Gene Coyle writes:
>An aside re Jim's post -- nuclear investments did benefit from rate of
return regulation -- but that is NOT to say they were driven by
regulation. Investments still have to make financial sense under any
regime, regulated or not.<
I think I said that the old style regulation in California (before the dereg) _encouraged_ investment in nukes. As I understand it, the old-style regulation system (based on a guaranteed "fair" rate of return) encouraged investments that raised the value of the rate base, since profits under this system = the rate base times the fair rate of return. Nukes filled this bill, though it's possible that other large investments could have done so, too.
Jim
- [PEN-L:33536] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Right wing sees the light! (almost), (continued)
- [PEN-L:33536] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Right wing sees the light! (almost), Eugene Coyle Tue 31 Dec 2002, 18:18 GMT
- [PEN-L:33530] Re: ideology in prehistory, Waistline2 Tue 31 Dec 2002, 16:14 GMT
- [PEN-L:33526] not the glitziest honours list, Chris Burford Tue 31 Dec 2002, 14:59 GMT
- [PEN-L:33527] PK on deflation, Devine, James Tue 31 Dec 2002, 14:59 GMT
- [PEN-L:33524] RE: Re: Re: RE: Right wing sees the light! (almost ), Devine, James Tue 31 Dec 2002, 04:21 GMT
- [PEN-L:33522] Mises.org on dollar fall, Chris Burford Tue 31 Dec 2002, 00:14 GMT
- [PEN-L:33521] AB 1890, Dan Scanlan Mon 30 Dec 2002, 21:43 GMT
- [PEN-L:33520] Havana conference CORRECTION, Bill Burgess Mon 30 Dec 2002, 21:39 GMT
- [PEN-L:33518] Re: RE: Right wing sees the light! (almost), Nomiprins Mon 30 Dec 2002, 18:45 GMT