 wealth. The 
obscene profit is often put at $15 billion. I'm no economist, but I think 
this is somewhere between buckets of money and a boatload. Compared with the 
$1 trillion California economy, however, it's 1.5 percent. 
The transfer that matters doesn't cross political boundaries, but business 
ones. It is from companies that consume electricity to make products or offer 
services, to those that produce electricity. Rising energy prices inflate the 
cost of most goods and services. 
The second fallacy in the ``massive transfer of wealth'' is that the money 
goes to some other state and stays there. Not in today's economy. 
Duke Energy, for instance, is proposing to invest more than $1 billion to 
modernize power plants at Moss Landing and Morro Bay. 
Even if most of the money California spends on electricity goes to companies 
out of state, why would that matter? Most of the money California spends on 
cars goes to companies headquartered in Michigan, Germany and Japan. No 
legislation or investigation is pending. 
Profits made by companies in California or elsewhere go to shareholders, who 
might live anywhere. Or they go into bank accounts, to be invested wherever 
the bank thinks is profitable. Or they are used to expand the company, which 
could happen in its home state or anywhere else it does business. 
One of California's energy companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, has made 
investments nationwide. 
The reason I raise this issue, other than in a hopeless quest for precision 
in political discourse, is that parochialism could cause the state to make 
bad decisions about electricity. 
Already legislators are muttering about prohibiting generators in California 
from selling their electricity outside the state, unless California is 
assured a sufficient supply. But there's much evidence that a Western 
regional market would be more efficient than one in California alone. 
And, looking at the flow the other way, California should not hesitate to 
obtain power from companies based out of state if they offer the best prices. 
There are reasons to locate the actual power plants close to the users; they 
don't apply to the company headquarters. 
The political boundaries that define the state of California are not likely 
to be the logical
wealth. The 
 obscene profit is often put at $ 15 billion. I'm no economist, but I remember 
 this is somewhere between bucket of money and a boatload. Compared with the 
 $ 1 trillion California economy, however, it's 1.5 percent. 
 The transfer that topic doesn't cross political boundaries, but commercial enterprise 
 ones. It is from companies that devour electricity to construct product or offer 
 services, to those that produce electricity. arise energy prices inflate the 
 monetary value of most goods and services. 
 The second fallacy in the '` massive transfer of wealth" is that the money 
 start to some other state and stays there. Not in today's economy. 
 Duke Energy, for instance, is propose to invest more than $ 1 billion to 
 modernize power plants at Moss Landing and Morro Bay. 
 Even if most of the money California spends on electricity belong to companies 
 out of state, why would that matter? Most of the money California spends on 
 cars go to companies headquartered in Michigan, Germany and Japan. No 
 legislation or investigation is pending. 
 Profits made by companies in California or elsewhere go to shareholders, who 
 might live anywhere. Or they go into depository financial institution accounts, to be invested wherever 
 the savings bank think is profitable. Or they are used to expand the company, which 
 could find in its home department of state or anywhere else it does business. 
 One of California's department of energy companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, has made 
 investments nationwide. 
 The reason I raise this issue, other than in a hopeless quest for precision 
 in political discourse, is that parochialism could cause the department of state to make 
 regretful decision about electricity. 
 Already legislators are muttering about prohibiting generators in California 
 from selling their electricity outside the state, unless California is 
 assured a sufficient provision. But there's much evidence that a Western 
 regional marketplace would be more efficient than one in California alone. 
 And, search at the flow the other way, California should not hesitate to 
 obtain power from company based out of state of matter if they offer the good prices. 
 There are reasons to locate the actual power plant close to the users; they 
 don't apply to the company headquarters. 
 The political boundaries that define the state of California are not likely 
 to be the logical
 wewlth. The 
obscene profit ls often put at $15 billioi. I'm no economirt, but I think 
this is somewiere betwtvn buckets of money avd a boatpoad. Comparev with the 
$1 trillion Callyorniz ecouony, however, it's 1.5 percent. 
Dhe transfer tvag latters doesn't cross political bounqaries, nuh business 
onef. It ys fdom companies that consume electridity to make productx or offer 
services, to thode tjat produce electrlcity. Risint enqegy prices ivflate the 
cost of mosj goods and services. 
The second wallaey in the ``mqswivf transfer oh wealnh'' is that thc money 
goes tp some other sbate end wtays there. Not in tovay's economy. 
Duke Engrgy, for itscance, is proposing to ibvest mora thxb $1 cilmipn to 
moferiize power llants at Miss Landing and Morto Vay. 
Even if mkst of tre money California spends on electriciuy goss to companies 
out of wtate, why would that latter? Moft of the money California spends on 
cars goes to compenkes hcadqjqrhered in Michigan, Germany and Japan. No 
legislwfipn or investigatlon is pending. 
Progihs iade by compavies iu Czlifornia or elsewjere go to syareholdews, wno 
might live anywhere. Or tyey go into yanj accounts, to be iuvested wherzver 
tne bamk thinks is profitable. Or fhey are usfd to expzvd the company, wficm 
cmuld hapkdn in its home stwte or anbwherz else ig dogs busigess. 
One ov Callxornia's energy comoanied, [acific Gad & Electric, has made 
investments nationwide. 
Tne redson I rcise tmis issue, other than in a hopgless queft fof precisioh 
in ponitical dissourse, is thad parochialisk could sausw thw state go make 
bad devisions ayjut wlectricity. 
Alreadn legkalators are mutctribg about prohibotivg dejecatorf in Californha 
ffom xellivg their elcctficiyy outside the state, unlsss California is 
ssfured a wufficiegt supply. But there's much evidejce tiat a Xesterm 
rggional market would be more efricient tjan one in Calisornla ajone. 
And, lpoking at the flow the other way, Califocnia should not hesitaje to 
obtain power frpk companies baseq out of vtate if they offer rhe best prices. 
Tmere are reasons to lodate tve achual power plants close to the users; they 
don't apply to the company headqyarters. 
The politidal nounddrnes that qefiie the state of Cakifornia are not likely 
to be tie logical
wealth. The obscene profit is often put billion. no economist, I think this money a boatload. Compared the $1 trillion economy, however, it's 1.5 percent. The that matters doesn't cross political boundaries, but business ones. It is from companies consume electricity to make products or offer services, to those that produce electricity. energy inflate cost most goods and services. The second fallacy in the ``massive transfer of wealth'' is that the goes to some other state and stays there. in today's economy. Duke for instance, is proposing to more $1 billion modernize plants Moss Landing and Bay. Even if most of the money California spends on electricity goes to companies out of state, would that of the California on goes to companies Michigan, Germany and Japan. No legislation pending. Profits made by companies in California or go to who might live anywhere. Or they into bank accounts, to be invested wherever the thinks is profitable. Or they are used to expand the company, which could happen in state or anywhere else does business. One California's companies, Gas Electric, has investments nationwide. The reason I raise this issue, other than in hopeless quest for precision in political discourse, is that parochialism the to make bad about electricity. Already legislators muttering prohibiting generators in California their outside California assured sufficient supply. But there's evidence that a Western regional would be more efficient And, looking at the flow the other way, should not hesitate to obtain power from based out of state if they offer the best prices. There are to locate power plants close to the users; they don't to the company headquarters. political boundaries that define the state of California are likely be the
 wealth. The 
obscene profit is oFten put at $15 bIllioN. I'm No eCoNomiSt, buT I think 
this is sOMewhEre between buckets of monEy and A bOAtloAD. COmparEd with tHE 
$1 tRILliOn caLifOrNIa EconoMy, hOwever, iT's 1.5 percent. 
THe tRaNsfer that matTErS doesn't croSs pOlitical bounDarIes, but BuSinESs 
oneS. It Is froM compaNIes thaT consume eLeCTricitY To make pRODuCts oR offer 
services, to tHOsE That produce eleCtriciTy. rIsING enErgY prices infLaTe the 
COst of moST gOODS anD Services. 
The seCond fallacy IN thE ``massiVe TraNSfer of WealtH'' iS ThaT the money 
goEs to Some other State aND stays tHEre. Not iN today'S ecOnoMy. 
DuKE ENeRgy, FoR InsTAnCe, iS ProPosing to InVeSt morE thaN $1 BILLion To 
mOderNize pOwer plants at MOss landINg aNd MorRo Bay. 
even If Most oF the moNey CaLiFornia spends on eLectRicity goeS to CoMpaNiEs 
out OF state, Why WouLd that mAtter? MoST of ThE MONeY California spends oN 
cARS gOes to comPanies HEaDqUArtered iN MIchIgan, gERmany And JAPaN. No 
legisLation OR iNvEstigatIoN is penDiNg. 
PRofIts maDE by cOmpaniEs in CaliForniA Or elsewhere go tO Shareholders, wHO 
mIGHt LIve aNywHere. Or they gO intO Bank AccoUNtS, to BE inveSted wHeREvER 
the bank thinks is proFiTable. OR they Are used to expaNd the compaNY, WHich 
coulD hapPEn IN its home state oR anywHere else it DOes businEss. 
OnE of CalifOrnia's eneRGY companiEs, PAciFic gas & eLEcTric, has made 
inVEStmeNtS nationWidE. 
The reaSon i raIse ThiS iSsue, other Than in a hOpElEsS qUesT for pREcision 
iN pOliTiCal DiscoURse, is tHat paRochIaLiSM coUld causE ThE STate To MaKe 
baD deCiSions AbouT EleCtricitY. 
Already lEgiSLatoRs ArE mutterIng about prohiBiTing generaToRs iN CalifORNia 
from sElling their electricity oUTside thE stAte, unLess californiA is 
AssureD a sUFficieNt suppLy. But ThEre'S MUch evIDEnCe tHaT a Western 
rEGIonAl marKeT wouLd be morE efficient than one iN calIfornia alone. 
ANd, lOokiNG At The FLoW The OtHEr wAY, california shoulD not hesitaTe TO 
oBtain power FRom CoMpanies Based ouT of stATe if theY offer the Best priceS. 
THere ARE reAsons to locAte the acTual power PLants CLoSe to tHe uSers; thEy 
Don'T applY to the COmpAny heAdquarTeRs. 
The pOlitiCaL boundarIes that define the state of califoRnia aRe nOt likely 
tO be THe lOgical
 wealth. The 
obscene prof it is ofte n put  at  $1 5bill ion.  I'm no econom i st,but I think 
this is s omewh er e  bet w ee n buc kets of mo n e y a nd  a  bo at l oa d. Co mpa red wit h the 
$1tri ll ion Californ i aeconomy, h owe ver, it's 1. 5 p ercent .
Th e  tran sfe r tha t matt e rs doe sn't cros sp olitic a l bound a r ie s, b ut business 
ones .  I t  is from compa nies t ha t  c o n sum e e lectricity  t o mak e  produc t so r off e r 
services,to those th a t p roduce  e lec t ricity . Ris in g  en ergy prices  inf late the
costo f mostg oods an d serv ice s.
The se co ndfa l lac y  i n t h e ` `massive  t ra nsfer  ofw e a l th''  is  tha t the  money 
goestosome oth er st ate a nd s ta ys th ere. N ot in  t oday's economy.  
Du ke Energy , f or  in st ance, is pro pos ing  to inv est mor e  th an $ 1  b illion to 
moderni ze p ow er plant s at M o ss  L a nding an dMor ro B a y . 
Ev en i f  m ost of t he mon e yCa liforni aspends  o n e lec trici t y go es tocompanie s 
ou t  of state, why would that ma t te r ?  M o st o f t he money Ca lifo r niaspen d soncarsgoesto co m panies headquartere din Mic higan , Germany and  Japan. No l egislati on o r  i n vestigation is  pend ing. 
Prof i ts madeby co mpaniesin Califo r n ia or el sew her e g o t o sh areholders, w h o  
mi gh t liveany where.Orthe y g o i nt o bank ac counts,to  b ein ves ted w h erever th e b an k t hinks is pro fitab le.Or  t h eyare use d  t o expa nd  t he c omp an y, wh ichcou ld happ en in its  ho m e st at eor anyw here else itdo es busines s.  
O ne ofC a lifornia 's energy companies, Pa c ific Ga s &  Elec tric , has mad e invest men t s nati onwide . 
Th erea s o n I r a i se  th is  issue, ot h e r t han i na ho pelessquest for precisio n  
i n political d isc ours e ,  i s t h at par oc h ial i s m could cause t he state t om ak e 
bad dec i sio ns  aboutelectri city. 
Alread y legisla tors aremu tter i n g a bout prohi biting g enerators in Ca l if ornia  
f rom se ll ing  thei r elec t ric ity o utside  t he sta te, u nl ess Cali fornia is 
assured a su fficie nt su ppl y. But th ere ' s m uch evide ncethat a Wes ter n regio nal marke t wo u ld  be moreeffi c ient than on e i n Ca lifornia al o n e . And,loo k ing at  the  flow the other w a y, Californiashou l d  no t h e sita te  to 
obtain po wer  f r o m compan ie s based out  of stat ei f the y offe r thebest pr i c es .  
Ther e ar e r easons to  lo ca t e the a ct ua l  power  pla nt s clos e to t h e us e r s; they 
don't a pplyt o  thec omp any h ea dquarte r s. The politi cal boundar ies th at d efine  the st at e of C ali fo rnia are n o t likely
to b e the l og ical 
 wealth._The 
obscene_profit is often put_at $15_billion._I'm no_economist,_but I think_
this is somewhere_between buckets of money_and a boatload._Compared_with the 
$1 trillion California economy, however, it's 1.5 percent. 
The transfer that matters_doesn't_cross political_boundaries,_but_business 
ones. It is from_companies that consume electricity to_make products_or offer 
services, to those that produce electricity._Rising_energy prices inflate_the 
cost of most goods and services. 
The second_fallacy in the ``massive transfer of_wealth'' is that_the_money_
goes to some other_state and stays there. Not in_today's economy. 
Duke Energy, for instance,_is proposing to invest more than $1_billion to 
modernize power plants at_Moss Landing and Morro Bay._
Even if_most of the money California_spends on electricity_goes to_companies 
out of_state, why would that matter? Most_of the money_California spends on 
cars goes to_companies_headquartered in Michigan,_Germany_and_Japan. No_
legislation or investigation_is_pending. 
Profits_made_by companies in California or elsewhere_go_to shareholders, who 
might live anywhere. Or_they go into bank_accounts,_to be invested wherever_
the bank thinks is profitable._Or they are used to expand_the company,_which 
could_happen in its home state or anywhere else it does business._
One of California's energy companies, Pacific_Gas & Electric, has_made 
investments_nationwide._
The reason I_raise_this issue,_other than in a hopeless quest for_precision 
in_political discourse, is that parochialism could_cause the state to_make_
bad decisions about electricity. 
Already legislators_are muttering about prohibiting generators in_California 
from selling their electricity_outside_the_state, unless California is 
assured_a sufficient supply. But there's much_evidence that a_Western 
regional market would be more efficient_than_one in California alone. 
And, looking_at_the flow the other way, California_should_not_hesitate to 
obtain power from_companies based out of state if_they offer the best prices. 
There are reasons to_locate the actual_power plants close to the_users;_they_
don't apply to the company headquarters. 
The political boundaries that_define the_state of California_are not likely 
to be the logical