Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hreg] Re: Electricity deregulation

Expand Messages
  • ChasMauch@aol.com
    Oops! In my previous email I meant to say - phasing OUT fossil fuels and phasing in renewables. Charlie
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops! In my previous email I meant to say - phasing OUT fossil fuels and
      phasing in renewables.
      Charlie
    • James Ferrill
      Charlie, I was going to wait until after dereg started to even consider switching. Every piece of info I saw stated in the fine print that the prices were only
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Charlie,

        I was going to wait until after dereg started to even consider switching. Every piece of info I saw stated in the fine print that the prices were only guaranteed until the end of the year. So they aren't committing to anything. I came to the same pricing conclusion that Mike did about Green Mountain, but deferred signing up until I could find out where exactly they had a wind farm, whether they guarantee 100% renewable use, and how much "dirty" system power are they allowed to use in the mix? And heaven only knows what wrench the legislature is going to throw into the process.

        One conclusion that keeps popping into my mind: The less I use, the less I pay. 100% rate of return on conservation.

        My 2 cents.

        James

        At 10:17 PM 6/5/2001, you wrote:
        I learned something about this deregulation business last week by losing an
        argument to someone more knowledgeable than I am. At least I think I did.
        Maybe he just outtalked me and I didn't know enough to defend myself. Here is
        what I think he said.
        All providers are required to get 3% of their power from renewable sources,
        so my thinking was that eventually everyone would end up buying 3% of their
        power from renewables, whether they wanted to or not and no matter who they
        buy their juice from. So if we could get 1000s of people to sign up with
        Green Mountain and get 100% from wind, since everyone is buying 3% renewables
        and we are buying 100% renewables over and above the base requirement, we
        might achieve much more than 3% and maybe get the total up to 5% or 10% or
        more of the statewide supply from renewables.
        But I was told that the 3% is a sort of cap that is essentially subsidized,
        and if we exceed that statewide from all providers averaged together the
        subsidy goes away on all over 3% and the price will go up substantially -
        enough to make it uneconomical for anyone to buy it (or to produce it) so no
        one will. When the competition gets under way (I guess it has already) to
        build more green supply, the big boys will build just enough to make their 3%
        or maybe less and buy the rest from others. The small independent suppliers
        providing the excess capacity will be squeezed out and it will all end up
        controlled by the same old crowd of Reliant and Enron and the like.
        So at this point it looks to me like this is pretty much of a scam on the
        part of the big producers - a way for them to start gradually phasing into
        fossil fuels and looking very green while really just responding to
        inevitable market forces. They will gradually get the cap raised as needed in
        the future to keep the game going.
        Maybe I'm confused about this. I have not made a detailed study of the rules
        and certainly can't read anyone's motives. They say we now have the most
        progressive law along this line anywhere in the world which is an incredible
        first for Texas, even though I'm paranoid enough to just assume that even if
        they did the right thing it's almost certainly for the wrong reasons. I guess
        that's OK but since I believe we have too much corporate dominance of our
        economy already, I would at least like to understand what is really going on.
        The above probably isn't very clear but hopefully you all can follow what I'm
        trying to say. Maybe someone at TxSES can enlighten me on this.
        Charlie

      • mike schmitt
        I just tried to call Green Mountain to ask them some of the questions you guys have talked about tonight. I got the recorded message that ..leave your name and
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I just tried to call Green Mountain to ask them some of the questions you guys have talked about tonight. I got the recorded message that ..leave your name and number and a time that we can reach you.. message. they are open from 8 to 5 PM during the week and 7 to 7 on the weekend. I would love to think that dereg is going to be good for me but something tells me to be careful. If anyone else tries calling and gets through find out if they even have the wind farm fully operational. I looked on their web site and could not find out if the farm was up and running. this is the only information I could find:
           
           

          Q. What difference can I make by choosing Green Mountain Energy Company?
          A. By choosing Green Mountain Energysm, you are helping change the way power is made. Every Green Mountain Energy Company customer helps create more demand for electricity generated from cleaner and renewable resources, rather than non-renewable sources like coal and oil. One example of creating demand, is the construction of new renewable facilities. To date, five such facilities have been built in California and Pennsylvania to meet the demand of our customers.  they don't even mention where in Texas.. they just say a new facility in Texas

          • Three wind turbines in the San Gorgonio Pass, California
          • A solar plant in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania
          • The Solar 2000 plant in Hopland, California
          • The Green Mountain Wind Farm in Garrett, Pennsylvania
          • The solar facility in Berkeley, California
           
          One other question is ..Harvey Wassermann said on a radio program that I heard that wind power is the fastest and the cheapest to build and from what I can tell the cheapest to maintain. Why is it then the prices per KW the same as Reliant. Not ever seeing a how an electrical plant is run, I'm guessing its like our petrochemical facility where its manned 24/7. I can understand the price of electricity from a coal burning plant but why is it just as high from a wind farm, because what energy they make wont be wasted it will be used in other areas until they build up the number of users in Texas.
           
          let me know if this sound sane
           
           
           
          Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:42 PM
          Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Electricity deregulation

          Charlie,

          I was going to wait until after dereg started to even consider switching. Every piece of info I saw stated in the fine print that the prices were only guaranteed until the end of the year. So they aren't committing to anything. I came to the same pricing conclusion that Mike did about Green Mountain, but deferred signing up until I could find out where exactly they had a wind farm, whether they guarantee 100% renewable use, and how much "dirty" system power are they allowed to use in the mix? And heaven only knows what wrench the legislature is going to throw into the process.

          One conclusion that keeps popping into my mind: The less I use, the less I pay. 100% rate of return on conservation.

          My 2 cents.

          James

          At 10:17 PM 6/5/2001, you wrote:
          I learned something about this deregulation business last week by losing an
          argument to someone more knowledgeable than I am. At least I think I did.
          Maybe he just outtalked me and I didn't know enough to defend myself. Here is
          what I think he said.
          All providers are required to get 3% of their power from renewable sources,
          so my thinking was that eventually everyone would end up buying 3% of their
          power from renewables, whether they wanted to or not and no matter who they
          buy their juice from. So if we could get 1000s of people to sign up with
          Green Mountain and get 100% from wind, since everyone is buying 3% renewables
          and we are buying 100% renewables over and above the base requirement, we
          might achieve much more than 3% and maybe get the total up to 5% or 10% or
          more of the statewide supply from renewables.
          But I was told that the 3% is a sort of cap that is essentially subsidized,
          and if we exceed that statewide from all providers averaged together the
          subsidy goes away on all over 3% and the price will go up substantially -
          enough to make it uneconomical for anyone to buy it (or to produce it) so no
          one will. When the competition gets under way (I guess it has already) to
          build more green supply, the big boys will build just enough to make their 3%
          or maybe less and buy the rest from others. The small independent suppliers
          providing the excess capacity will be squeezed out and it will all end up
          controlled by the same old crowd of Reliant and Enron and the like.
          So at this point it looks to me like this is pretty much of a scam on the
          part of the big producers - a way for them to start gradually phasing into
          fossil fuels and looking very green while really just responding to
          inevitable market forces. They will gradually get the cap raised as needed in
          the future to keep the game going.
          Maybe I'm confused about this. I have not made a detailed study of the rules
          and certainly can't read anyone's motives. They say we now have the most
          progressive law along this line anywhere in the world which is an incredible
          first for Texas, even though I'm paranoid enough to just assume that even if
          they did the right thing it's almost certainly for the wrong reasons. I guess
          that's OK but since I believe we have too much corporate dominance of our
          economy already, I would at least like to understand what is really going on.
          The above probably isn't very clear but hopefully you all can follow what I'm
          trying to say. Maybe someone at TxSES can enlighten me on this.
          Charlie



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Claude Foster
          If you really want to know how a company is run, buy some of their stock. This will put you in the position of directing (a little bit) by voting how the
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            If you really want to know how a company is run, buy some of their stock.
            This will put you in the position of directing (a little bit) by voting how
            the company works.

            Electrical costs from conventional plants are going up as fuel cost
            increase. Wind, solar, and hydro, renewable resources, and nuclear require
            high capital expenditure and interest rates for capital are low now. Their
            are slightly more hazards associated with nuclear but the other clean
            sources have some hazards and impacts that have been set aside for a while.
            This seems to be the best of times to invest capital in energy companies.
            Green Mountain appears to be stepping in the right direction but they also
            need input from their stock holders. Lets speak together.


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: James Ferrill [SMTP:jferrill@...]
            > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:43 PM
            > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Electricity deregulation
            >
            > Charlie,
            >
            > I was going to wait until after dereg started to even consider switching.
            > Every piece of info I saw stated in the fine print that the prices were
            > only guaranteed until the end of the year. So they aren't committing to
            > anything. I came to the same pricing conclusion that Mike did about Green
            > Mountain, but deferred signing up until I could find out where exactly
            > they had a wind farm, whether they guarantee 100% renewable use, and how
            > much "dirty" system power are they allowed to use in the mix? And heaven
            > only knows what wrench the legislature is going to throw into the process.
            >
            > One conclusion that keeps popping into my mind: The less I use, the less I
            > pay. 100% rate of return on conservation.
            >
            > My 2 cents.
            >
            > James
            >
            > At 10:17 PM 6/5/2001, you wrote:
            >
            >
            > I learned something about this deregulation business last week by
            > losing an
            > argument to someone more knowledgeable than I am. At least I think I
            > did.
            > Maybe he just outtalked me and I didn't know enough to defend
            > myself. Here is
            > what I think he said.
            > All providers are required to get 3% of their power from renewable
            > sources,
            > so my thinking was that eventually everyone would end up buying 3%
            > of their
            > power from renewables, whether they wanted to or not and no matter
            > who they
            > buy their juice from. So if we could get 1000s of people to sign up
            > with
            > Green Mountain and get 100% from wind, since everyone is buying 3%
            > renewables
            > and we are buying 100% renewables over and above the base
            > requirement, we
            > might achieve much more than 3% and maybe get the total up to 5% or
            > 10% or
            > more of the statewide supply from renewables.
            > But I was told that the 3% is a sort of cap that is essentially
            > subsidized,
            > and if we exceed that statewide from all providers averaged together
            > the
            > subsidy goes away on all over 3% and the price will go up
            > substantially -
            > enough to make it uneconomical for anyone to buy it (or to produce
            > it) so no
            > one will. When the competition gets under way (I guess it has
            > already) to
            > build more green supply, the big boys will build just enough to make
            > their 3%
            > or maybe less and buy the rest from others. The small independent
            > suppliers
            > providing the excess capacity will be squeezed out and it will all
            > end up
            > controlled by the same old crowd of Reliant and Enron and the like.
            > So at this point it looks to me like this is pretty much of a scam
            > on the
            > part of the big producers - a way for them to start gradually
            > phasing into
            > fossil fuels and looking very green while really just responding to
            > inevitable market forces. They will gradually get the cap raised as
            > needed in
            > the future to keep the game going.
            > Maybe I'm confused about this. I have not made a detailed study of
            > the rules
            > and certainly can't read anyone's motives. They say we now have the
            > most
            > progressive law along this line anywhere in the world which is an
            > incredible
            > first for Texas, even though I'm paranoid enough to just assume that
            > even if
            > they did the right thing it's almost certainly for the wrong
            > reasons. I guess
            > that's OK but since I believe we have too much corporate dominance
            > of our
            > economy already, I would at least like to understand what is really
            > going on.
            > The above probably isn't very clear but hopefully you all can follow
            > what I'm
            > trying to say. Maybe someone at TxSES can enlighten me on this.
            > Charlie
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >
            > Yahoo! Domains
            > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/D=egroupmail/S=170006
            > 4177:N/A=661891/R=2/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchan
            > t-ad:dmad/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/D=egroupmail/S=1700064177:N/A=66
            > 1891/R=3/991795477+http://domains.yahoo.com/> Yahoo! Domains
            > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/D=egroupmail/S=170006
            > 4177:N/A=661891/R=4/*http://store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?ydomains+merchan
            > t-ad:dmad/M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/D=egroupmail/S=1700064177:N/A=66
            > 1891/R=5/991795477+http://domains.yahoo.com/>
            >
            >
            > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=201903.1435627.3015748.304267/D=egroupma
            > il/S=1700064177:N/A=661891/rand=261852420>
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          • William M. Bell, Jr.
            I think that Claude has hit on a great idea!!! As a shareholder, we will have access to detailed information about the company s investments into renewable
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I think that Claude has hit on a great idea!!! As a shareholder, we will
              have access to detailed information about the company's investments into
              renewable energy. I have been suspect of some of these company's claims.
              When I tried to asked specific questions, no one answered. I plan to buy
              some stock and become a customer and watch what happens. If public demand
              increases, then the competition for this area should also increase.

              Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that these
              guys are merely buying power from other producers. Not that this is bad. It
              allows us, as shareholders and customers, to influence where they go to buy.
              They are not locked into a plant that they have built or purchased. They may
              have long-term contracts, but that is generally shorter than ownership. This
              means that they can switch to wind or solar if the shareholders (the owners)
              want to do so.

              But it also means that they could be buying electricity from sources that
              are not as "green" as I would like them to be. I was never clear how much
              green had to be in the mix to allow them to call the entire enchilada
              "green." I was never really clear either on what is "green" according to
              their definition.

              William M. Bell, Jr.
              PO Box 926
              Fulshear, Texas 77441-0926
              wmb@...
              Telephone: 713-439-1115
              Fax (bus hours only) 281-346-0994

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Claude Foster <ccfoster@...>
              To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:11 AM
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Electricity deregulation


              > If you really want to know how a company is run, buy some of their stock.
              > This will put you in the position of directing (a little bit) by voting
              how
              > the company works.
              >
              > Electrical costs from conventional plants are going up as fuel cost
              > increase. Wind, solar, and hydro, renewable resources, and nuclear require
              > high capital expenditure and interest rates for capital are low now. Their
              > are slightly more hazards associated with nuclear but the other clean
              > sources have some hazards and impacts that have been set aside for a
              while.
              > This seems to be the best of times to invest capital in energy companies.
              > Green Mountain appears to be stepping in the right direction but they also
              > need input from their stock holders. Lets speak together.
              >
              >
            • Ryan McMullan
              According to GME, their power is 100% wind generated. They provide a state-mandated breakdown (by Coal and lignite, Natural gas, Nuclear, Renewable Energy)
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                According to GME, their power is 100% wind generated. They
                provide a state-mandated breakdown (by Coal and lignite, Natural gas,
                Nuclear, Renewable Energy) and their state-registered mix is 100%
                "Renewable Energy (wind)" (statewide average for Renewable is <1%). I
                think being a shareholder to get the inside track is a great idea,
                too. The closest stock I could find was Green Mountain Power (trades as
                GMP), which was trading at 15.51 today. I think that's the same or related
                company as Green Mountain Energy Company, but I'm not positive.

                Ryan

                At 02:03 PM 6/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
                >I think that Claude has hit on a great idea!!! As a shareholder, we will
                >have access to detailed information about the company's investments into
                >renewable energy. I have been suspect of some of these company's claims.
                >When I tried to asked specific questions, no one answered. I plan to buy
                >some stock and become a customer and watch what happens. If public demand
                >increases, then the competition for this area should also increase.
                >
                >Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that these
                >guys are merely buying power from other producers. Not that this is bad. It
                >allows us, as shareholders and customers, to influence where they go to buy.
                >They are not locked into a plant that they have built or purchased. They may
                >have long-term contracts, but that is generally shorter than ownership. This
                >means that they can switch to wind or solar if the shareholders (the owners)
                >want to do so.
                >
                >But it also means that they could be buying electricity from sources that
                >are not as "green" as I would like them to be. I was never clear how much
                >green had to be in the mix to allow them to call the entire enchilada
                >"green." I was never really clear either on what is "green" according to
                >their definition.
                >
                >William M. Bell, Jr.
                >PO Box 926
                >Fulshear, Texas 77441-0926
                >wmb@...
                >Telephone: 713-439-1115
                >Fax (bus hours only) 281-346-0994
                >
                >----- Original Message -----
                >From: Claude Foster <ccfoster@...>
                >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:11 AM
                >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Electricity deregulation
                >
                >
                > > If you really want to know how a company is run, buy some of their stock.
                > > This will put you in the position of directing (a little bit) by voting
                >how
                > > the company works.
                > >
                > > Electrical costs from conventional plants are going up as fuel cost
                > > increase. Wind, solar, and hydro, renewable resources, and nuclear require
                > > high capital expenditure and interest rates for capital are low now. Their
                > > are slightly more hazards associated with nuclear but the other clean
                > > sources have some hazards and impacts that have been set aside for a
                >while.
                > > This seems to be the best of times to invest capital in energy companies.
                > > Green Mountain appears to be stepping in the right direction but they also
                > > need input from their stock holders. Lets speak together.
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Michael Begley
                I asked them these questions. Here is what they said. The power they put on the grid will be 100% Texas wind power. They have three to six months from the
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  I asked them these questions. Here is what they said.
                  The power they put on the grid will be 100% Texas wind power.
                  They have three to six months from the time you use it to
                  put it on the grid. They have a contract with a 300 Mw west Texas
                  wind farm.
                  So if their customers use power equivalent to a 500 Mw consumption
                  in the summer, but only 100 Mw in the winter, it averages out.
                  I am not sure what they do if they sign up more customers
                  than they have power production.
                  In other states, Green Mountain uses natural gas plants, and
                  a small amount of wind and solar power, but here in Texas,
                  the literature claims it to be 100% renewables. I shall watch
                  and see.

                  >Charlie,
                  >
                  >I was going to wait until after dereg started to even consider switching. Every piece of info I saw stated in the fine print that the prices were only guaranteed until the end of the year. So they aren't committing to anything. I came to the same pricing conclusion that Mike did about Green Mountain, but deferred signing up until I could find out where exactly they had a wind farm, whether they guarantee 100% renewable use, and how much "dirty" system power are they allowed to use in the mix? And heaven only knows what wrench the legislature is going to throw into the process.
                  >
                  >One conclusion that keeps popping into my mind: The less I use, the less I pay. 100% rate of return on conservation.
                  >
                  >My 2 cents.
                  >
                  >James
                  >
                  --
                  --Mike
                • ChasMauch@aol.com
                  I believe Green Mountain Power was the parent company from which Green Mountain Energy was spun off and became a separate, independent company. GMP is located
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I believe Green Mountain Power was the parent company from which Green
                    Mountain Energy was spun off and became a separate, independent company. GMP
                    is located in Vermont and gets its energy from a mix of sources including
                    hydro, coal, and nuclear. GME has its office in Austin and uses all wind
                    power. GMP is publicly traded on the stock exchange but unfortunately I think
                    GME is privately held and its stock is not available to the general public.
                    I'm not sure but think that is the case. According to some literature they
                    gave me, you can get more company info from Eleanor Scott 512-691-6316 email
                    eleanor.scott@... or Marci Grossman 512-691-6310 email
                    marci.grossman@.... The website is www.greenmountain.com.
                    Charlie
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.