When it comes to power, New York is not California.

Tight, but adequate. Possible spikes, but no real effect. A reserve that can cover excess hot weather demand. Shop around, negotiate the best deal possible, and be aware that any price increases are most likely to be in natural gas use. And bottom line, New York is not California.

That was the message Con Edison's president and chief operating officer Kevin Burke delivered to the more than 300 professionals who for his forecast on power supply this summer at the BOMN/NY June luncheon.

"New York is not California because in New York we have enough power to meet demand. We forecast demand, factor in weather, and require each ESCO and utility to have at least an 18% reserve available to cover unusual circumstances," he explained. "New York City also has the advantage of generating 80% of is peak forecast demand from within the metropolitan area. By contrast, California has no requirement, as well as the now well-known fact that no new plants are coming on line in the foreseeable future."

The ten additional New York Power Authority plants that are coming on-line this summer are on schedule, Burke remarked, and are providing "tight but adequate supply." And with the reserve system in place, "we can actually service more than 100% of our usual demand."

He also does not anticipate problems with service reliability.

Price, which is always a concern and was a huge contributing factor to the bankruptcies of California's utilities, should hold steady, with the only increases coming from the natural gas market. (The Golden

State is heavily dependent on natural gas, which represents 50% of its overall commodity mix, as compared to the 28% used by New York.) The utility leader also spoke out against price caps, calling for the competitive forces of the market to be left in place. He cautioned about the possibility of seeing spikes, but added that they will have no real effect on the market, despite the fact that "the press may jump on these as news."

A lack of funding prevented California from investing in distribution and transmission upgrades. In contrast, New York will invest more than $2.5 billion over the next two years. Further distancing New York's energy status from that of California is the fact that "the political leadership in California did not address issues that were glaring shortfalls.