<html> <blockquote type=cite cite>So where are you headed with your study, Brad? My friend at FERC is very interested in a public discussion of the lack of market info, and FERC's disinterest in its reponsibilities, despite publicly claiming otherwise, as a way to get to the bottom of things. Like what sense does dereg make for an essential commodity like electricity, capital intensely produced, and without the demand and supply elasticities necessary for markets to work.</blockquote> Thanks to Roger Odisio and "Leslielake" for their responses.  At bottom, I'm headed thus:  To show that this is a crisis of capital accumulation (i.e., profits) - in this context , a highly socialized capital (which is what the phrase "essential commodity like electricity" means for me), not of the "market" (which, in relatively deregulated form is working precisely as it should, with a spot market clearing price and attendant chaos reverberating throughout the rest of the economy/society.  Not even to mention that this is not due to a "lack"  of power generation capacity, although demonstrating this is my point of departure, since in all likelihood this will be the easiest thing to refute. The practical aim is to refute this and the attendant claim that rate regulation is the "cause" of the impending bankruptcy of the utilities.  "Environmentalists" blocking capacity/generation and "regulations" preventing cost pass through are the obvious scapegoats.  The is the dominant corporate/right wing theme emerging here in California. Note that this also differs for the traditional Nader/progressive approach (more power to them, though, politically speaking), with its focus on the market, rather than on capital. So, I'm looking for, over the last 10 years, for the U.S. AND Canada: 1) Physical capacity / generation, broken down across energy sources (I already have generation statistics for the US broken down across both energy sources and "utility/non-utility" sources; 2) Description of the regulatory distinction between "utility" and "non-utility" sources - are "non-utilities" less regulated?  Is this where "asset shifting" has gone to?  (I, and many others, of course, have already noted that the "non-utility" suppliers are heavily natural gas dependent, and that natural gas as a source has grown rapidly recently.  This may suggest a relatively unregulated environment.) 3) Market:  a) Description of different market sectors ("spot" versus anything else, geographically different markets, etc.);  b) Prices across energy sources, across market sectors, electrical transmission prices.  It is here, and not in physical capacity or availability, that I expect we'll find Californias' difficulty as an electricity importer; 4) Finally, capitalization and profits at the "top" holding company level (to use the old-fashioned term).  This is the cause of #3 above.  I would expect to find "thieves" engorged with booty. But let's see. And, yes, FERC is pretty much crap as a source.  It certainly needs "democratization". -Brad Mayer Oakland, CA /*********************************************************************** "Sure I was young and impulsive once--I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to Socialist meetings and learned all those old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser, and that's why I'm turning you in. So Love Me, Love Me, Love Me--I'm A Liberal." <x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab>-Phil Ochs ************************************************************************/</html>