush the same people defending him would be screaming to high heaven about how suspicious and BS that sounds. Nick




    With the closing of old plants and not replacing them with new ones, it doesn't surprise me that we ran into problems a couple summers ago.



    As far as not having a blackout since we signed the long-term contracts...umm, what the **** is weird about that? WE SIGNED LONG-TERM CONTRACTS. IT'S MONEY IN THE BANK OF THE ENERGY COMPANIES THAT RAPED US. IF THEY DON'T PROVIDE THE POWER, THEY DON'T GET THEIR MONEY.



    Jesus man. You're really reaching on this. Stick to women raping men's bank accounts. That you actually know something about.
  • Reply 31 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    With the closing of old plants and not replacing them with new ones, it doesn't surprise me that we ran into problems a couple summers ago.



    As far as not having a blackout since we signed the long-term contracts...umm, what the **** is weird about that? WE SIGNED LONG-TERM CONTRACTS. IT'S MONEY IN THE BANK OF THE ENERGY COMPANIES THAT RAPED US. IF THEY DON'T PROVIDE THE POWER, THEY DON'T GET THEIR MONEY.



    Jesus man. You're really reaching on this. Stick to women raping men's bank accounts. That you actually know something about.




    It's not reaching. BR you know for a fact if it were Bush signing these contracts, every friggin message would be Bush buddies benefit from Bush signing long term energy contracts. As I mentioned they say that anyway and Bush wasn't even involved.



    Davis is a political whore. He took plenty of contributions from these companies. The if the actions are the same minus one name (Davis instead of Bush) then the darn conclusion is the same.





    Follow the cash



    Likewise if you wanted to stick it to greedy utility companies, why would you sign bills worth BILLIONS to bail them out?



    Nick
  • Reply 32 of 37
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    It's not reaching. BR you know for a fact if it were Bush signing these contracts, every friggin message would be Bush buddies benefit from Bush signing long term energy contracts. As I mentioned they say that anyway and Bush wasn't even involved.



    Davis is a political whore. He took plenty of contributions from these companies. The if the actions are the same minus one name (Davis instead of Bush) then the darn conclusion is the same.





    Follow the cash



    Likewise if you wanted to stick it to greedy utility companies, why would you sign bills worth BILLIONS to bail them out?



    Nick




    There is a slight difference in credibility between Bush and Davis. I don't like either but it is unfair to compare the two directly.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Likewise if you wanted to stick it to greedy utility companies, why would you sign bills worth BILLIONS to bail them out?



    What other options are there?

    What states are these companies operating out of?

    Is the money guaranteed or only there upon delivery of goods?
  • Reply 34 of 37
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    There is a slight difference in credibility between Bush and Davis. I don't like either but it is unfair to compare the two directly.



    Unfair how? Tell me when Davis has EVER had any credibility to squander? The guy has never been anything but a suit with a fake name, worse haircut and the ability to sell out to the highest bidder.





    Bunge

    Quote:

    What other options are there?

    What states are these companies operating out of?

    Is the money guaranteed or only there upon delivery of goods?



    From what I understand they operated out of California (like PG&E and SCE)and outside of California. As for the other options you cannot decry them being multinationals with billions in profits on one hand and then sign bills to bail them out to the tune of billions on the other and remain credible.



    The contracts guarantee how much we will buy and at what price. Often California has had to sell the excess back at cents on the dollar.



    Take a look at this report. I really don't care if it speaks badly about Bush and company because you already have your opinions of them. However the point is Davis seriously screwed this up and deserve real serious blame for it. He has been deceptive all along especially with regard to the state deficit. He needs to go.



    Energy Crisis



    Nick
  • Reply 35 of 37
    skipjackskipjack Posts: 263member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    If they could predict the demand they could also buy the electricity to cover it without worrying about the insane prices on the spot market as well.[/B]



    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Doesn't quite work that way. Can't build a plant overnight. Energy demand was unexpectedly high that summer and our plants weren't enough. After being blindsided by our stupidity in not building enough plants ten years ago, we examined what the new power needs were during that crisis and used THOSE NEW FIGURES to develop the rolling blackouts.



    The mismanagement has been going on for a long time. Less than ten years ago there was an operating nuclear power plant in Sacramento, California. This plant was newer than the one operating in San Onofre. The plant was decommissioned for some reason like, "it wasn't being used to capacity and environmentally conscioius Northern California doesn't see the need to justify a nuclear power plant in the area".



    (Note that power produced by nuclear power plants was not subject to the price gouging, which affected petroleum products and natural gas.)



    Further back then that, there was a nuclear power plant planned near Bodega Bay, but it as never built. (Construction was started over 30 years ago. I know some of the pros and cons on that plant, but won't go into it now unless someone wants to hear the story. Otherwise, I have Physics homework to do.)
  • Reply 36 of 37
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Good unbiased post SDW congrats.



    Quote:

    I think he would win. People have trouble separating fantasy from reality.



    "I'll tour-mun-ate the budget deficit". I can hear it now.



    Haha. "I need your jacket, and your bike." Will he wear sunglasses?



    It's disturbing that people vote for actors. Though it is a sign of the times. People are fed up. Politicians can be bribed too easily, and are. Most people are removed from politics though, they don't understand them and don't seem to want to, yet they complain. It's like everyone's given up.

    \





    Quote:

    add to that the fact that he has a drop dead gorgous wife



    *barfs in mouth and swallows it*



    She likes like a skeleton bro. Always has.



    Quote:

    arnold may be able to do for California what Jesse Ventura did in Minnesota.



    Wear a pink boa?

  • Reply 37 of 37
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    I guess that's why my tuition just got a 20% hike



    I feel your pain.



    Hey CDonG4 good to see you back. Will you be a CDonG5 next month.
Sign In or Register to comment.