another question

Hi Jeff,
?
Did you get my email last week?
?
I really hate the fact that questions of fact are so hard to get answered,
because nobody seems to be able to answer energy issue questions that aren't
tinged with political implications. It seems to me that certain questions
ought to be answerable purely on the basis of simple empirical fact.
?
For example, in the paper today it says "San Diego Gas & Electric was the
first utility to sell its power plants, and under the deregulation law was
then freed from the state-imposed rate caps."
?
Thus, is the problem with PG&E that it never sold ALL its plants? I know it
sold some (the one near us, Moss Landing, is owned by Duke, for example.) So
was the sole reason PG&E was unable to raise their rates to meet their costs
of buying energy the fact that it hadn't sold all its plants? If so, does
that mean, say, if PG&E had kept 1% of its plants, and the other 99% of the
power it sold it had to buy on the unregulated wholesale market, it would
have been prevented from raising its rates for 100% of the power it sold (or
resold)?to its customers? If so, what WAS the percentage of power plants
PG&E DIDN'T sell? Did they try to sell these? Were they just unable to find
any buyers? You'd think, with the amount of money they claimed to be losing
everyday, they could have GIVEN those plants away and made money off the
deal. What is wrong with my understanding here?
?
Rory
?