|
|
Enron Mail |
Please see the following articles:
Sac Bee, Fri, 5/11: "Davis signs bonds-sale bill, blasts GOP " Sac Bee, Fri, 5/11: "Senators push administration for more help on energy= =20 crisis " Sac Bee, Fri, 5/11: "Energy Digest: Company will expand plant, sell power = to=20 state " Sac Bee, Fri, 5/11: "Spreading the pain" (Editorial) SD Union, Thurs, 5/10: "Oceanside seeks ally in building power plant" SD Union (AP), Thurs, 5/10: "Davis signs bill authorizing $13.4 in bonds to repay treasury for power buying" SD Union, Thurs, 5/10: "GOP defeats first attempt to cap power prices" SD Union (AP), Thurs, 5/10: "Energy task force expected to recommend tax breaks" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Power Rescue Plan Rests on Many 'Ifs' " LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Bush, Rivals Don't Dare Ask Public to Make Sacrifice= s=20 in Energy Crunch" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "House Committe Rejects Electricity Price Controls" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Nonprofit Shrugs at Pleas to Conserve" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Restarting of Generators in O.C. Approved" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Discovery Has City Flying High" LA Times, Fri, 5/11: "Don't write off Davis energy plan" (Commentary) SF Chron, Fri, 5/11: "High bills may not spur conservation=20 PG&E, critics agree increases are too small to change habits " SF Chron, Fri, 5/11: "Power plant owners want end to PG&E contracts " SF Chron (AP), Fri, 5/11: "Developments in California's energy crisis" SF Chron, Fri, 5/11: "GOP members of House oppose price cap plan=20 Three from Southern California vote against Feinstein on electricity " SF Chron, Fri, 5/11: "PUC chief's proposal called petulant=20 Federal agencies would pay full tab for power " SF Chron, Fri, 5/11: "Sacramento decisions in state's power crisis " Mercury News, Fri, 5/11: "State leaders consider scheduled power blackouts= " Mercury News, Fri, 5/11: "Davis plan to help utility faces fight in=20 Legislature" Mercury News (AP), Fri, 5/11: "Power plant owners want end to PG&E contrac= ts" Mercury News, Fri, 5/11: "Businesses blast electricity rate-hike proposal" Mercury News, Fri, 5/11: "Households must share power costs" (Editorial) Mercury News, Fri, 5/11: "Failure to conserve fueled energy woes" =20 (Commentary) OC Register, Fri, 5/11: "Generators win 10-year revival" OC Register, Fri, 5/11: "Energy notebook Davis signs bill to sell $13.4 billion in bonds for power" OC Register, Fri, 5/11: "Not saving for a sultry day" OC Register, Fri, 5/11: "Despite opposition, AES has the power" NY Times, Fri, 5/11: "Many Utilities Call Conserving Good Business" Individual.com(Businesswire), Fri, 5/11: "PG&E Files Opposition to=20 Ratepayers'=20 Committee" Individual.com (PRnewswire), Fri, 5/11: "SCE to Curtail 'Load' for Some=20 Customers=20 Following Stage 2 Electrical Emergency Declaration" Individual.com (AP), Fri, 5/11: "For many Californians, fear of high electricity bills is a bigger threat than blackouts" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- ----------------------------------------- Davis signs bonds-sale bill, blasts GOP=20 By Emily Bazar Bee Capitol Bureau (Published May 11, 2001)=20 Accusing Republicans of "playing with fire" and jeopardizing the economy,= =20 Gov. Gray Davis on Thursday signed a bill allowing the state to sell a=20 record-setting $13.4 billion revenue bond package to finance its past and= =20 future electricity purchases.=20 The Democratic governor's harsh words capped a tense partisan standoff in t= he=20 Legislature that forced a delay in the bond sale until August.=20 Davis warned that the delay, which he blamed on GOP lawmakers, could hurt= =20 Californians if state programs are cut to pay for electricity until the bon= ds=20 are sold.=20 "They should know that their constituents may well be hurt if, as a result = of=20 their actions, cuts have to be made in law enforcement, transportation,=20 health care, education and programs for seniors," Davis said. "If I have to= =20 go into every district occupied by a member who voted against (the bill) an= d=20 make a case about why this measure is necessary, that is what I will do."= =20 Davis commended the only Republican to vote for the measure, Assemblyman=20 Anthony Pescetti of Rancho Cordova, calling his a "courageous vote in the= =20 face of blind opposition."=20 Since mid-January, the state has committed $6.7 billion from its budget to= =20 last-minute electricity purchases.=20 In order to pay that back, and to pay for power the state has lined up=20 through long-term contracts, Davis asked the Legislature to approve a bill= =20 authorizing the sale of $13.4 billion in bonds. The bonds will be repaid wi= th=20 higher customer rates over the next 15 years.=20 Assembly Republicans balked, saying the ratepayers would be saddled with de= bt=20 for too long. They proposed an $8 billion bond package instead, and suggest= ed=20 using a one-time allocation from the state budget to make up the difference= .=20 But Monday, Assembly Democrats pressed forward with the $13.4 billion figur= e.=20 Because they could not muster enough Republicans for a two-thirds vote, the= y=20 passed the measure, SB 31x, with a simple majority, requiring a 90-day wait= =20 for the bill to become law.=20 Assembly Republican leader Dave Cox of Fair Oaks said Democrats could have= =20 won Republican support if they had seriously considered the GOP proposal an= d=20 actually negotiated.=20 He accused Davis of engaging in "fear politics."=20 "We didn't hear from the governor. It kind of leaves you with the impressio= n=20 that maybe there was never any intention of negotiating," Cox said. "It was= =20 either their way or forget it."=20 The state's blueprint calls for the $13.4 billion to last until Jan. 1, 200= 3,=20 by which time wholesale electricity prices are expected to have fallen, new= =20 power plants added and debt-ridden private utilities stabilized.=20 But the plan rests on numerous assumptions beyond the state's control,=20 including the price of electricity, extent of conservation, quantity of pow= er=20 available from the Pacific Northwest and production by alternative energy= =20 suppliers.=20 Under a worst-case scenario, critics say, the state could spend the bond=20 funds within several months and be left holding the bag for $50 million or= =20 more per day in electricity bills.=20 Also Thursday, the Senate sent Davis emergency legislation that expedites= =20 power plant construction in California, two weeks after a controversial lab= or=20 amendment hung up the bill, SB 28x.=20 Lawmakers removed the amendment after Davis enacted its provisions in an=20 executive order Tuesday. He is expected to sign the bill early next week.= =20 The Bee's Emily Bazar can be reached at (916) 326-5540 or ebazar@sacbee.com= .=20 Jim Sanders and Kevin Yamamura of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to thi= s=20 report.=20 Senators push administration for more help on energy crisis=20 By James Rosen Bee Washington Bureau (Published May 11, 2001)=20 WASHINGTON -- Western senators from both parties criticized Energy Secretar= y=20 Spencer Abraham on Thursday, telling him that President Bush must respond= =20 with more urgency to rising gasoline prices and power shortages.=20 At a Senate Energy Committee hearing, Abraham also faced tough questions ov= er=20 his department's proposed $19.2 billion budget and plans to slash funding f= or=20 the development of alternative energy and more energy-efficient vehicles.= =20 "We have a pretty good plan for the long range, but we've got some problems= =20 right now, and we're going to hear more and more about it -- whether it's= =20 gasoline, whether it's electricity, whether it's the prices," said Sen. Cra= ig=20 Thomas, a Wyoming Republican. "How are you going to react to this summer's= =20 prices? And I'm not for price controls, but we need to have some reaction t= o=20 what's happening now."=20 Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon urged Abraham to push the Federal=20 Energy Regulatory Commission to control wholesale energy prices.=20 "We've never had a free market in energy, and people are truly going to wan= t=20 to see this administration appearing more engaged than it appears to be,"= =20 Smith said. "We have a crisis here, and I think it would behoove the=20 president -- it would behoove all of us -- to figure out a way to relieve= =20 this in a very aggressive way."=20 Abraham told the senators that a comprehensive energy plan, which a task=20 force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to release next week= ,=20 will provide short-term and long-term solutions to the country's=20 energy-supply problems.=20 After the hearing, Abraham vehemently denied that either he or Bush has bee= n=20 complacent about the crisis.=20 "I take a little bit of umbrage, whether it's from Republicans or Democrats= ,=20 at the suggestion ... that we're not moving with sufficient urgency," Abrah= am=20 said. "We've moved as fast as we can in the short period of time we've been= =20 in office."=20 Abraham said the Bush administration has been especially responsive to the= =20 problems in California.=20 "From the very first day that I was secretary, I was on the phone with=20 (California Gov.) Gray Davis, finding out what challenges he had and how we= =20 could help," Abraham said. "Within three days of taking office, we supporte= d=20 his call for emergency orders to provide natural gas and electricity to=20 California.=20 "We have subsequently responded favorably to virtually every request he has= =20 made, from expediting permits that relate to new generation to helping with= =20 respect to his desire to move forward with the acquisition of the=20 transmission system to last week's conservation measures. The only thing we= =20 haven't done is agree to what we consider an unwise decision to impose pric= e=20 caps. And that, I think, would only make the conditions more severe."=20 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said the federal government= =20 should probe widespread signs that power suppliers have created artificial= =20 shortages in the state.=20 The Bee's James Rosen can be reached at (202) 383-0014 or=20 jrosen@mcclatchydc.com.=20 Energy Digest: Company will expand plant, sell power to state=20 (Published May 11, 2001)=20 A Huntington Beach power plant will be required to sell its increased outpu= t=20 in California in exchange for speeded-up approval of an expansion project,= =20 the state Energy Commission agreed Thursday in a 4-0 vote.=20 The decision comes after some commission lawyers and Gov. Gray Davis' offic= e=20 initially had said they were concerned that such a requirement might violat= e=20 the U.S. Constitution.=20 But the plant's owner, AES Huntington Beach, eventually agreed to the=20 California-sales provision for the electricity it will produce by reviving= =20 two mothballed steam turbines, commission Administrative Judge Garret Shean= =20 said.=20 The commission granted the project licensing approval Thursday, and AES wil= l=20 contract with the state for 450 megawatts, the expansion project's full=20 output, according to Davis' office. The expansion should be completed by la= te=20 summer.=20 --Carrie Peyton=20 Panel rejects price controls WASHINGTON -- California Republicans led a successful effort Thursday to=20 defeat an amendment that would have imposed price controls on wholesale pow= er=20 rates in an effort to lower the state's $1.5 billion monthly tab for=20 electricity purchases.=20 Thursday's vote was the first test in a drive by Western lawmakers to put t= he=20 brakes on skyrocketing power rates which, in California, have zoomed tenfol= d=20 over past year.=20 By a 20-12 vote, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's energy and air= =20 quality subcommittee rejected a price controls amendment to an emergency=20 electricity package offered by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.=20 "What the Republican-dominated committee has said is, 'California, drop=20 dead,' " Waxman said after the vote.=20 Patterned after legislation introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein,= =20 D-Calif., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., the Waxman amendment would require=20 wholesale rates to be pegged at the price of production, plus a profit=20 margin.=20 --David Whitney=20 Small generators' claims aired SAN FRANCISCO -- U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali on Thursday wrestled= =20 with but did not come close to solving the problems of 300 small energy=20 generators, including many who claim they're on the verge of collapse becau= se=20 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has not paid them a total of about $1 billion.= =20 They supply about 15 percent of PG&E's electricity, according to the=20 utility's figures. James Lopes, PG&E's bankruptcy lawyer, said all but eigh= t=20 of the facilities now are operating.=20 But so far, more than two dozen producers of solar and wind power, biomass= =20 and cogeneration have asked the judge to order PG&E to pay them or release= =20 them from their contracts. Voiding the contracts would drive up the prices= =20 they could charge but might keep them from going off line before summer, wh= en=20 they're most needed.=20 Montali set a May 24 hearing to assess the immediate harm facing four=20 cogeneration companies whose combined motion for relief came up first in th= e=20 PG&E Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.=20 He was unsympathetic during Thursday's hearing to arguments that PG&E, even= =20 when it pays at the contracted rate, doesn't pay enough to keep the small= =20 generators in business. But he gave no indication of his ultimate ruling.= =20 --Claire Cooper=20 Spreading the pain=20 (Published May 11, 2001)=20 Monday the California Public Utilities Commission faces a $4.8 billion=20 question: How should regulators divvy up the electricity rate increase they= =20 approved in March between residential customers and businesses?=20 All customer classes of the private utilities must bear some of the burden = of=20 the higher costs for the electricity the state is now purchasing for Pacifi= c=20 Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison (this rate increase does no= t=20 pertain to municipal power agencies such as SMUD).=20 The right way to do that is to spread the higher electricity costs between= =20 residences and businesses in proportion to their use of power. This princip= le=20 will result in a higher average percentage increase for manufacturers and= =20 commercial businesses because they now have lower per-kilowatt rates than= =20 residences, but a rate structure that reflects their power usage.=20 But businesses shouldn't get saddled with some of the burden that belongs t= o=20 residential customers, as two of the plans before the PUC propose.=20 A new law prohibits the PUC from increasing the rates on residential=20 electricity consumption below 130 percent of "baseline." Depending on wheth= er=20 one believes the PUC or PG&E, the law exempts anywhere from one-third to=20 one-half of residential customers from any rate hikes.=20 Had they not been exempted, however, their proportional share of the=20 necessary rate increase would have been $1.1 billion. The Legislature=20 exempted these customers as a way to protect lower-income consumers as well= =20 as those who conserve. Lawmakers didn't say, however, who should pay for th= is=20 $1.1 billion in their place.=20 This thankless task now falls to the PUC. Two proposals -- one by PUC=20 President Loretta Lynch, another by an administrative law judge -- answer t= he=20 $1.1 billion question in the wrong way. Both proposals seek to shift most o= f=20 this $1.1 billion burden from the residential class onto manufacturers and= =20 businesses.=20 That's both unfair and bad for the economy. This burden belongs solely to t= he=20 residential class. Because the PUC cannot impose it on usage below 130=20 percent of baseline, regulators must impose it on the other residential=20 customers who are using the most electricity.=20 Yes, this would increase their rates even more steeply than Lynch is alread= y=20 proposing. But it sends the right signal to large users of electricity to= =20 turn down the air conditioner and turn off unneeded appliances and lighting= .=20 The alternative is to subsidize their excesses through higher bills on=20 businesses, as Lynch and the judge are proposing. Many manufacturers in=20 California will struggle to stay afloat as they cope with their own fair=20 share of the costs. Making them take part of the residential share of the= =20 rate increase will deepen their distress and hurt the state's economy. It= =20 does residential ratepayers no good to have protection for their electricit= y=20 bills if the protection costs them their jobs.=20 Oceanside seeks ally in building power plant=20 By Lola Sherman=20 UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER=20 May 10, 2001=20 OCEANSIDE -- The City Council wants to generate electricity any way it can,= =20 including possibly building a power plant jointly with Camp Pendleton.=20 It also may partner with a nearby city or the county.=20 And it hopes at least to get some power from its green waste and its sewage= =20 plant.=20 A council majority informally decided last night to pursue a joint project= =20 with Camp Pendleton even after an energy consultant advised against trying = to=20 work with the military.=20 Al Figueroa of San Diego, the consultant, said the Marines' needs always wi= ll=20 come before the city's.=20 "For a large system and long-term commitments, the Pentagon will be=20 involved," he said. "The U.S. government will not give an inch but will tak= e=20 a mile. If you want full rein over your own destiny, look elsewhere."=20 Former Councilman Sam Williamson, the only person to speak from the audienc= e=20 on the issue, said it isn't true that the military won't cooperate. He cite= d=20 its help in creating Oceanside Harbor and in moving the massive Sterling=20 Homes Marine housing project out of the city.=20 Williamson also suggested working with neighboring cities to find a site fo= r=20 a plant. "We do not want to depend on these gas companies any more," he sai= d.=20 Councilman Jack Feller agreed with Figueroa about avoiding the military. "I= =20 just cannot get behind Camp Pendleton. I think we're spinning our wheels," = he=20 said.=20 Councilwoman Esther Sanchez said Oceanside is uniquely situated next to the= =20 base. "We would let our residents down if we did not at least take a look a= t=20 it," Sanchez said. "Some people might think it's pie in the sky, but it=20 actually might work."=20 Except for Feller, the council members agreed it's worth a try to approach= =20 Camp Pendleton.=20 Deputy City Manager/Fire Chief Dale Geldert was given that task.=20 Councilwoman Betty Harding said the city isn't looking for its own power=20 plant simply to ease municipal electricity costs, which are running $800,00= 0=20 a year over budget, but to do something to help reduce residents' soaring= =20 power bills.=20 Councilwoman Carol McCauley said: "Maybe there's a silver lining behind thi= s=20 cloud. Maybe we can become self-sufficient, whether at Camp Pendleton or wi= th=20 other cities."=20 "Explore every avenue, every direction," McCauley urged Geldert. Davis signs bill authorizing $13.4 in bonds to repay treasury for power=20 buying=20 By Don Thompson ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 May 10, 2001=20 SACRAMENTO =01) Gov. Gray Davis signed a law Thursday letting the state bor= row=20 $13.4 billion to pay for electricity for three cash-starved utilities.=20 Davis couldn't guarantee the 15-year bond will be enough to cover the state= 's=20 electricity purchases. But he said the $13.4 billion price tag represents= =20 "the best thinking of our financial analysts," and includes a reserve in ca= se=20 electricity prices remain higher than expected.=20 The state spent $1,900 per megawatt hour Wednesday as state grid operators= =20 narrowly avoided a third consecutive day of blackouts, Davis said,=20 reiterating his call for federal price caps. Cooler weather helped the stat= e=20 avoid blackouts Thursday.=20 Wednesday's costs were a record or near-record since the state purchases=20 began in January, said Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the power-buying=20 Department of Water Resources.=20 Davis said he hopes the state can stop buying power for Pacific Gas and=20 Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric by the= =20 end of next year.=20 Davis accused Assembly Republicans of putting their political opposition=20 above the state's welfare by refusing to support the bond bill. That means= =20 the bonds can't be issued for three months, which Davis said will drive up= =20 the interest ratepayers will be charged for the bond.=20 "This measure is a lifeboat that allows us to stay afloat," he said.=20 In a statement, Assembly GOP Leader Dave Cox called the bond bill "a=20 dangerous gamble for California =01) a gamble Republicans couldn't support= =20 without a clear endgame ... The governor obviously believes that history wi= ll=20 judge that his was the right decision. He had better be right."=20 Also Thursday, a federal bankruptcy judge considered ordering PG&E to make= =20 millions of dollars in back payments to small power plant owners that provi= de=20 nearly a third of California's electricity.=20 And California power regulators continued struggling over how to divide=20 record electric rate increases among the 9 million customers of the state's= =20 two largest utilities, Edison and PG&E. The Public Utilities Commission is= =20 rushing to adopt the higher rates Monday.=20 GOP defeats first attempt to cap power prices=20 By Toby Eckert COPLEY NEWS SERVICE=20 May 10, 2001=20 WASHINGTON =01) Republican lawmakers on Thursday slapped down an effort to= =20 impose price controls on wholesale power sold in California and 10 other=20 Western states.=20 In the first test of congressional resolve on the issue, Republicans on the= =20 House energy and air quality subcommittee, including three from California,= =20 voted unanimously against the temporary price limits, while most Democrats = on=20 the panel backed the move. The issue will now come before the full House=20 Energy and Commerce Committee.=20 The subcommittee vote dramatized the deep partisan divisions that have=20 developed, even within California's congressional delegation, over how the= =20 federal government should respond to the crisis. While Democrats argue that= =20 price controls would bring stability to the state's chaotic power market,= =20 most Republicans =01) including President Bush =01) counter that they would= =20 aggravate electricity shortages by discouraging needed power generation and= =20 sales.=20 After two days of rolling blackouts in California, a preview of what could = be=20 in store for the state all summer, the subcommittee vote was being watched= =20 closely for any signs of wavering on the issue by Republicans worried about= =20 the political fallout.=20 California Democrats vowed to continue pushing the measure and predicted=20 their Republican colleagues would pay a price for opposing it.=20 "Republican ratepayers are going to have to pay the same exorbitant prices = as=20 Democratic ratepayers," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Redondo Beach, a member of= =20 the full committee. "As ... the blackouts increase over the next two months= ,=20 those folks who voted 'No' in this subcommittee are going to face very toug= h=20 questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they try a bit later to get on board.= "=20 But Rep. George Radonovich, R-Mariposa, said he was feeling little pressure= =20 from his constituents to support price controls.=20 "All they care about is politics," he said of the Democrats who criticized= =20 his vote against the controls. "What we're concerned about are some real=20 solutions to the problems, which they don't offer."=20 Republican Reps. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach and Mary Bono of Palm=20 Springs also voted against the measure.=20 Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, offered it as an amendment to a=20 Republican-crafted bill that contains several measures aimed at boosting=20 electricity production and encouraging energy conservation in the West. The= =20 amendment would require federal regulators to impose either "just and=20 reasonable" rates for wholesale power that fluctuate with demand or rates= =20 tied to the cost of producing the power, plus a "reasonable" profit.=20 Electricity generated at new power plants would be exempt from the limits t= o=20 encourage their construction.=20 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is pushing a similar measure in the Senate= ,=20 so far without success.=20 Wholesale electricity prices in California have soared in the past year, a= =20 side-effect of deregulation of the state's power market and increased price= s=20 for natural gas, which fuels most of the power plants. Utilities have been= =20 unable to pass on the full cost of the power to customers, threatening thei= r=20 financial stability and driving one, Pacific Gas & Electric, into bankruptc= y.=20 Waxman argued that price controls would discourage power sellers from=20 withholding power from the market to drive up prices.=20 "The only way that we'll get some relief in California is to put some limit= =20 on the gouging that has taken place," he said. "...The rest of this bill do= es=20 not do much of anything for the state of California and the West during thi= s=20 crisis."=20 But Republicans said price controls would have the exact opposite effect:= =20 discouraging power providers from generating and selling electricity in the= =20 region.=20 "It simply is a guarantee for more blackouts," said Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La= .,=20 the chairman of the full committee.=20 The amendment was defeated 20-12. Two Democrats =01) Reps. Ralph Hall of Te= xas=20 and Christopher John of Louisiana =01) voted against the measure.=20 The underlying bill passed on a party-line vote of 17-13.=20 It would allow the California governor to temporarily waive some=20 air-pollution limits to increase power production in the state when blackou= ts=20 are imminent; provide federal funding to fix a major power transmission=20 bottleneck in the Central Valley; require federal facilities in power-starv= ed=20 states to cut their energy use by 20 percent; allow California, Nevada,=20 Oregon and Washington to adjust daylight savings time; and allow small,=20 independent power generators to escape exclusive contracts with utilities i= f,=20 in the future, they are not paid by the utilities.=20 While Democrats complained the bill would do little to provide immediate=20 relief to California and other Western states, subcommittee Chairman Joe=20 Barton, R-Tex., said, "it's the only game in town that will help."=20 "We can reduce the number of blackouts, we can minimize the time of the=20 blackouts if we pass this measure...," he said.=20 Energy task force expected to recommend tax breaks=20 By H. Josef Hebert ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 May 10, 2001=20 WASHINGTON =01) The Bush administration's energy task force will urge relax= ing=20 clean air requirements to help refiners meet gasoline demand, and call for= =20 tax breaks for some renewable energy such as wind and solar panels, accordi= ng=20 to government sources.=20 The refinery proposal is aimed at addressing a petroleum industry complaint= =20 that federal and local air quality rules often require production of slight= ly=20 different blends of gasoline, putting added strain on the supply and=20 distribution systems.=20 The so-called boutique blends of gasoline have been the subject of vigorous= =20 complaints from refiners, who argue that they are not needed to meet federa= l=20 air quality goals, but prevent shifting of gasoline supplies where they are= =20 most needed.=20 It was not clear Thursday whether the proposal would assume a waiver in som= e=20 cases of reformulated gasoline, which accounts for about a third of the=20 gasoline sold nationwide. This cleaner gasoline contains an oxygen additive= =20 and is required in areas with serious pollution problems.=20 The energy task force is headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.=20 Separately, the House took its first action Thursday to try to ease=20 California's power problems this summer, but in a subcommittee vote rejecte= d=20 Democratic demands for price controls on Western wholesale electricity.=20 The bill, approved by an Energy and Commerce subcommittee by a 17-13=20 party-line vote, "will not stop blackouts," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas,= =20 its chief sponsor, but give California some additional tools to boost=20 supplies this summer.=20 In a letter to Barton, California Gov. Gray Davis said the measure "will do= =20 little to address our current situation." He urged approval of price caps o= n=20 soaring wholesale electricity prices. Caps were rejected by a 20-12 vote wi= th=20 solid GOP opposition including the three California Republicans on the=20 subcommittee.=20 The Cheney task force, which will present its report to President Bush next= =20 week, also will propose regulatory relief for construction of nuclear power= =20 plants and tax incentives for development of technologies that make coal le= ss=20 polluting.=20 Both nuclear and coal, which together account for nearly three-fourths of t= he=20 electricity produced, are essential to meet future energy needs, the task= =20 force will declare. While urging expanded development of natural gas, the= =20 report will warn against relying too heavily on a single energy source=20 including natural gas.=20 While the energy blueprint will focus heavily on long-range plans to boost= =20 energy supplies, the administration in recent weeks has scurried to include= =20 additional conservation and energy efficiency measures.=20 Fearing a backlash from environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats in=20 Congress have urged the administration to not ignore efficiency and renewab= le=20 energy sources.=20 "We need a balanced approach. We need renewables and conservation," said Se= n.=20 Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources=20 Committee, who also is an advocate for the measures to expand supplies=20 including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.=20 The task force will urge Congress to approve drilling in the refuge.=20 The task force's efficiency and renewable proposals will focus heavily on= =20 providing tax incentives including tax breaks for the development and=20 purchase of more fuel efficient "hybrid" gas-electric automobiles,=20 residential solar panels, wind generation, and development of hydrogen fuel= =20 cells, according to sources who spoke on condition on anonymity.=20 In other energy-related developments Thursday:=20 =01)Senate Democrats complained that they have been "left in the dark" abou= t the=20 administration's energy plans and should have been consulted by the Cheney= =20 task force.=20 =01)Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he will soon introduce legislation to c= reate=20 a special House-Senate committee to investigate soaring energy prices. He= =20 said there are all the indications of price manipulation and a committee=20 "would keep the spotlight" on the electricity and gasoline markets.=20 =01)Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called for creation of a national consumer en= ergy=20 commission that would give a voice to consumers in the debate over energy= =20 shortages and rising prices.=20 NEWS ANALYSIS Power Rescue Plan Rests on Many 'Ifs'=20 By NANCY VOGEL, RICH CONNELL and ROBERT J. LOPEZ, Times Staff Writers=20 ?????The success of Gov. Gray Davis' plan to end California's energy crisis= =20 rides on assumptions that, if wrong, could lead to billions of dollars in= =20 runaway costs for taxpayers. ?????Davis, who signed a historic $13.4-billion bond measure Thursday to=20 finance the plan, has refused to release key data and presented a single=20 model for how California will buy electricity--and pay for it--over the nex= t=20 15 years. ?????If Davis and his cadre of financial advisors are right, the state will= =20 emerge from the most ominous period of the crisis in less than two years,= =20 flush with cash and the prospect of electricity rate cuts. By then, the hop= e=20 goes, the power suppliers Davis has vilified will be reined in. ?????If his predictions are off by modest margins, which even many state=20 officials and energy experts say is likely, the state may have to employ=20 tactical blackouts to control costs, siphon money that could be used for=20 other services, go deeper in debt or raise electricity rates above the reco= rd=20 increases of this year. ?????The governor's plan largely rests on these crucial assumptions: that= =20 consumers will conserve a record amount of power at peak usage times, that= =20 energy prices will drop precipitously, and that the state will lock in far= =20 more contracts for long-term power. But those three assumptions could prove= =20 faulty, according to government financial records and interviews with state= =20 officials, Wall Street analysts and energy experts. ?????Davis is banking on that troika to quickly tame the wild prices of=20 last-minute power--which hit an apparent record of $2,000 for a megawatt-ho= ur=20 Wednesday. Such purchases so far have put the state on the hook for $6=20 billion and pushed major utilities to the brink of ruin. ?????Davis' plan assumes that the state will reduce peak demand by 2,484=20 megawatts--enough to supply nearly 2 million homes--through three programs= =20 run by the California Independent System Operator, which keeps power runnin= g=20 to homes and businesses across the state. ?????But Cal-ISO managers say they will be lucky to achieve a fraction of= =20 that savings this summer. ?????They say that one of the programs listed in the governor's plan was=20 shelved because regulators had raised concerns about air pollution. Another= ,=20 aimed at businesses, is likely to yield only about half of the 600 megawatt= s=20 the governor has assumed will be saved when supplies are tight this summer,= =20 said Cal-ISO Project Manager Bill Wagner. ?????"There's a lot of 'ifs' in there," he said of the conservation program= ,=20 which would pay businesses to cut back during critical hours. He said the= =20 utilities are months behind in installing meters to measure the savings. ?????Officials at another state agency in charge of a similar conservation= =20 program, the Public Utilities Commission, also said they are not sure about= =20 hitting targets on which the bond plan is based. ?????PUC Senior Analyst Robert Strauss said he has no idea how many=20 businesses will agree to curtail electricity consumption in exchange for=20 cheaper power rates this summer. The program is only a month old, he said. ?????"We're in a new situation that we don't have good experience with,"=20 Strauss said. "Who's going to sign up for these programs? We don't really= =20 know." Another program that Davis hopes will conserve 1,600 megawatts has= =20 attracted interest from just two businesses since March. ?????"It's pretty ambitious to think we're going to get 1,600 megawatts by= =20 June in that program," said Cal-ISO's Wagner. ?????Beyond Davis' assumptions about conservation, the success of his=20 hard-fought bond measure relies heavily on how much the state will pay for= =20 electricity during the next two summers. If the price is higher than foreca= st=20 by Davis, the bond money could be consumed more quickly, potentially forcin= g=20 the state to borrow more, dip into tax funds or raise customer rates again. ?????To keep prices down, the Davis administration has struggled to lock up= =20 in contracts most of the peak-hour power needed for the next two summers to= =20 avoid premium, eleventh-hour prices. ?????In his effort to push his bond legislation through the Capitol, he has= =20 suggested that about 50 such contracts will be signed to produce half of th= e=20 peak demand the state needs. And that, his advisors say, doesn't count othe= r=20 contracts they think will materialize.=20 ?????So far, the administration has fallen far short, achieving final=20 agreements on only 28 contracts as of Thursday. ?????If that gap persists, the state will probably be forced to buy=20 electricity on the expensive spot market, which could eat into the bond mon= ey. ?????"I think the operative word is uncertainty," said Paul Patterson, an= =20 energy analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston. "There are too many pieces,= =20 [and] all you need is for one or two of those not to work out substantially= =20 and things change." ?????Patterson, who says he remains cautiously optimistic about the=20 governor's plan, was among a group of Wall Street analysts who were briefed= =20 last week by Davis' top advisors. ?????Some wondered about who would provide the additional power that Davis= =20 had incorporated into his plan. Others questioned whether investors would b= uy=20 the bonds with so many assumptions built into the measure. ?????During the briefing, the governor's advisors said one option being=20 considered is to refuse to pay the highest prices for power and "accept som= e=20 sort of rolling blackout scenario." ?????One of the governor's chief energy consultants, Joseph Fichera, told t= he=20 Wall Street analysts that if suppliers think they can profit by holding bac= k=20 power until the threshold of blackouts, the state may simply say no, leavin= g=20 them with no sale. ?????Through calculations that include contracts and conservation, Davis'= =20 advisors arrived at another assumption that has drawn skepticism. They insi= st=20 that the purchase of any power not under contract will average just $195 pe= r=20 megawatt-hour this summer--helping slash overall power costs by hundreds of= =20 millions.=20 ?????Critics say the California market is simply too volatile to forecast.= =20 Before Tuesday's blackouts, for example, prices on the last-minute market h= ad=20 been below $800 for a megawatt-hour, a considerable amount. But not as much= =20 as it was Wednesday when the state paid Houston-based Reliant Energy $2,000= ,=20 Davis said Thursday.=20 ?????A report by Republican Assembly members concluded that if Davis'=20 assumption that non-contracted power will average $195 is off by just 10%,= =20 electricity would cost an additional $250 million by September. Over two=20 years, those additional costs could soar to $1.1 billion, the GOP study fou= nd. ?????Democratic state Controller Kathleen Connell, whose staff has attempte= d=20 to analyze the governor's report, is warning that rising power costs could= =20 tear through the bond funds and possibly expose the state's general fund. ?????Connell accused the governor of tailoring his assumptions and numbers = to=20 neatly fit his goal of assuring the public--and Wall Street--that an end to= =20 the crisis is near. ?????Fichera, who helped prepare the report, insists that the=20 administration's bond plan is conservative and presents the most reasonable= =20 scenario of the converging forces of conservation and prices. ?????Even if things do not fall into place, Fichera said, there is an extra= =20 $1 billion packaged into the measure, along with an expectation of billions= =20 more in later years to cover any shortfalls. ?????"Any realistic scenario," Fichera said, "we believe we have the=20 resources to cover." ?????Fichera said he sees only a slim possibility that power costs in the= =20 next two years could outpace the available bond money, forcing the state to= =20 borrow more. He said such a loan could easily be paid back by the recent=20 utility rate increases, which would cover both dropping costs of power and= =20 the bonds within the next three years. ?????Fichera declined to provide The Times with figures showing at what poi= nt=20 higher power costs could consume the cushion he said is built into the=20 governor's plan. Public officials and newspapers, including The Times, have= =20 sued the administration for more details about the state's power costs. ?????But Davis and his consultants say key financial information must be ke= pt=20 secret to prevent energy traders from gaining more leverage in the state's= =20 power market.=20 ?????But that confidence was tempered in a state document given to Wall=20 Street analysts that recently accompanied an unrelated bond issue. ?????The document acknowledged that the assumptions underlying Davis'=20 financial plan to restore stability to the California electricity market we= re=20 "subject to many uncertainties." "There can be no assurance," the document= =20 concluded, "that there will not be future disruptions in energy supplies or= =20 related developments which could adversely affect the state's economy."=20 Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 NEWS ANALYSIS Bush, Rivals Don't Dare Ask Public to Make Sacrifices in Energy Crunch=20 By RONALD BROWNSTEIN, Times Political Writer=20 ?????WASHINGTON--Amid their looming conflicts on energy policy, President= =20 Bush and his critics appear to have reached agreement on an unlikely point:= =20 Neither side is preparing to ask for significant sacrifices from the public= =20 to respond to rising prices and squeezed supplies. ?????In the energy policy blueprint it will release next week, the=20 administration is expected to present enhanced production as the key to=20 easing the energy crunch. Democrats and environmentalists, in response, are= =20 stressing measures to prod manufacturers to design more energy-efficient=20 products, from cars to air conditioners. ?????But neither side is yet suggesting that ordinary Americans--whose=20 average energy consumption has increased steadily over the last 15 years--m= ay=20 have to scale back lifestyles that increasingly include mammoth sport-utili= ty=20 vehicles, dawn-to-dark home computer use and new houses 50% larger than a= =20 generation ago. ?????In fact, as the debate over Bush's plan approaches, both sides are=20 working overtime to insist that their solutions will allow Americans to use= =20 virtually as much energy as they want--without sacrifice. ?????In a striking declaration earlier this week, White House spokesman Ari= =20 Fleischer portrayed unconstrained energy use as virtually an American=20 birthright. "That's a big no," he answered when asked if Bush believes=20 Americans need to curtail their energy use. "The president believes that's = an=20 American way of life and that it should be the goal of policymakers to=20 protect the American way of life." ?????More surprising, environmentalists mobilizing to fight Bush's plan are= =20 sending a similar message. "We don't need to sacrifice a lifestyle in order= =20 to save energy," says Dan Becker, director of the global warming and energy= =20 program for the Sierra Club. ?????This improbable consensus reflects a deeper political calculation=20 shaping both sides' response to the energy challenge. After a decade in whi= ch=20 American life on almost every front--from energy to jobs to federal=20 revenues--has been defined by abundance, politicians have grown extremely= =20 reluctant to confront voters with hard choices and unpleasant alternatives. ?????The big question is whether either side's preferred solutions can=20 resolve the long-term energy problem without forcing Americans to face at= =20 least some of those hard choices. ?????Compared to most issues, public opinion about the energy debate is=20 unformed, analysts in both parties agree. That's largely because few=20 Americans have thought much about the problem since the last gas lines=20 disappeared 20 years ago. "People aren't settled on what are the causes of= =20 the problem, let alone what are some of the solutions," says pollster Mark= =20 Baldassare, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. ?????As the struggle to shape public opinion begins, the central division i= s=20 likely to exist between Bush's emphasis on new production and the=20 Democratic/environmentalist push for greater reliance on renewable energy a= nd=20 conservation. But that loud dispute threatens to obscure the remarkable=20 convergence on an equally important point: To the extent either side sees= =20 conservation as part of the solution, they portray it primarily as somethin= g=20 done for consumers rather than by consumers. ?????White House aides say Bush isn't likely to completely ignore the value= =20 of individual conservation; the Democratic energy alternative includes a=20 provision that could eventually compel the government to discourage the use= =20 of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency. But overall both sides are promising= =20 minimal disruption--a stark contrast to the admission by California officia= ls=20 that higher prices are needed to deter electricity consumption. ?????Indeed, it's telling that, instead of discussing conservation, both Bu= sh=20 and his critics are increasingly talking about energy efficiency. That=20 formulation implies engineering strategies rather than lifestyle changes to= =20 reduce consumption. "With technology, there's no reason why . . . you've go= t=20 to live in the dark, turn out all the lights, don't enjoy the things that o= ur=20 modern society brings you," Vice President Dick Cheney said this week. ?????Looming over these political and rhetorical calculations is the ghost = of=20 President Carter, whose administration was plagued by repeated energy shock= s=20 in the late 1970s. When Carter unveiled his comprehensive energy plan just= =20 months after taking office in 1977, his message hit a strikingly different= =20 note: The crisis, Carter said, "will demand that we make sacrifices and=20 changes in every life." ?????Behind those words, Carter offered an agenda bristling with thorny ide= as=20 to discourage energy use: new taxes on gas-guzzling cars, automatic taxes o= n=20 gasoline triggered when consumption rose too fast, utility reforms that=20 increased costs for the heaviest users. ?????But Congress rejected almost all these ideas, focusing instead on tax= =20 incentives to encourage more efficient energy use, and Carter's efforts to= =20 encourage voluntary conservation (like turning down the heat in winter)=20 became a lasting symbol of weakness and ineffectuality. ?????Today strategists on both sides agree that the public is even less=20 inclined to sacrifice. And in that climate, neither Bush nor Democrats are= =20 focusing on a paradox central to the energy riddle: While most products hav= e=20 grown more energy efficient over the past generation, energy use per person= =20 in America is still rising. ?????In the immediate aftermath of the 1970s oil shocks, per capita U.S.=20 energy use declined by roughly 8% from 1973 through 1985. But as the memory= =20 of those disruptions faded, energy use per person increased almost 10% from= =20 1985 through 1999, according to the federal Energy Information Administrati= on. ?????On several fronts, it appears the demand for bigger energy-intensive= =20 products is offsetting the efficiency gains of improved technology. Take=20 homes. In an April study, the National Assn. of Home Builders concluded tha= t=20 because of such innovations as greater use of insulated windows and more=20 efficient furnaces, new homes today use energy twice as efficiently as they= =20 did 30 years ago. But despite those improvements, the overall trend among n= ew=20 homes is toward greater energy consumption. ?????In the first years after the 1970s oil shock, average fuel efficiency= =20 for all passenger vehicles in America steadily increased, peaking at 25.9= =20 miles per gallon in 1987. Since then average fuel efficiency has declined,= =20 dropping to 24 mpg in 2000, the lowest it has been since 1980, according to= =20 the Environmental Protection Agency. ?????Some analysts think both sides are selling the public short by exempti= ng=20 them from sacrifice in the growing energy debate. "Americans have heard=20 messages about changing their ways and have been accepting when it comes to= =20 conservation," says Baldassare. ?????But the dominant instinct is to target other causes--and solutions--fo= r=20 the challenge, with Bush blaming environmental restrictions that have block= ed=20 drilling or new power plant construction and Democrats pointing fingers at= =20 oil companies, car manufacturers and the administration's links to both. ?????"Nobody wants to be in a position of telling the American public they= =20 can't have what they want," acknowledges one top Bush political advisor. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 House Committee Rejects Electricity Price Controls=20 Strategy: In a blow to California's governor, Congress signals it won't rei= n=20 in soaring costs.=20 By GREG MILLER and RICHARD SIMON, Times Staff Writers=20 ?????WASHINGTON--In the first test of congressional sentiment on California= 's=20 power problems, a House panel on Thursday rebuffed an effort by Democratic= =20 lawmakers to legislate price caps on wholesale electricity. ?????The proposal, voted down 20 to 12 by the House energy and air quality= =20 subcommittee, would have required the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission = to=20 impose price controls keyed to the cost of generating power. ?????The Republican-controlled panel went on to approve a bill containing a= =20 number of less aggressive energy crisis measures, such as allowing Californ= ia=20 to relax environmental restrictions on power plants and extending daylight= =20 saving time to reduce evening electricity consumption. ?????But the vote on price controls, which split largely along party lines,= =20 was the most contentious issue addressed by the subcommittee. Although pric= e=20 cap advocates are expected to press their campaign at least twice more in t= he=20 House, Thursday's vote was a significant setback. It signaled that Congress= =20 is not inclined to rein in soaring energy prices, despite repeated pleas fr= om=20 Gov. Gray Davis and other state officials to do so. ?????Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who offered the price control=20 measure as an amendment to the energy bill, argued that it would protect=20 consumers from price gouging while preserving "reasonable" profit margins f= or=20 power suppliers. ?????Without price controls, he said, the bill "does not do for California= =20 what we need, and it does a lot of things for our state we don't want." ?????But the other three Californians on the subcommittee--all=20 Republicans--disagreed, and voted against Waxman's amendment, saying they= =20 believe price controls would exacerbate the problem by discouraging=20 investment in new sources of energy. ?????"I recognize there's tremendous political pressure on us, but do not= =20 believe it's the right thing to do," said Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs). ?????She was joined in voting against the measure by Reps. Christopher Cox= =20 (R-Newport Beach) and George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa). The three Californ= ia=20 Republicans ensured the amendment's defeat, because one Democrat who voted= =20 against the measure, Rep. Ralph M. Hall of Texas, said he would have=20 supported it if all of the California members of the subcommittee had done = so. ?????In Sacramento, Davis lashed out at Bono, Cox and Radanovich for opposi= ng=20 price caps. ?????"I find it very surprising that people here in California experiencing= =20 this crisis can go back to Washington and vote against the best interests o= f=20 constituents of this state," Davis said. ?????Waxman indicated he would attempt to revive the price cap amendment wh= en=20 the bill is taken up by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee. ?????A final test could come later this month, when the full House is=20 expected to vote on the bill. Four California Republicans who are not on th= e=20 energy committee have already signaled they would support a price control= =20 amendment. ?????Thursday's vote was the first congressional action directed at=20 California's energy crisis, and underscored the extent to which the center = of=20 political debate on the issue is shifting from Sacramento to Washington. ?????Next week, the White House plans to unveil a comprehensive national=20 energy strategy. The plan is expected to emphasize long-term solutions,=20 ranging from new oil exploration in Alaska to construction of hundreds of n= ew=20 power plants and refineries. ?????With California experiencing rolling blackouts and gasoline prices=20 surging nationwide, the White House has become increasingly sensitive to=20 criticism that its plan won't provide much immediate help. ?????At a news conference Thursday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer=20 stressed that "the president's focus is going to be on doing everything he= =20 can for all terms: short-term, medium-term and long-term." ?????House Republicans attending Thursday's subcommittee session were caref= ul=20 to endorse the administration's position that the federal government's=20 ability to help California in the short term is limited. ?????"We can't make it rain. We can't make it snow. We can't make it cool i= n=20 Palm Springs," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), sponsor of the emergency bil= l=20 and chairman of the subcommittee. ?????Still, he said, Congress can provide some assistance. Barton's bill,= =20 which was approved 17 to 13 by the subcommittee, contains more than a dozen= =20 provisions designed to curb consumption and enhance power supplies. ?????Some of the key provisions would:=20 ?????* Authorize California's governor to waive some emission requirements = on=20 natural gas-fired power plants on "emergency" days of high demand. Democrat= s=20 said Davis hasn't sought such discretion, and the measure is unlikely to he= lp=20 because environmental regulations have not hindered power generation. ?????* Allow energy users to resell some of the electricity they are entitl= ed=20 to consume but don't. Republicans said this would create a financial=20 incentive to conserve, but Democrats said they fear it would undercut=20 existing state programs that reward conservation. ?????* Allow some power suppliers to suspend contracts with financially=20 strapped utilities. The measure is designed to enable companies that have c= ut=20 off supplies for lack of payment to cut new deals with other utilities or= =20 users. ?????* Require federal facilities in states where electricity emergencies= =20 have been declared to curb their consumption by at least 20% compared with = a=20 year earlier. ?????* Permit California to extend daylight saving time beyond October. ---=20 ?????Times staff writers Edwin Chen in Washington and Dan Morain in=20 Sacramento contributed to this story. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 Nonprofit Shrugs at Pleas to Conserve=20 Power: Ayn Rand Institute blasts calls to use less electricity. Utility and= =20 government officials defend conservation.=20 By BOB POOL, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????Their other electricity customers may be following the Southern=20 California Edison Co.'s plea to conserve electricity during the current=20 energy crisis. ?????But don't expect anyone to be going room-to-room flipping off lights a= nd=20 turning down air conditioning in a fourth-floor suite at one Marina del Rey= =20 office building. ?????That kind of conservation is "immoral" and "un-American," say those=20 working at the Ayn Rand Institute international headquarters on Admiralty W= ay. ?????The 15-year-old nonprofit group is run by devotees of novelist and=20 philosopher Ayn Rand, who died in 1982. It is a clearinghouse and education= al=20 center for those who embrace Rand's theories of individualism and=20 laissez-faire capitalism. ?????Her philosophy, Rand wrote, "is the concept of man as a heroic being,= =20 with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive=20 achievement as his noblest activity." ?????Rand--whose first name rhymes with mine--is best known for the novels= =20 "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," which together have sold 20 millio= n=20 copies. ?????Institute leaders are blasting calls for electricity conservation and= =20 the executive order issued last week by President Bush that directs operato= rs=20 of federal buildings in California to reduce energy consumption. ?????"Expecting the American people to lower their standard of living is an= =20 immoral idea," said Yaron Brook, the institute's executive director. ?????"Conservation is not a long- or short-term solution to the energy=20 crisis. Conservation is the un-American idea of resigning oneself to doing= =20 with less--like a sick person who stops seeking a cure and resigns himself = to=20 living with his illness." Instead, he said, market forces should prevail to= =20 increase power supplies and reduce demand. ?????On Thursday, Brook's statements surprised officials pleading with=20 Californians to turn off lights and reduce air conditioning to help prevent= =20 rolling blackouts. ?????" 'Un-American?' I've never heard that before," said Tom Boyd, an Edis= on=20 spokesman. "We and other utilities are urging our customers to conserve=20 electricity and use it wisely." ?????Lori O'Donley, a spokeswoman for the California Independent System=20 Operator, the agency that monitors power consumption and orders rolling=20 blackouts when supplies run low, said that "there are times we feel=20 conservation has made a difference" in calling or not calling for blackouts= . ?????A White House spokeswoman said President Bush stands by his call for= =20 conservation. ?????"The president believes the federal government should do its part. He= =20 takes the energy crisis in California very seriously and believes it is rig= ht=20 and appropriate to explore how we can conserve energy," Claire Buchan said. ?????Brook disagrees. ?????The 40-year-old former Santa Clara University finance professor has=20 headed the institute since last August. It has 16 staffers and operates on = a=20 $3-million annual budget financed by about 4,000 contributors--all firm=20 believers in Ayn Rand's philosophy. ?????Brook said he was a teenager living in Israel when he read "Atlas=20 Shrugged" and was immediately converted from the concept of socialism to=20 capitalism. ?????By coincidence, that novel features a countrywide blackout that is the= =20 result of massive government economic regulation. Rand writes on page 1,075= =20 of towns "reduced to the life of those ages in which artificial light was a= n=20 exorbitant luxury and a sunset put an end to human activity." ?????The towns were ruined by "rations, quotas, controls and=20 power-conservation rules." ?????Brook said the institute's Marina del Rey headquarters has thus far be= en=20 spared blackouts. But at his Tustin home, he and his wife and two children= =20 turn off lights when they aren't needed. ?????"I do it because I don't want to pay higher electricity bills," he sai= d=20 with a laugh. "I don't want to pay for something I don't use." Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 Restarting of Generators in O.C. Approved=20 By JENIFER WARREN, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????SACRAMENTO--Granting the governor's wish that power plants receive=20 speedy approval, the California Energy Commission cleared the way Thursday= =20 for the restarting of two idled generators that will double the output of a= =20 plant in Huntington Beach. ?????The commission's action allows AES Corp. to run the two controversial= =20 units for at least 10 years, provided that a midterm review finds that=20 operators are taking steps to limit any harm the plant may cause to seawate= r=20 quality and marine life. ?????The commission also required the company to sell all the power generat= ed=20 by the units, enough to supply about 337,500 homes, within California--a=20 restriction unprecedented in the state. ?????Some attorneys questioned whether the panel had the legal authority to= =20 impose such a restriction. But Commissioner Robert Laurie said that althoug= h=20 the limit "may not be good long-term policy," the state's power emergency= =20 warrants it now. ?????The commission's unanimous vote capped weeks of arduous negotiations= =20 involving AES, the state and Huntington Beach officials, who called the=20 10-year permit "a major disappointment." AES officials pushed for the 10=20 years on grounds that a shorter time frame would make the economics of the= =20 project iffy. ?????City officials preferred a five-year permit, saying the company's trac= k=20 record--it once paid a $17-million fine for allowing too much pollution to= =20 spew from its Long Beach plant--raises doubts about its future performance.= =20 The commission's staff also favored five years, with the possibility of a= =20 five-year extension. ?????"They have not exactly been great corporate citizens," Matt Lamb,=20 project manager for Huntington Beach, said of AES. "This is a grossly=20 inefficient plant that has been mothballed, and they're basically=20 kick-starting it. We don't think it deserves 10 years." ?????But Gov. Gray Davis--who has publicly pushed the commission to approve= =20 plants quickly--hailed the decision. "That's good news. That's supply we're= =20 counting on," he said. ?????The two Huntington Beach units are 40 years old and have been idle sin= ce=20 1995. But the energy crisis has made the old valuable once again, and AES= =20 plans to invest $150 million to re-power the generators--once scheduled for= =20 demolition. ?????The units represent almost 10% of the 5,000 megawatts Davis has said h= e=20 will bring into service this summer to avert an electricity shortage. ?????Recent estimates, however, suggest that the governor's pledge was over= ly=20 optimistic. ?????And although Davis and the Energy Commission are expecting the=20 Huntington Beach generators to begin operating in August, AES Southland=20 President Mark Woodruff said Thursday that it is unclear whether that goal= =20 can be met. ?????The AES project is among a few receiving fast-track approval under the= =20 governor's executive order earlier this year requiring expedited review of= =20 such plants. ?????In normal times, a 450-megawatt project such as the one approved=20 Thursday might have taken a year's worth of study, public hearings and othe= r=20 scrutiny, said Claudia Chandler, a commission spokeswoman. The expedited=20 review shrinks that to just 60 days. ?????That clearly rankles some Huntington Beach residents, who, in testimon= y=20 before the commission, wondered whether emissions, ocean pollution and othe= r=20 threats had been thoroughly studied. ?????"I think it's almost outrageous what's being foisted on the public,"= =20 said Rich Lloyd, who lives about a quarter of a mile from the plant. "What= =20 relief are you going to give to all these people, all these schoolchildren,= =20 who have to breathe these emissions for 10 years?" ?????Huntington Beach Councilwoman Shirley Dettloff said she too was troubl= ed=20 by the fast-track licensing process: "We're taking a risk as a city," she= =20 said. "If a price has to be paid, our citizens will be paying that price." ?????Critics are alarmed by a UC Irvine study concluding that the=20 plant--which now uses and discharges about 300 million gallons of seawater= =20 each day as coolant--may combine with ocean currents to attract sewage=20 released miles offshore.=20 ?????Many residents suspect that the plant contributed to pollution that=20 caused repeated beach closures in 1999. ?????Acknowledging the concerns, the commission required AES to spend $1=20 million to study whether water quality is at risk. ?????The company also must spend $2.5 million to monitor fish deaths caused= =
|