Re: Second day of rolling blackouts starts

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039B05 () condor mhsc com>, Roeland Me
yer writes:
> The "gamble", as you put it, was changed significantly when deregulation
> moved the goal-posts. It was dependent on the utilities retaining control of
> generator costs. The de-regulators were supposed to cover that scenario.
> They didn't. If an indivudual tried this, with another individual, they call
> it extortion and the individual in queston would be rotting in jail. The
> salient fact is that the generators are threatening to bankrupt PG&E unless
> the state pays the extortion amount, by midnight.
>
> Does anyone have a clue what would happen if the state doesn't pay? Would
> the state have to step in and start operating PG&E? IMHO, if this isn't
> corrected, todays rolling blackouts will be trivial, compared to a total
> PG&E collapse of services.

If PG&E files for bankruptcy, control of the company passes to a 
federal judge.  If you subscribe to the NY Times site, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/national/18ENER.html
Here's the first paragraph:

            LOS ANGELES, Jan. 17 - Politicians and
            power company executives have bickered
            for months about how best to solve
            California's energy problems, but ultimately it
            may come down to this: a bankruptcy court
            judge may be the only person with the authority
            to ask for the rate increases and cost cuts that a
            growing chorus of analysts say are necessary,
            but that nobody in the state has been able to
            agree upon.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb