At Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:50:01 -0800, "Raymond D. Mereniuk" <Raymond@fbn.bc.ca> wrote:

In my initial message I stated the current rise in natural gas prices are caused by multiple factors. [blah blah blah]

That's outright bullshit. You wrote: "The bad decisions of the citizens of California have produced an energy crisis in what is called the Northwest for which all citizens in what is called the Northwest must pay the price." You said nothing about other factors. Nothing at all. You also ignore that your subject was "The Cost of California Liberalism." That was your point, wasn't it? To blame California Liberalism for your home heating bills?

On top of these factors I stated the greater portion of the increase was created by un-expected demand in California.

Greater portion in what terms? Land area? Population? IQ? Ralph Nader voters? It's an easy game to play when your claims are based on things like a whole bunch of Californians using more power than relatively few Vancouverites. And how much of this unexpected California demand was caused by California Liberalism? Have Sierra Club members been baking lots of extra cookies lately? Or is it all the electric cars that are selling like hotcakes? No, I got it, all those people living in trees to keep them from getting cut down to be used for firewood are forcing people to use their electric heaters, that's it, right? Or are you just going back to blaming Californian Liberals for preferring natural gas for electric power generation and saying it's their fault that you use the same fuel source to heat your home?

Coupled with the low water situation, and the resulting decrease in hydro generated power, the increased use of natural gas powered generating capacity would be expected to cause an increase in the price of a commodity in which the increase in demand was unexpected or exceeded supply.

No shit, but what does this have to do with California Liberalism?

If a power generating utility had built new power plants and commited to a fuel supply (and the accompanying infrastructure) the likelihood of unexpected prices increases would be much lower.

So? As you now admit, the demand was unexpected. Why would a utility build a new plant and commit to a fuel supply for unexpected demand? You say they're using reserve natural gas fueled plants to meet unexpected demand. Isn't this what they're supposed to do? Do you actually expect power utilities to build plants and commit to fuel they don't expect a need for just to provide a buffer for natural gas prices? That's not what happens in a deregulated environment and I don't think California's electric utility deregulation is considered a result of California Liberalism. Is it?