|
|
Enron Mail |
Please see the following articles:
Sac Bee, Mon, 6/11: Who'll pay billions in PG&E debt? Consumers, taxpayers and asset sales are among the options Sac Bee, Mon, 6/11: Dan Walters: Record undercuts governor's message on=20 handling energy crisis SD Union, Sun, 6/10: Plan to pay businesses not to use power OK'd=20 SD Union, Sat, 6/9: Sempra may drop project in Escondido LA Times, Sat, 6/9: Hackers Victimize Cal-ISO LA Times, Sat, 6/9: State Asks Pricing Curbs on 4 Firms LA Times, Sat, 6/9: After-School Programs Threatened LA Times, Sat, 6/9: Drop in Gas Price Raises Questions in Probe LA Times, Sat, 6/9: New Power Plant Proposed for Riverside County SD Union, Sat, 6/9: ISO seeks to pull rate authority from 4 firms SD Union, Sat, 6/9: Short-circuited by the `so-called' electricity crisis = =20 (Editorial) LA Times, Mon, 6/11: Ventura County Businesses Sweat Out Power Crisis LA Times, Mon, 6/11: The State PG&E Plan to Fell Oaks Fuels Anger Energy:= =20 The utility contends the trees pose a fire threat to power lines. Critics= =20 claim the firm wants to cut costs LA Times, Mon, 6/11: The State Gov. Davis Feisty About Gaining Leverage Ove= r=20 the 'Cowboys'=20 SF Chron, Mon, 6/11: Davis adds major ally in bid for price caps / Lieberma= n=20 invites governor to testify SF Chron, Mon, 6/11: Bay residents tired of state crisis decrees / Conservi= ng=20 or not, they ignore Davis SF Chron, Mon, 6/11: Bay residents tired of state crisis decrees=20 Conserving or not, they ignore Davis SF Chron, Mon, 6/11: Developments in California's energy crisis Mercury News, Mon, 6/11: Electricity traders' tech habits get scrutiny=20 Mercury News, Mon, 6/11: Davis is down, but history and politics are on his= =20 side (Commentary) OC Register, Mon, 6/11: Senate panel eyes price caps for power=20 OC Register, Sun, 6/10: New program will pay businesses to conserve OC Register, Sun. 6/10: Davis' crisis management on upswing OC Register, Sat, 6/9: Electricity notebook Officials: Suppliers should refund excess charges Individual.com (PRnewswire), Mon, 6/11: Calpine Announces 600-MW Inland=20 Empire Energy Center Project Will Offer Electricity to One of California's Fastest Growin= g=20 Regions=20 Individual.com (PRnewswire), Mon, 6/11: SDG&E Applauds Expansion of=20 Assistance For Low-Income Customers; CPUC Changes Mean More Eligible Customers, Increased Discounts= =20 NY Times, Mon, 6/11: California Gets a Reprieve As Natural Gas Prices Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -------------------------------------------------- Who'll pay billions in PG&E debt? Consumers, taxpayers and asset sales are= =20 among the options. By Claire Cooper Bee Legal Affairs Writer (Published June 11, 2001)=20 A judge's decision not to meddle with electric rates has left open the=20 biggest question in the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. bankruptcy case: Who= =20 will pay the utility's nearly $10 billion in bills?=20 Ratepayers? Last week's decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali le= ft=20 rate-setting to the state Public Utilities Commission. But experts aren't= =20 ruling out PUC approval of major increases in the prices charged to PG&E's= =20 customers.=20 Taxpayers? They'd foot the bill if the state bailed out the utility, anothe= r=20 reportedly live option.=20 Creditors? They could, as one consumer advocate says, "cannibalize" each=20 other in competing for PG&E's assets. Though PG&E says creditors will all b= e=20 paid in full, it hasn't said how long that will take.=20 PG&E Corp., the utility's parent? It might be forced to infuse the utility= =20 with cash. PG&E also could sue energy wholesalers to recoup overcharges or= =20 could sell off its own power generators to raise cash.=20 Until last week, when Montali made it known that he won't raise retail rate= s,=20 the two major players in the bankruptcy proceedings -- the utility and the= =20 official creditors committee -- had agreed on most matters that came up in= =20 court, including the need for a rate increase.=20 "Now, it's going to get maybe a little uglier and less friendly," predicts= =20 Jesse Fried, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of California,=20 Berkeley. "It looks like they're just going to have to sit down and decide= =20 who's going to eat the loss."=20 Fried says the "right answer" should be PG&E Corp., which requested=20 deregulation of the energy market and profited from it until soaring=20 wholesale prices left the utility subsidiary with massive debt, in part=20 because retail rates were frozen.=20 Between the time deregulation was passed and the end of 2000, the utility= =20 transferred $3.9 billion to its parent corporation before filing for=20 bankruptcy protection April 6, according to a state-ordered audit.=20 To force the corporation to repay the money, says Sacramento bankruptcy=20 lawyer W. Austin Cooper, Montali would have to conclude that the transfer= =20 defrauded the utility's creditors.=20 Montali has the power "to pierce the corporate veil" to find the answer, sa= ys=20 Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer=20 Rights.=20 But Cooper predicted a different scenario: sale of significant portions of= =20 PG&E assets -- such as generators or transmission lines -- to pay creditors= =20 and repay the state for electricity it has purchased on the wholesale marke= t.=20 At a meeting Thursday between the utility and some of its creditors, PG&E= =20 chief financial officer Kent Harvey said the utility's hydroelectric=20 facilities are worth between $3.9 billion and $4.2 billion. James Lopes, th= e=20 utility's bankruptcy lawyer, declared the subject of a possible sale off=20 limits at the meeting.=20 Rosenfield predicts it will remain off limits because, he says, the state= =20 would begin talking about seizing the generators rather than risk a sale to= =20 an out-of-state buyer.=20 He favors another option: suing the out-of-state companies that have been= =20 charging the highest wholesale energy rates.=20 "If I were the small business that supplies pencils and paper clips to PG&E= ,=20 I would want to collect some money from the energy companies that overcharg= ed=20 PG&E for power until the state stepped in to buy the power in the utility's= =20 place," he said.=20 If PG&E filed an antitrust case against those companies, it could be tried = in=20 Bankruptcy Court, according to Cooper.=20 Discussion on that subject also was ruled off limits by Lopes.=20 However, Harvey said the utility has requested a probe by the Federal Energ= y=20 Regulatory Commission.=20 And PG&E has been providing information to state agencies probing the=20 out-of-state firms, spokesman Ron Low said.=20 Rosenfield predicts growing pressure for a state-sponsored PG&E bailout lik= e=20 the $2.76 billion plan proposed by Gov. Gray Davis to keep Southern=20 California Edison out of bankruptcy.=20 Under the Davis proposal, the state would have spent $2.76 billion to buy= =20 that utility's power transmission lines. But the Legislature shelved Davis'= =20 plan, and Rosenfield warned that any such bailout would be forced to a publ= ic=20 referendum, "along with any politicians who supported it."=20 Stanford University bankruptcy law professor Marcus Cole says the long-rang= e=20 success of any plan for PG&E "depends entirely on the prospects for=20 profitability" -- that is, pegging retail energy rates to wholesale costs.= =20 "PG&E is not a charity," Cole says. "It's there to provide a service. The= =20 only way it's going to do that is if it can generate profits."=20 The Bee's Claire Cooper can be reached at (415) 551-7701 or=20 ccooper@sacbee.com.=20 Dan Walters: Record undercuts governor's message on handling energy crisis (Published June 11, 2001)=20 Gov. Gray Davis spoke to a small business conference in Sacramento on May 3= 0=20 and reminded attendees that "I'm a pro-business Democrat." He then launched= =20 into a recitation of his standard pitch on the state's energy crisis -- tha= t=20 it's being caused by "greedy energy companies" and that he's working hard t= o=20 solve it with far-reaching conservation programs and a massive power plant= =20 construction program.=20 "For 12 years, California did not build one major power plant," he said,=20 adding that since he became governor, 15 have been approved, 10 are under= =20 construction, and by 2003 "we will have more capacity than demand."=20 Davis is a politician who's renowned for staying, in the jargon of politica= l=20 consultants, "on message." And what he told the business conference about= =20 building power plants replicated what he had said dozens of times in=20 preceding weeks. During his April 5 televised speech on the crisis, for=20 example, Davis claimed, "In the 12 years before I took office, not a single= =20 major power plant was built in California. Not one."=20 Clearly, Davis' message to Californians is that the state wasn't building= =20 power plants before he began his governorship in January 1999, but that he = is=20 moving, as he often says, "at warp speed" to license and build new plants a= nd=20 close the supply-demand gap. There are two things wrong with that message:= =20 His account of the pre-Davis record is not accurate, and his assertion that= =20 huge amounts of new power generation are coming soon is, to say the least,= =20 questionable.=20 First, the past. In the 12 years prior to his becoming governor, the=20 California Energy Commission licensed 17 power plants with a generating=20 capacity of about 1,900 megawatts. Twenty-one plants totaling 3,100 megawat= ts=20 began producing power during the period, including two considered "major" b= y=20 the usual definition of being 300 megawatts or more: the 300-megawatt=20 Sycamore plant in Kern County and the 385-megawatt Watson cogeneration plan= t=20 in Los Angeles County. Two more plants that started production during the= =20 period were more than 200 megawatts.=20 After Davis became governor, but while the Energy Commission was still=20 controlled by appointees of his predecessor, Pete Wilson, the commission=20 licensed an additional 5,800 megawatts of generation, including nine major= =20 plants.=20 Plant licensing has been speeded up in the last six months, but the total o= f=20 plants licensed by the Davis-controlled commission is less than 4,000=20 megawatts and none of those facilities has gone into production.=20 New plants are under construction, according to progress reports prepared b= y=20 the Energy Commission, but wheth- er all the recently licensed facilities= =20 will be built, at least in the near future, is questionable. There is, powe= r=20 industry sources say, an increasing reluctance by energy companies to commi= t=20 hundreds of millions of dollars to con- struct licensed plants (about=20 $750,000 per megawatt for new facilities) while Davis continues to denounce= =20 them as greedy exploiters and hints he may seize plants under an emergency= =20 declaration. Another factor is uncertainty over whether the state or=20 utilities will be financially able to buy the power.=20 One hint of that attitude has already surfaced publicly. Mirant Corp.=20 announced June 1 that it was delaying construction of a 530-megawatt=20 expansion of its Contra Costa County generation complex "because of=20 uncertainty about California energy market rules." Randy Harrison, head of= =20 Mirant's Western operations, said, "We have to be able to determine that th= is=20 will be a viable investment before we can put a quarter of a billion dollar= s'=20 worth of steel on the ground."=20 Work on much smaller cogeneration and "peaker" plants has begun, but many o= f=20 the big ones apparently are being put on hold. Indeed, there's a secondary= =20 market developing for selling licensed projects that could be built in the= =20 future. Energy executives may be greedy, but they're not stupid and it woul= d=20 be foolhardy to make multimillion-dollar commitments in a state that still= =20 doesn't know where it's going in energy policy.=20 The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or dwalters@sacbee.c= om .=20 Plan to pay businesses not to use power OK'd=20 State program in effect when reserves are low By Jennifer Coleman=20 ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 June 10, 2001=20 SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Gray Davis signed an executive order yesterday creating = a=20 voluntary program that will use up to $100 million in state money to pay=20 businesses not to use electricity when reserves are low.=20 Davis said that since nearly 70 percent of energy use in California is by= =20 commercial users, the program will "help mitigate and even avoid blackouts.= "=20 Participants, mostly large commercial users, will submit bids for reducing= =20 their power. Grid operators will then compare those prices with the going= =20 price for power and choose the cheapest option, said S. David Freeman, the= =20 governor's senior energy adviser.=20 "We'd rather pay people in California to cut back than pay out-of-state=20 generators," he said.=20 The Independent System Operator, manager of the state's power grid, will=20 operate the program, and the state Department of Water Resources will back = it=20 financially.=20 The program is the first of its kind paid for by the state. The Public=20 Utilities Commission, the Independent System Operator, and the state's=20 utilities have similar programs.=20 Kellan Fluckiger, Davis' energy adviser, said the size of the new program= =20 would depend on how many participants the ISO can recruit.=20 The ISO releases information on bids for energy after a period of time, and= =20 will probably treat bids for cutting power the same way, he said.=20 Sempra may drop project in Escondido=20 Dispute over power plant threatens industrial park By Jonathan Heller=20 UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER=20 June 9, 2001=20 ESCONDIDO -- Officials of Sempra Energy Resources are considering pulling t= he=20 plug on a planned high-tech industrial park in the city because of conflict= s=20 with a small power plant that would be built near the park's entrance.=20 Sempra executives will meet Monday to discuss the issue, a source familiar= =20 with the project said late yesterday. If they decide to cancel plans for th= e=20 business park, Sempra still would move forward with its 500-megawatt plant = on=20 the site in southwest Escondido, the source said. The 200-acre industrial= =20 park was supposed to be built around the power plant, in the Quail Hills ar= ea=20 of the city.=20 Without the park, Sempra would not have to go through the city's permit=20 process, since the power plant would fall under the jurisdiction of the=20 California Energy Commission. If that happened, the city would have lost no= t=20 only the industrial park, but also the opportunity to have any say over the= =20 Sempra project, such as setting conditions on it or requiring environmental= =20 reviews.=20 Sempra's concern stems from a 49-megawatt plant that would be built at the= =20 entrance to its business park by a company called CalPeak. The city no long= er=20 has any say about that plant, however.=20 CalPeak, impatient with the city's permit process, opted to bypass the city= =20 and go through a new expedited 21-day approval process with the state Energ= y=20 Commission, which approved the plant this week. That angered some city=20 officials, who said their land-use authority had been usurped.=20 Sempra wanted the commission to require that the CalPeak plant be shut down= =20 in about two years, when its business park was ready to be marketed to=20 prospective tenants, the source said. The commission did not incorporate th= at=20 provision in its approval.=20 Officials from Sempra and some city officials fear the CalPeak plant would= =20 not fit the upscale image envisioned for the park, and could hinder its=20 ability to attract high-end tenants.=20 On Wednesday, the City Council met in closed session to consider a court=20 challenge to the Energy Commission's approval of the CalPeak project, City= =20 Attorney Jeffrey Epp said yesterday. "As of now I don't have any direction = to=20 pursue litigation," Epp said.=20 Two city officials who asked not to be named said council members June Rady= =20 and Tom D'Agosta voted in favor of suing to block the plant. Ed Gallo, Mari= e=20 Waldron and Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler stayed silent. The lack of a majority= =20 meant litigation could not move forward.=20 Sempra officials in charge of developing the industrial park and power plan= t=20 could not be reached for comment yesterday. But the source familiar with th= e=20 project said they were disappointed that the City Council decided not to=20 challenge the CalPeak plant in court.=20 The commission did approve several city suggestions regarding landscaping f= or=20 the CalPeak plant, and placing power lines underground, to help shield it= =20 from the business park. But Sempra officials are not convinced that's enoug= h.=20 "The city has basically decided to do nothing," the source said. "Obviously= =20 that will hurt marketing efforts at the business park."=20 Pfeiler said late yesterday she was not aware of Sempra's request to the=20 commission to have the CalPeak plant shut down in two years.=20 "As far as I'm concerned the conditions Sempra and the city asked for were= =20 met," Pfeiler said. "So Sempra should be ready to go full speed ahead on th= e=20 industrial park. For Sempra to even think about not building the industrial= =20 park is very frustrating to the community."=20 City officials desperately want the business park to be built. They see the= =20 Quail Hills parcel as the last best hope to have a large, high-tech=20 industrial park in Escondido that would provide thousands of high-paying=20 jobs.=20 Hackers Victimize Cal-ISO=20 By DAN MORAIN, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????SACRAMENTO--For at least 17 days at the height of the energy crisis,= =20 hackers mounted an attack on a computer system that is integral to the=20 movement of electricity throughout California, a confidential report obtain= ed=20 by The Times shows. ?????The hackers' success, though apparently limited, brought to light laps= es=20 in computer security at the target of the cyber-attack, the California=20 Independent System Operator, which oversees most of the state's massive=20 electricity transmission grid. ?????Officials at Cal-ISO say that the lapses have been corrected and that= =20 there was no threat to the grid. But others familiar with the attack say=20 hackers came close to gaining access to key parts of the system, and could= =20 have seriously disrupted the movement of electricity across the state. ?????Democratic and Republican lawmakers were angered by the security breac= h=20 at an entity that is such a basic part of California's power system, given= =20 its fragility during the state's continuing energy crisis. One called the= =20 attack "ominous." ?????An internal agency report, stamped "restricted," shows that the attack= =20 began as early as April 25 and was not detected until May 11. The report sa= ys=20 the main attack was routed through China Telecom from someone in Guangdong= =20 province in China. ?????In addition to using China Telecom, hackers entered the system by usin= g=20 Internet servers based in Santa Clara in Northern California and Tulsa,=20 Okla., the report says. James Sample, the computer security specialist at= =20 Cal-ISO who wrote the report, said he could not tell for certain where the= =20 attackers were located. ?????"You don't know where people are really from," Sample said. "The only= =20 reason China stuck out is because of the recent political agenda China had= =20 with the U.S. . . . An ambitious U.S. hacker could have posed as a Chinese= =20 hacker." ?????The breach occurred amid heightened Sino-American tensions after the= =20 collision between a Chinese military jet and a U.S. spy plane. In early May= ,=20 there were hundreds of publicly reported computer attacks apparently=20 originating from China. Most of those incidents involved mischief;=20 anti-American slogans were scrawled on government Web sites. ?????The attack on the Cal-ISO computer system apparently had the potential= =20 for more serious consequences, given that the hackers managed to worm their= =20 way into the computers at the agency's headquarters in Folsom, east of=20 Sacramento, that were linked to a system that controls the flow of=20 electricity across California. The state system is tied into the transmissi= on=20 grid for the Western United States. ?????"This was very close to being a catastrophic breach," said a source=20 familiar with the attack and CalISO's internal investigation of the inciden= t. ?????On May 7 and 8, as the infiltration was occurring, California suffered= =20 widespread rolling blackouts, but Cal-ISO officials said Friday that there= =20 was no connection between the hacking and the outages, which affected more= =20 than 400,000 utility customers. ?????"It did not affect markets or reliability," said Stephanie McCorkle, a= =20 spokeswoman for Cal-ISO. ?????Officials of the agency made no public acknowledgment of the attack=20 until Friday when contacted by The Times. The agency did, however, call the= =20 FBI, which is investigating. ?????McCorkle said Cal-ISO did not make a public disclosure about the hacki= ng=20 "because it didn't impact the reliability of any of our internal networks." ?????"It didn't have a negative consequence and would not have impacted the= =20 public or market participants," McCorkle said. ?????After the attack was discovered, the report says, investigators found= =20 evidence that the hackers apparently were trying to "compile" or write=20 software that might have allowed them to get past so-called firewalls=20 protecting far more sensitive parts of the computer system. ?????The attackers focused on parts of the grid agency's computer system th= at=20 are under development. In what may have been the most significant lapse, th= e=20 system being developed was not behind a firewall, a security element design= ed=20 to keep out those who are not entitled to access. ?????Additionally, so-called tripwires that might have alerted agency=20 security personnel to the unauthorized entry were nonexistent. Nor were the= re=20 logs within the system that might have identified users entering the system= =20 as the infiltration was occurring, the report notes. ?????What's more, dozens of ports into the computer system were open, when= =20 only a handful should have been available. ?????"All servers should be hardened regardless of their role or location i= n=20 the network," the report says. "Only ports that are required to be open=20 should be opened; all others should be disabled." ?????Complicating the investigation, workers at Cal-ISO rebooted their=20 computers when the machines balked, apparently in response to the=20 infiltration. ?????"This action limited our ability to discover all files and activity th= at=20 may be related to this compromise," the report says. ?????Sample, the security engineer who wrote the report, downplayed the=20 potential threat and said the attack was "something that we've been=20 anticipating." ?????"It was a compromise, not really an attack," he said. ?????State legislators were not comforted by such distinctions. ?????"That's really amazing on two counts: that there were computers not=20 behind a firewall and it took 17 days to discover," said state Sen. Debra= =20 Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), who chairs her chamber's Energy Committee. ?????Bowen, who was informed of the breach by The Times, called it a "serio= us=20 matter" and said she was "very concerned to learn about this from the L.A.= =20 Times, rather than from the ISO itself." The lack of official notification,= =20 she said, adds to her skepticism about whether the agency has been=20 forthcoming. ?????"It is embarrassing, so I can understand they would not want to talk= =20 about it," Bowen said. "We're going to ask some questions." ?????The Independent System Operator, established in 1998 when the state=20 opened the newly deregulated electricity market to competition, is an=20 essential component of the state's electricity system. ?????The purpose of the nonprofit entity is to balance the flow of=20 electricity across the state and make last-minute power purchases to match= =20 demand and avoid blackouts. The Legislature reconfigured the agency earlier= =20 this year, giving Gov. Gray Davis the power to appoint the five-member boar= d=20 that oversees it. ?????"It is troubling that it happened," said Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousa= nd=20 Oaks). "It is disturbing that it took so long to be corrected. And it is=20 galling that it was not reported to the Legislature." ?????McClintock labeled as "ominous" the possibility that the attack came= =20 from China. He said he is preparing a request for all documents related to= =20 the breach and is considering requesting a formal legislative inquiry. ?????ISO board member Mike Florio, who represents consumers, said he had a= =20 vague recollection that the board was informed of the attack. But he also w= as=20 surprised to learn some of the details. ?????"We hire people to deal with this stuff," he said, "and they said they= =20 dealt with it." Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 State Asks Pricing Curbs on 4 Firms Energy: Cal-ISO wants U.S. action to bar alleged gouging by power plant=20 operators. The companies deny market manipulation.=20 By NANCY VOGEL, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????SACRAMENTO--State officials intensified their assault on power plant= =20 owners in California on Friday by asking the federal government to ban four= =20 large companies from selling power at whatever prices the market will bear. ?????Mirant Corp., Duke Energy, Dynegy Corp. and Reliant Energy--owners of= =20 more than a dozen power plants in California--have charged excessive prices= =20 and manipulated the state's market, the California Independent System=20 Operator in alleges formal petitions to the Federal Energy Regulatory=20 Commission. ?????Given evidence of abuse, Cal-ISO argues in its filings, federal=20 regulators cannot legally allow the companies to continue selling electrici= ty=20 in California at market-based rates. FERC granted that privilege to the=20 companies three years ago, when California opened its power industry to=20 competition. That privilege is now coming up for renewal. ?????By refusing to renew and setting prices instead by how much it costs t= he=20 companies to produce electricity, FERC could quickly control the high=20 wholesale electricity prices that have plagued California for the last year= ,=20 state officials say. ?????Cal-ISO, the Folsom-based agency that manages much of the state's=20 transmission grid, submitted a similar emergency motion to FERC on May 25,= =20 urging a revocation of the rights of AES Corp. and Williams Cos. to sell=20 electricity at market rates. Together, the six companies that are the subje= ct=20 of Cal-ISO's filings have the capacity to generate at least 17,000=20 megawatts--half of what California needs to meet peak summer demand. ?????In the flurry of petitions filed late Thursday and Friday, grid manage= rs=20 also asked federal regulators to force the six companies to refund money th= ey=20 have charged beyond the costs of operating their power plants since May 200= 0.=20 Cal-ISO did not specify a refund figure, but an earlier report by the agenc= y=20 concluded that power sellers had overcharged the state by $6.7 billion=20 between May 2000 and March 2001. ?????"I'm optimistic that in one form or another we'll be able to get the= =20 relief we're seeking," said Cal-ISO general counsel Charles Robinson. He sa= id=20 his agency may go to court if FERC does not act by June 28. ?????Some company officials characterized the move as political. ?????"Obviously the filing is about the inference of market manipulation an= d=20 we haven't manipulated any markets," said Thomas J. Allen, a vice president= =20 with Mirant, which owns three power plants in the San Francisco Bay Area an= d=20 recently signed a 19-month contract to provide the state with power. ?????"Just when we've started to work more closely with the state," he said= ,=20 "we hate to see this whole thing continue to be politicized." ?????Other generators pointed to a recent drop in wholesale power prices as= a=20 sign that the market works and that California suffers mostly from a gap=20 between supply and demand. Power traders say prices are easing largely=20 because of cool weather across the West and snowmelt swelling Pacific=20 Northwest rivers that drive hydroelectric generators. ?????"We're gratified that market forces are clearly at work," said Tom=20 Williams, spokesman for Duke Energy, which owns major power plants on the= =20 central coast. ?????FERC spokeswoman Celeste Miller said the agency will not comment on th= e=20 Cal-ISO filings. ?????To continue selling electricity at market prices, the energy companies= =20 must show FERC that they each control less than 20% of California's market.= =20 Critics argue that FERC's standard is too simplistic to prevent manipulatio= n=20 of an electricity market where demand at times exceeds supply. ?????Robinson said Cal-ISO may file similar petitions with FERC to revoke t= he=20 market-based rate authority of energy traders--who act as middlemen--and=20 out-of-state companies that sell into California. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 After-School Programs Threatened=20 Finance: Budget plan kills funds for a project that includes efforts to boo= st=20 family-school ties and help single mothers keep sons out of gangs.=20 By CARLA RIVERA, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????Nine-year-old Oscar Fuentes has run smack up against California's=20 slowing economy and high energy costs. ?????He and his playmates at Rosemont Elementary School in the Echo Park ar= ea=20 of Los Angeles were told this week that the highly praised after-school=20 program in which they are enrolled will get no more money from the state to= =20 keep it going. ?????The implications are easy enough for even a fourth-grader to understan= d:=20 By the end of the month he may have no one to help him do his homework, and= =20 the volunteer instructor may not come anymore to teach his friends how to= =20 dance. ?????"We get to do fun activities and we get free snacks," said the=20 round-faced, dark-eyed Oscar, who was hard at work on math assignments afte= r=20 school. "It's sad the program might be cut."=20 ?????More than 36,000 youngsters and parents in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa= =20 Barbara and other counties could be affected by the demise of the Juvenile= =20 Crime Prevention Program, begun in 1996 as a pilot project to provide=20 constructive activities for low-income children and their families. ?????About $9.7 million was included in the governor's January budget=20 proposal to keep the 12 centers operating for two more years. But in the=20 April budget revision, that funding was eliminated. ?????California's suddenly weaker financial health, affected by a combinati= on=20 of surging energy expenses and softening revenue, is beginning to be felt= =20 even on playgrounds, said legislators and other state officials. ?????"There had to be some hard choices," said Blanca Barna, a spokeswoman= =20 for the California Department of Social Services. "It was important that=20 resources be focused on programs that are currently a priority." Those=20 priorities for the department include child welfare, adoptions, foster care= =20 and independent living, she said. ?????Supporters are mounting a vigorous effort to have state funding restor= ed=20 to juvenile program. ?????"It's a tough year," acknowledged Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar)= ,=20 chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, which is considering such a=20 restoration proposal. "The economy nationally and in the state has shifted= =20 now. But I'm personally pushing for [the program] and trying my best to=20 protect it throughout the entire process." ?????The committee's vice chairman, Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster)= ,=20 however, noted that the Legislature has already approved a separate=20 $121-million juvenile crime prevention package to be funneled through the= =20 state Department of Corrections and that the threatened program could be=20 included in it. ?????"If other funding is available, I'd like to see why it can't be folded= =20 in," Runner said. ?????Supporters laud the program for its focus on strengthening the=20 community. In addition to the after-school activities, it includes efforts = to=20 improve the bonds between families and schools, help single mothers keep=20 their 10- to 14-year-old sons out of gangs, and counsel families with=20 youngsters already in the juvenile justice system. ?????In Long Beach, more than 200 people rallied at City Hall recently as t= he=20 City Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the governor to save th= at=20 city's program, which serves 3,000 people each year and is run by the YMCA. ?????"It has brought families together, kids, moms and dads, to take contro= l=20 of their lives and be participants in their community," said Councilwoman= =20 Bonnie Lowenthal. ?????She cited an example of participants drawing up a petition for a stop= =20 sign at a dangerous intersection near a park as something "that had not=20 really occurred before in neighborhoods where so many of the families are= =20 immigrants and non-English-speaking." ?????An independent evaluation by Philliber Research Associates of a sample= =20 of families enrolled in the program found that it helped to significantly= =20 decrease delinquent behavior, substance abuse, arrests and citations and=20 improve family cohesion, social adjustment and school achievement. ?????"If you start taking away programs that have proven to curb juvenile= =20 crime just to save energy, all you're doing is moving one problem and addin= g=20 another," said Daniel Perez, who is in charge of the Ventura County program= ,=20 run by Interface Children Family Services. Until the state cutback was=20 proposed, it was expected to receive an $800,0000 grant to maintain tutorin= g=20 and counseling programs previously funded by the county. ?????About 450 people have been served by the Santa Paula center in the las= t=20 three years, and many in this low-income community--victims of domestic=20 violence, single working mothers, first-time juvenile offenders and at-risk= =20 elementary school students--depend on the free services. ?????"If this funding goes, it eliminates our whole center," Perez said.=20 "It's very disheartening." ?????Such a prospect is indeed disheartening for Ana Romero, a 28-year-old= =20 Echo Park mother of three. ?????For three years her daughter Jamillet, 11, has been enrolled in the=20 Juvenile Crime Prevention Program at Rosemont, run by the nonprofit communi= ty=20 group Para los Ni=0Fos, and has made steady improvement in her school score= s=20 and her self-esteem. ?????Romero's husband, Hector, works in construction, and Romero is about t= o=20 start a new job as a grocery store cashier. But without the after-school=20 program, she is not sure what the family will do. ?????"What my daughter learns here, she teaches to her brother and sister a= nd=20 to me and my husband too," Romero said, waiting to pick up Jamillet from th= e=20 Rosemont program, which runs from 2 to 6 p.m. ?????Jamillet is enthusiastic, too. ?????"I feel like a teacher for the family," the dark-eyed little girl said= =20 proudly. "I especially like going on the field trips, and it's sad if my=20 little brother won't be able to go to the program." --- ?????Times staff writer Jenifer Ragland contributed to this story. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 Drop in Gas Price Raises Questions in Probe=20 Regulation: Cost has fallen 96% since May 31, stirring accusations of an=20 artificial shortage.=20 By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????WASHINGTON--As the price of natural gas destined for California power= =20 plants continued to collapse Friday, new questions were being raised about = a=20 controversial shipping deal between two offshoots of a Texas energy=20 conglomerate. ?????State officials and utilities have complained to the Federal Energy=20 Regulatory Commission that subsidiaries of Houston-based El Paso Corp.=20 restricted gas supplies on a major pipeline system last year, creating an= =20 artificial shortage that sent energy costs soaring. The company has=20 steadfastly denied the allegations, which are the focus of a trial-like=20 hearing stretching into its fifth week at FERC. ?????But in a development that had the courtroom abuzz Friday, the markup f= or=20 natural gas shipped from producing basins in Texas to the Southern Californ= ia=20 border has plunged by 96% since May 31, when the contract between the El Pa= so=20 subsidiaries expired and about 30 competitors entered the market. ?????According to data from Natural Gas Week, the markup between Texas and = a=20 major California-border pipeline junction served by El Paso fell from $6.32= =20 per million British thermal units on May 31--the last day of the=20 controversial deal--to only 23 cents Friday. A million BTU is about what a= =20 typical Southern California household consumes in five or six days. ?????That put Southern California natural gas prices in line with the rest = of=20 the country for the first time since last July.=20 ?????State officials and California utilities said the price collapse=20 bolstered their case that the El Paso companies had been exercising market= =20 power--engaging in monopolistic behavior. ?????"You can't help but think that the market is reacting to the differenc= e=20 between having many shippers instead of one," said Kevin Lipson, a lawyer= =20 representing Southern California Edison in the proceedings against El Paso.= =20 "The market knows the difference between competition and monopoly." ?????Under the deal that just expired, one subsidiary of El Paso had obtain= ed=20 the shipping rights for up to 17% of California's daily gas consumption=20 through a pipeline system owned by another subsidiary. ?????"We don't have an 800-pound gorilla any more," said Harvey Morris, a= =20 lawyer for the California Public Utilities Commission. "We have a chimpanze= e." ?????But Peggy Heeg, deputy general counsel for El Paso Corp., said other= =20 factors--such as mild weather and increased storage levels of gas in=20 California--are behind the dramatic price swing. ?????"We are glad to see prices coming down and to see some relief for=20 Californians," Heeg said. "The price movement is consistent with what we ar= e=20 saying, which is that supply and demand are driving prices." ?????The swift reversal in prices has raised suspicions at FERC. ?????"It's not enough to convict El Paso and send them to jail, but this=20 piece of information is certainly consistent with the idea that there was= =20 market power," said an agency official. ?????"Prices had been dropping a little, but since June 1, it's become very= =20 noticeable," said another agency official. "Obviously, one of the reasons h= as=20 to be that the capacity changed hands." ?????FERC's governing board can order El Paso to refund profits if it finds= =20 that the subsidiaries tried to manipulate the California market. ?????One independent economist cautioned against a rush to judgment. "There= =20 are a lot of things going on which in and of themselves could account for a= =20 significant price decline," said Bruce Henning of Energy and Environmental= =20 Analysis Inc. in Arlington, Va. "I would be unwilling to draw a causal link= ." ?????In addition to the weather and fuller storage cited by El Paso's Heeg,= =20 increased conservation by Californians has reduced demand for electricity.= =20 That, in turn, has dampened the market for natural gas, the fuel most=20 commonly used by the state's power plants. ?????But the industry also has come under strong political pressure in rece= nt=20 weeks. In hearings before Congress and the California Legislature, lawmaker= s=20 spoke out against natural gas prices that were much higher than elsewhere i= n=20 the nation. California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer launched an investigation. A= nd=20 FERC, in addition to the El Paso hearing, called an industry conference. ?????Plaintiffs' lawyers in the El Paso case say they believe the pressure= =20 led El Paso Merchant Energy--which sells natural gas--to pass up an option = to=20 renew its contract with El Paso Natural Gas Co., which owns the pipeline=20 system. Instead, El Paso Merchant settled for a much smaller chunk of=20 capacity on its sister company's system. El Paso says the decision was made= =20 for business reasons, not in response to pressure from regulators. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 New Power Plant Proposed for Riverside County By MITCHELL LANDSBERG, Times Staff Writer=20 ?????Calpine Corp., on a breakneck pace to boost the amount of electricity = it=20 produces in California, announced plans Friday to build a major power plant= =20 in western Riverside County near the terminus of a hotly contested=20 transmission line. ?????The plant, the 10th the company has proposed constructing in Californi= a,=20 would be in the unincorporated Romoland area between Hemet and Perris, and= =20 would supply enough power for about 450,000 homes. ?????"As a California-based company, we are extremely pleased to, yet again= ,=20 move forward on a project such as this," said John King, senior vice=20 president of business development for Calpine, which is based in San Jose.= =20 The company has been eager to distance itself from the out-of-state energy= =20 suppliers whom Gov. Gray Davis has portrayed as public enemies for their ro= le=20 in California's energy crisis. ?????State officials greeted the announcement somewhat warily, noting that= =20 Calpine has announced plans before that didn't pan out. Until the company= =20 formally applies for licensing, the California Energy Commission will reser= ve=20 comment on the plans, spokesman Rob Schlichting said. ?????"It's basically a trial balloon," he said of the announcement. ?????Calpine officials said they intend to file an application for licensin= g=20 with the commission in July and to begin construction of the $325-million= =20 plant sometime in the middle of next year. They said the plant could be=20 running by 2004. ?????Greg Lamberg, Calpine's director of business development, said the=20 company has already held extensive discussions with local officials in=20 Riverside County and has encountered no community opposition. ?????"We're finding just the reverse--we're finding a tremendous level of= =20 support in the community," Lamberg said. ?????Local officials could not immediately be reached for comment. There ha= s=20 been substantial opposition to another electrical project in the same=20 vicinity, a proposed 500,000-volt transmission line that San Diego Gas &=20 Electric wants to build through southwestern Riverside County. ?????The line would end at Southern California Edison's Valley substation i= n=20 Romoland. Calpine's proposed Inland Empire Energy Center would be built abo= ut=20 half a mile from the substation, on vacant land along California 74 near=20 Interstate 215. ?????Proximity to the Edison substation--and to a nearby natural gas=20 pipeline--make the location ideal, Lamberg said. Calpine officials said the= y=20 don't expect opposition to the SDG&E transmission line to translate into=20 opposition to their project. ?????"The reason folks are opposed to that line is that it's a means for Sa= n=20 Diego to import power," said Calpine spokesman Kent Robertson. "What we're= =20 doing is, we're building projects to serve the local community. We think it= 's=20 kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison." ?????The area immediately surrounding the site is industrial, and Lamberg= =20 said the company believes the plant will not cast a large "footprint" on th= e=20 environment. Calpine's plans call for a 600-megawatt combined cycle plant= =20 that burns natural gas to generate electricity. Combined cycle plants, whic= h=20 recycle their heat to make electricity a second time, are considered=20 extremely efficient and far cleaner than older, single cycle plants. ?????If the plant is licensed and built, it will help cement Calpine's=20 position as a major player in the California energy market. The company now= =20 owns 11 mostly small, geothermal power plants in the state but has plans=20 underway for nine gas-fired plants that would add more than 5,000 megawatts= =20 of power, enough to supply about 4 million homes. Three major plants are=20 already under construction in Northern California. ?????The Southland plant would be the third new generator in Riverside=20 County. Wisvest is building a 520-megawatt plant in Blythe, and there are= =20 plans for a smaller, "peaker" plant in that city. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times=20 NEWS=20 CALIFORNIA POWER CRISIS=20 ISO seeks to pull rate authority from 4 firms Jennifer Coleman ?=20 06/09/2001=20 The San Diego Union-Tribune=20 1,2,6,7=20 Page A-3=20 (Copyright 2001)=20 SACRAMENTO -- Four major power suppliers to California have shown they can= =20 control prices in the wholesale electricity market and should have to refun= d=20 excess charges, possibly up to billions of dollars, state grid officials sa= id=20 yesterday.=20 The Independent System Operator, keeper of the state's power grid, also ask= ed=20 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revoke the market-based rate=20 authority for four generators: Duke Energy, Mirant, Dynegy and Reliant=20 Energy.=20 ISO analysts have estimated the state was overcharged about $6.7 billion=20 between May 2000 and March 2001.=20 That includes charges by generators other than the four in these filings, a= nd=20 ISO officials didn't have an estimate on how much they were seeking from=20 Duke, Reliant, Mirant and Dynegy.=20 In order to continue charging market-based rates, generators must prove to= =20 FERC that they don't have what is known as market power -- the ability to= =20 charge whatever price they want without consequence.=20 Suppliers have to have that authority renewed by FERC every three years, an= d=20 most are up for review this summer.=20 Robinson said the companies have exhibited they have market power and the= =20 ability to charge market-based rates should be revoked. The ISO asked FERC = to=20 act on their request by June 28.=20 Tom Williams, spokesman for Duke Energy, said company officials were=20 reviewing the filing. Duke operates the South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vist= a=20 for its owner, the San Diego Unified Port District, under a long-term lease= .=20 Richard Wheatley of Reliant Energy said the ISO order was "nothing but a=20 rehashing of previous allegations that have been repeatedly rejected by=20 FERC."=20 If FERC finds the companies do have market power, they could order them to= =20 use cost-based rates, which limit company profits to a percentage above the= =20 costs to produce power.=20 The ISO already has made similar requests regarding two other energy=20 companies, Williams and AES.=20 If the companies are found to have charged excessive rates, FERC can order= =20 refunds.=20 Though ISO estimates $6.7 billion has been overcharged, some of that comes= =20 from companies not under FERC's jurisdiction, such as Canadian firms or=20 municipal districts.=20 FERC has ordered $125 million in refunds, saying it can only examine prices= =20 for power sold during Stage 3 emergencies, when reserves drop to below 1.5= =20 percent. OPINION=20 CALIFORNIA POWER CRISIS | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR=20 Short-circuited by the `so-called' electricity crisis ?=20 06/09/2001=20 The San Diego Union-Tribune=20 1,2,6,7=20 Page B-9:2,7; B-7:1; B-11:6=20 (Copyright 2001)=20 Re: "Is trading an insider's game" (A-1, June 6):=20 Does anyone actually doubt that the latest so-called "energy shortage" is= =20 anything other than a case of those in position to do so racking up profits= =20 at the expense of those unprepared to deal with the situation?=20 With profligate usage on the one hand and unmitigated greed on the other,= =20 this showdown has all the makings of front page and prime time news blurbs,= =20 but little more. One shouldn't assume from the hoopla that significant=20 improvements are coming.=20 We are told that more power plants and more oil and gas are on the way,=20 presumably to remedy the sort of "shortages" we now experience. Meanwhile,= =20 elected officials still tout the free market as the answer to all our=20 problems.=20 In fact, energy markets are anything but free as they require endless publi= c=20 and political largess in the form of rights of way and the financing of=20 staggering sums for infrastructure. All these costs are ultimately borne by= =20 consumers in addition to "whatever-the- market-will-bear" energy costs.=20 Natural resources, including energy, should be public domain, along with=20 education, transportation and communication. PAUL STANGELAND Encinitas=20 As a native Californian, I have said for the last 40 years that the=20 environmentalists would destroy our good life.=20 I worked hard to build two new power plants in the early '70s, one being=20 Sundesert. The power company, SDG&E, said we would be short of power in ear= ly=20 2000, depending on the population explosion; this, plus new transmission=20 lines, were all abandoned because of lawsuits to protect "rocks and other= =20 desert animals."=20 California has a master plan for roads and highways. Many cannot be built o= r=20 finished because of lawsuits protecting birds, snail darters and mesa mint,= =20 so we have daily gridlock.=20 We do not need any more environmentalists in our government. This is why we= =20 are where we are now. We need people who have an understanding of the "big= =20 picture." They need to make better decisions and not hold up projects that= =20 will benefit and improve the communities of San Diego. RUTH JOHNSON=20 Clairemont=20 Your editorial, ("Nuclear comeback," May 30), is a sign of the times. Still= ,=20 nuclear power has a unique problem which prevents it from being put into ma= ss=20 production.=20 The problem is not a technical one. Those types of problems were solved lon= g=20 ago. Nuclear power's unique deterrent is called "what if."=20 If "what ifs" were applied to other industries, no airplane would ever fly,= =20 no bridge would ever be built and the space program would not exist.=20 California needs more nuclear power and less "what ifs." DOUGLAS C. SMITHDE= AL=20 San Diego=20 So our utility is at it again, asking for an 18 percent rate hike. How abou= t=20 an 18 percent payroll cut across the board for all those overpaid SDG&E=20 overpaid executives?=20 They have to be the most overcompensated group west of Congress. I don't ow= n=20 any of the company's stock but I'd sure raise cain if I did. AL DORSETT San= =20 Diego=20 Jim Goldsborough's column, ("An energy plan sponsored by Enron," June 4), i= s=20 full of misinformation.=20 California 's energy problem is blamed on Enron and the Bush administration= .=20 The truth is, California has itself to blame, caused by passage of=20 electricity decontrol by the Democratic Legislature under the leadership of= =20 Steve Peace.=20 Further, due to strong environmentalist influence, California has not been= =20 able to build power plants or drill for oil or natural gas in the last 10 t= o=20 20 years. During this time, the population has grown by 50 percent.=20 Thus, California must import 20 percent of its electricity and has a shorta= ge=20 of natural gas. Blaming Enron and the U.S. oil industry for high oil and=20 gasoline prices also is ridiculous.=20 The United States has to import 57 percent of its oil needs, so that oil=20 prices obviously are under the control of OPEC and other foreign producers.= =20 President Jimmy Carter canceled our nuclear power program, apparently for= =20 environmental reasons. This is the main reason that electricity supply is= =20 short on both the West and East coasts.=20 Goldsborough is incorrect in stating that nuclear electricity is not=20 competitive.=20 Under Gov. Gray Davis, a gas-fired, electricity -generation program is boun= d=20 to fail due to the natural gas shortage. I predict continuing California=20 electricity blackouts for at least the next five years under the present=20 program promoted by Davis. One hopes the electorate will recognize that the= =20 governor only is interested in the 2002 election and will defeat him.=20 President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are fundamentally correct in= =20 stating that establishing price controls for California electricity purchas= es=20 would be counter-productive. Higher electricity prices not only would=20 decrease consumption but also would make it more attractive to build more= =20 supply. J.W. BISHIP Olivenhain=20 President Bush campaigned on a compassionate conservative platform that has= =20 morphed into the embodiment of crass commercialism.=20 While Cheney is the presumed shadow president, it looks more and more like = he=20 has a powerful shadow in Kenneth Lay, chairman of Enron, the marketer of=20 energy products. Not only was Lay a prime mover in developing the so-called= =20 "Bush Energy Policy," he recently hosted a secret meeting in San Francisco.= =20 Its purpose was to urge influential Californians to push for deregulation a= nd=20 stop investigations that "obstruct the process."=20 Now we know Lay has interviewed, "vetted," candidates for the Federal Energ= y=20 Regulatory Commission, a supposedly independent body whose purpose is to be= a=20 watchdog on energy policy. The fox is clearly guarding the chickens. And th= is=20 scenario was arranged for, or at least permitted by, the same president who= =20 decided that the Bar Association would no longer be involved in "vetting"= =20 candidates for judgeships. MARILYN MILLER Carlsbad=20 Let's see if I have this correct. Gov. Davis has a plan to fix our energy= =20 problems.=20 First, place the blame on our president not putting on price caps, which=20 would only increase energy use and blackouts.=20 Next, threaten the owners of power plants with a windfall tax or better yet= ,=20 hint that the National Guard will come and take over their plants. And the= =20 companies must charge only what we want, which, for sure, will discourage= =20 other companies from coming to our state and building plants to increase=20 production, that being the only real solution to the problem.=20 Well listen, Gov. Davis, I'm tired of paying so much for a pair of Levis; h= ow=20 about a windfall tax on Mervyns or Sears, or let's just take them over and= =20 get those prices down.=20 By the way, just a question for Democrats, Davis and Bob Filner, to name a= =20 couple. This energy crisis did not just come about in the few months that= =20 President Bush has been in office. What energy policy did the Clinton/Gore= =20 team have?=20 Oh, that's right, they didn't have one for eight years, so perhaps instead = of=20 pointing fingers, it's time to work together and get these new plants on=20 line. PHIL TORRE Mira Mesa=20 Prior to deregulation, we were all used to our electric bills which showed= =20 our cost for electric power was from 10 to 11 cents per kilowatt hour. This= =20 rate was roughly divided between the cost of power generation which was 2 o= r=20 3 cents and the remaining 7 cents for transmission and distribution.=20 Distribution costs have remained the same but power generation charges are= =20 out of this world.=20 The state power authority has paid $348, and in an extreme case, $1,900, fo= r=20 a megawatt-hour of electricity . Those figures convert to 34 cents and $1.9= 0=20 for a kilowatth-hour for your home.=20 If journalists would start using kilowatt-hour prices when writing about ou= r=20 power problems, I am sure the public would make stronger demands on the sta= te=20 and federal governments to solve this problem.=20 Even President Bush would agree that $1.90 per kilowatt-hour for electric= =20 power generation is not a fair and reasonable charge for something it took = 3=20 cents to produce. L.K. McNEIL San Diego=20 The last few months have seen a flurry of news stories about California 's= =20 energy shortage, but almost everyone has ignored our greatest energy=20 resource. The sun delivers an average of 6 kilowatt- hours of energy per=20 square meter per day in our desert areas. And solar plants can use mirrors = to=20 concentrate the light intensity hundreds or thousands of times. This can be= =20 used to spin turbines or drive Sterling engines.=20 Even 1995 technology could supply every single watt of electricity that=20 California consumed in 1999, using the sunlight that falls on just a 14-mil= e=20 square of otherwise useless desert land. Such a "combined cycle solar=20 concentrator" system can be built at less than one-third the cost of solar= =20 photovoltaic panels, and could produce power for less than 7 cents per=20 kilowatt-hour.=20 No pollution would be released by such a system, not even thermal pollution= ,=20 so it would not contribute to global warming in any way.=20 Another advantage of solar-based power generation is that most of the power= =20 is available when California needs it, during summer afternoons. And best o= f=20 all, we could bankrupt all of those energy gougers. GUY GROTKE Vista=20 My thermostat is turned down to near freezing; we don't use the dishwasher,= =20 we use low energy bulbs and do the laundry after 7 p.m. - - so I guess it's= =20 time to ask.=20 "Ask not what I can do for the city . . . but what can the city do for me? = It=20 can, over time, save the taxpayer a bundle. It can do as Florida and severa= l=20 other Sun Belt states have done and install solar- powered traffic lights.= =20 If the entire state does it, we might dispense with the need for a generato= r=20 or two, and at the same time, hit a few Texans where it hurts most -- in th= e=20 pocketbook.=20 Come to think of it, a few locals with stock in those companies will shed a= =20 tear or two -- how else to explain a few of the letters I've been reading?= =20 MICHAEL R. ALBINO San Diego=20 California ; Zones Desk=20 Ventura County Businesses Sweat Out Power Crisis CATHERINE SAILLANT ?=20 06/11/2001=20 Los Angeles Times=20 Ventura County Edition=20 Page B-1=20 Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company=20 In the rush to save kilowatts, here is what it has come down to for one of= =20 California 's small businesses: ketchup stains are detectable under=20 energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs but butter smears are not.=20 That's what the owners of Unique Cleaners in Ventura found before switching= =20 to a specially installed light bank that saves energy but still casts enoug= h=20 light to find spots.=20 Susan and Suk Cho then passed the information along to other cleaners,=20 joining an informal and growing network of small-business owners who are=20 sharing ways to sweat out a summer of predicted rolling blackouts and=20 spiraling electricity prices.=20 Unable to tap options available to bigger firms, small, energy-sucking=20 cleaners, ice shops, bakeries, restaurants and the like are turning to each= =20 other for help.=20 "I'm sure we will be sweating more, working harder and getting less=20 accomplished," said Ken Ackerman, owner of ABC Ice House in Laguna Niguel,= =20 who plans to shut off his air conditioner. "Whether we will end up better o= ff=20 doesn't look likely."=20 They are getting a boost from the National Federation of Independent=20 Business, which is setting up councils around the state to come up with=20 conservation solutions for small-business owners.=20 "Small businesses are operating on very narrow margins," said Martyn Hopper= ,=20 state director of the agency. "Energy is a bottom-line cost that affects=20 their ability to pay salaries and benefits and their ability to exist. So= =20 anything they can do to shave costs will help."=20 Projections of 30-plus days of summer blackouts could cost California=20 businesses an estimated $21.8 billion, a study by a California business=20 consortium found. Paired with electricity rate hikes of about 35% for=20 small-business customers, merchants have been forced to think hard about wa= ys=20 to conserve and prepare for hourlong outages.=20 Although industrial users of electricity are seeing even higher price=20 increases, the burden falls heavily on small businesses because they have= =20 fewer options, said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County= =20 Economic Development Corp.=20 Big companies with facilities in another state can switch production to tha= t=20 state and get by, Kyser said. But mom-and-pop outlets are stuck here.=20 Many merchants can't just raise prices, because of fierce competition. And= =20 reducing costs by trimming a bloated work force does not come into play whe= n=20 there's no bloat, Kyser said.=20 Even business owners in Los Angeles, which has its own stable source of pow= er=20 generation, are worried. Out-of-state customers, alarmed by reports of=20 California 's crisis, are getting jumpy about Los Angeles firms' ability to= =20 fill contracts, regardless of the facts, Kyser said.=20 All this means that small businesses are barreling into uncharted territory= .=20 "What we are finding is that small business, no matter where it is located,= =20 is sort of scared silly," Kyser said.=20 A Kilowatt Here, a Kilowatt There=20 Many shop owners are just now getting down to the nitty-gritty details of h= ow=20 to shave a kilowatt here and there.=20 The first thing Susan Cho did was remove every other bank of overhead=20 fluorescent bulbs at her 4,000-square-foot cleaners in Ventura. Then, she a= nd=20 her husband, Suk, purchased a new industrial dryer and shirt presser that= =20 operate on less energy.=20 She turned off an illuminated sign outside and unplugged a soda machine,=20 replacing it with a water cooler. Cho's 14 employees are instructed to turn= =20 off lights whenever they are not in use and to completely fill dryers befor= e=20 running them.=20 "I'd walk by and there would be two or three blouses in a machine," Cho sai= d.=20 "No more."=20 These small steps added up to big savings. Cho estimates she spends $300 to= =20 $400 less each month on electricity than she did a year ago. She told a=20 friend who also owns a dry cleaning shop what she had done, Cho said, and= =20 also shared tips with her Korean business association.=20 Trimming energy usage is trickier for Ackerman. The Orange County ice=20 distributor can't just turn down the temperature on his 18-by-22-foot walk-= in=20 freezer.=20 But he does plan to turn off the air conditioning elsewhere and use=20 lower-energy fans near the freezer during summer months.=20 Ackerman also checked out the possibility of buying a gas-powered generator= =20 to run his compressor during hot afternoons. When he learned that he would= =20 not receive a rate break for voluntarily taking his freezer offline, he=20 dropped the plan.=20 "I'm too small of a business to fall under any of the [rate-reduction]=20 programs available," Ackerman said. "So I'll just suffer through the summer= ."=20 At Print Masters in Long Beach, Dody Lopez runs jobs on the main copier onl= y=20 during morning and late-afternoon hours. That way, power usage--and the hea= t=20 the energy-hungry machine generates--are idled during peak energy hours fr
|