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