|
|
Enron Mail |
Following is today's IEP news...for more headlines please visit
www.rtumble.com. Thanks, Jean -- Jean Munoz McNally Temple Associates, Inc. 916-447-8186 916-447-6326 (fx) Copley News Service, May 31, 2001, Thursday, State and regional, 893 words, ????Amid giant redwoods, Bush stumps for 'new environmentalism', Bill Ainsworth, ????SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, Calif. The Dallas Morning News, May 31, 2001, Thursday, WASHINGTON DATELINE, K0440 ????, 1113 words, Legislators push for bill to allow sale of "negawatts' to ????California, By Jim Landers Detroit Free Press, May 31, 2001, Thursday, DOMESTIC NEWS, K0477, 1421 ????words, With energy crisis on nation's collective mind, Abraham faces test of ????his life, By Ruby L. Bailey Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2001 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 17, 702 words, ????NATION; ; FERC Chief Unfazed By Threat of Third Lawsuit, RICARDO ????ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, JUDY PASTERNAK, TIMES STAFF WRITERS, WASHINGTON Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2001 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 14, 523 words, ????Bush, Davis Clash on Energy Price Caps Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2001 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 8, 759 words, ????The State; ; Bush Blunders Into Equal Footing With Davis, GEORGE SKELTON, ????SACRAMENTO Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2001 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 1, 842 words, ????See How You Like This Action, Mr. President, PETER H. KING, SACRAMENTO Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2001 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 1, 796 words, ????Estate Tax Repeal to Hurt State Revenue; Finances: Without a portion of the ????federal money, California stands to lose $356 million next year as the ????credit is phased out., LIZ PULLIAM WESTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER The New York Times, May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section ????A; Page 27; Column 2; Editorial Desk, 687 words, Bush's Mistake in ????California, By Gray Davis; Gray Davis is the governor of California., ????SACRAMENTO The New York Times, May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section ????A; Page 1; Column 5; Business/Financial Desk, 1396 words, In California, ????Blackouts Spur A Search forHome Remedies, By LAURA M. HOLSON, LOS ANGELES, ????May 30 The New York Times, May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section ????A; Page 18; Column 4; National Desk, 135 words, National Briefing West: ????California: Utility Donations, AP San Jose Mercury News, May 31, 2001, Thursday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, ????K0555, 1171 words, San Jose mayor reverses position, endorses Calpine power ????plant project, By Mike Zapler The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 31, 2001, THURSDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A5, 912 words, Plan would have biggest customers pay Edison's debt, Greg ????Lucas, Sacramento The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 31, 2001, THURSDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A1, 876 words, Regulators want state trade-off for caps; ???Davis asked ????to give up control of power lines, Bernadette Tansey The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 31, 2001, THURSDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A1, 744 words, Municipal utilities warned; ???Governor says he'll seize ????excess electricity if prices don't come down, David Lazarus, Sacramento The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 31, 2001, THURSDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A8, 687 words, NEWS ANALYSIS; ???State awaiting bold act by Davis; ????Rhetoric buys time but summer's near, Lynda Gledhill, Sacramento The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 31, 2001, THURSDAY,, FINAL EDITION, ????EDITORIAL;, Pg. A27;, 641 words, FERC is shirking its responsibilities, John ????A. Russo, John Burton, Robert M. Hertzberg The Washington Post, May 31, 2001, Thursday, Final Edition, FINANCIAL; Pg. ????E01, 1017 words, Price Caps Have Questionable Record; Even if California ????Gets Controls on Electric Costs, They May Not Help, Martha McNeil Hamilton ????and Greg Schneider, Washington Post Staff Writers Chicago Tribune, May 31, 2001 Thursday, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION, ????Editorial; Pg. 24; ZONE: N, 503 words, Price caps don't generate energy Copyright 2001 Copley News Service ?????????????????????????????Copley News Service ????????????????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday SECTION: State and regional LENGTH: 893 words HEADLINE: Amid giant redwoods, Bush stumps for 'new environmentalism' BYLINE: Bill Ainsworth DATELINE: SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, Calif. BODY: ??President Bush yesterday chose one of the oldest living trees an ancient sequoia as a backdrop to declare ''a new environmentalism for the 21st century'' that balances protection of natural treasures with private property rights. ??Dressed in casual clothes and a green windbreaker, Bush used the spectacular setting to highlight his plan to spend $5 billion over five years to reduce the national parks' huge maintenance backlog. ??He spoke in reverent tones about the responsibility of the government to preserve areas such as the sequoia groves of the high Sierra. ??''Our duty is to use the lands well and sometimes not to use them at all,'' Bush said, standing in front of the Sentinel, a 2,200-year-old tree that soars 257 feet and measures 86 feet around. ??Yet Bush said such decisions must not ignore private property rights. ??''We must protect the claims of nature, while also protecting the legal rights of property owners,'' Bush said. ??He added that state and local governments also have responsibility for the environment. ??''And usually they have a better grasp of the problem and what is needed to solve it,'' Bush said. ''Washington has sometimes relied too much on threat and mandate from afar, when it should be encouraging innovation and high standards from the people closest to the land.'' ??Environmental groups have criticized Bush on a number of fronts, from seeking to open public lands to oil and gas exploration to dropping new restrictions on arsenic in drinking water to his broken campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. ??At least one organization, the National Parks Conservation Organization, took issue with the plan Bush announced yesterday because it included virtually no money for new parkland and instead focused on building roads and buildings. ??The Sierra Club suggested that Bush was in no position to claim the mantle of environmentalist. ??Polls show the public is leery of the president on the environment, and yesterday's event was one in a series aimed at bolstering his credentials in that area. ??The day before, his administration affirmed a plan put into place in the latter days of the Clinton administration to reduce haze at national parks. The Clinton rules, initially put on hold by Bush, help states force older power plants and industrial facilities to cut air pollution. ??Democrats believe the president, who lost California by 12 percent of the vote, is vulnerable on environment and energy issues. Tuesday, he met with Gov. Gray Davis to discuss the energy crisis, a meeting that resulted in the expected disagreement over wholesale electricity price caps Davis wants and Bush does not. ??Yesterday, energy was not on the president's agenda. He refused to answer questions from reporters; the general public was not allowed to attend any of his three events during his two-day California visit, which included a speech Tuesday at Camp Pendleton. ??Yesterday, his speech took on a philosophic tone about balancing competing interests. ??''My administration will adopt a new spirit of respect and cooperation, because, in the end, that is the better way to protect the environment we all share a new environmentalism for the 21st century,'' Bush said, in a carefully choreographed setting with park rangers in front of the giant sequoia. ??The president pushed his National Parks Legacy Project, a plan proposed during his campaign to spend $5 billion on the needs of parks, including improving neglected buildings and roads. ??As part of the plan, he wants to protect 4,000 miles of rivers, restore 9,000 acres of parklands to their natural habitat and double the money for studying wildlife resources in parks. ??Bush was joined by Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whom he asked to produce annual reports on each national park. ??''Good stewardship begins here,'' Bush said. ''... Yet many parks have gone years without receiving the kind of care and upkeep the American people expect.'' ??Bush said Sequoia National Park is doing what he'd like all parks to do: serve visitors better. ??The park is adding miles of trails, tearing down buildings that threaten the roots of the giant trees and building a museum that can teach more visitors about the unique trees. ??''Sequoia is a model,'' he said. ''Allowing for more visitors without destroying the very things that draw people here the scenery, the quiet, the animals left unharmed in their natural habitat.'' ??But the National Parks Conservation Association, a watchdog group, criticized Bush's overall park policy, giving the new president a grade of ''D.'' ??Bush's energy plan, the group said, will actually worsen air quality in many parks because he wants to weaken the Clean Air Act and he has rejected efforts to tackle global warming. ??''His unwillingness to address global climate change spells disaster for many of our parks,'' the group's report said. ''If he moves to drill for oil and gas in national monuments, serious resource degradation is all but guaranteed.'' ??The group supports his effort to spend more money on parks, but said his plan is ''a bit of a shell game'' because it includes just $61 million this year in new parks money. Ninety-eight percent of that is for roads and buildings, the report said, which neglects nature and education. ??WAGNER-CNS-SD-05-30-01 2211PST LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ??????????????????????????????7 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ???????????????????????????The Dallas Morning News ????????????????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE KR-ACC-NO: ?K0440 LENGTH: 1113 words HEADLINE: Legislators push for bill to allow sale of "negawatts' to California BYLINE: By Jim Landers BODY: ??WASHINGTON _ Some Texas congressmen and energy companies are trying to help California avert blackouts and utility price shocks this summer with a market-based conservation strategy known as "negawatts." ??A "demand auction" would let power consumers earn money by selling electricity they choose to conserve. It's aimed at big power users such as industrial electric furnaces. ??If a California blackout appears likely and the state seeks more power in a Western auction, these consumers could sell their willingness to conserve for the same price an electric generator is selling supply. ??Utilities could then transfer the unused power on their systems to California, pocket a fee and give the rest of the money to the conserving customer. ??The demand auction concept was dubbed negawatts in the 1970s by Colorado energy conservation guru Amory Lovins. By creating a marketplace that rewards consumers for using less electricity, Lovins argued, negawatts (shorthand for negative watts) reduce the need for power plants. ??The Texas effort, led by state Rep. Joe Barton, unites generating and marketing companies such as Reliant Energy Inc. and Enron Corp., who some California critics call the "Houston pirates," in a sweeping conservation program. ??Backers say a demand auction could reduce blackouts by making more power available from consumers who choose to conserve for a price. ??Municipally owned utilities and cooperatives have led the opposition to the proposal by arguing that it lets consumers treat electricity as a property right rather than a service. ??"It sets up a whole new class of customers with a legal entitlement to power they don't consume," said Joe Nipper, senior vice president of the American Public Power Association. "What you need is yours to consume, but unless you have a contract beyond that, it's not yours. This may be a federal taking of a utility's property." ??The approach is appealing to conservatives such as Barton and Rep. Ralph Hall because it deepens the nation's experiment in electricity deregulation at a time when many California Democrats want to abandon it for price controls. ??Enron executive vice president Steven Kean backed the negawatts idea in congressional testimony in January. ??"New capacity cannot be brought on in time for this summer's peaks," he said. "But demand reductions could be purchased with a minimum of disruption to businesses, workers and the economy." ??The incentives can be substantial. Residential retail electricity prices in California normally average around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. Spot-market wholesale prices have soared as high as $1.90 per kilowatt-hour. ??A consumer who agreed to stop consumption for an hour to sell that power could realize $1.80 from a bidding California utility, and still pay the 10 cents to his or her own electricity provider. ??"Every customer should want this type of service in the marketplace, because it will bring prices down," said John Hughes of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, a national organization of industrial and commercial power users. ??Reliant Energy, which has been vilified by California Gov. Gray Davis and other California Democrats for its high-priced electricity, bought full-page ads in four national newspapers last week to promote negawatts. ??Barton said his Electric Emergency Relief Act, including a nationwide negawatts market, was the only legislation advancing through Congress that has a chance of helping California this summer. ??Despite the concerns of some utilities, the idea has won bipartisan support. ??Barton gives it only a "modest chance" of success, however, because it is part of legislation many Democrats are seeking to amend by imposing electricity price caps and returning regulation to the California power market. ??"It puts us between a real rock and a hard place," Barton said. "The president is never going to sign a bill that has price caps. But if the government of California just says, 'Price caps, price caps, price caps,' you put their members of Congress in the position where if they don't deliver price caps, they don't deliver anything." ??If Barton's California relief bill stalls, however, the national negawatts market idea will probably surface in Congress again this year. Bush's national energy plan urges Congress to restructure the electricity industry nationwide along market-based principles. ??"That's kind of where I am, isn't it?" said Barton, who chairs the House energy and air quality subcommittee. ??Reliant Energy senior vice president John Stout said that without the Barton bill, California will plummet into an emergency situation this summer where those in charge will reach for the negawatts concept for fast relief. ??"They will say we got to do something to keep the lights on, now, and they'll reach for this," he said. ??Negawatt markets already exist in several parts of the country, including California. An Internet auction known as the Demand Exchange was established with the approval of the California Energy Commission in hopes of reducing consumption this summer by less than 1 percent. ??Test negawatt auctions began in 1999 in Connecticut and Georgia, and more than a dozen utility exchanges were in existence last year. ??Utilities have long offered rate incentives for customers willing to have their electricity supplies interrupted at times of peak demand. ??A negawatts auction is popular with big consumers because it lets them decide when they want to forego electricity, Hughes said. ??"There is a clear and compelling need to establish a mechanism for allowing negawatts of emergency supply to be easily purchased in the same way as megawatts of additional supply," Stout said. "This would enable a deficit area such as California to purchase emergency supply from anywhere within the West." ??Several aluminum smelters in the Pacific Northwest have shut down in the last year in order to sell electricity for more profit than they could sell aluminum. The smelters hold power contracts with the federal Bonneville Power Administration that contain clauses allowing them to market the electricity. ??Those were contracted arrangements between Bonneville and its customers, Nipper said. Barton's negawatts arrangement would throw the market open to virtually all electricity users, and let companies such as Enron profit from handling the transactions. ??"This would let these companies do these deals and get their commission on it," Nipper said. "Utilities and their customers can do those deals now without any commissions." ??© 2001, The Dallas Morning News. ??Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at http://www.dallasnews.com/ JOURNAL-CODE: DA LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ??????????????????????????????8 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ??????????????????????????????Detroit Free Press ????????????????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS KR-ACC-NO: ?K0477 LENGTH: 1421 words HEADLINE: With energy crisis on nation's collective mind, Abraham faces test of his life BYLINE: By Ruby L. Bailey BODY: ??WASHINGTON _ There was a moment during dinner with President Bush when Spencer Abraham couldn't believe his luck. ??As Abraham tells it, it was a recent Thursday night. He, Bush and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman were on Air Force One on a return trip to Washington from Iowa. The former one-term U.S. senator from Michigan felt a long way from his crushing re-election defeat in November. ??"People were sending me condolences back then," Abraham said. "You sort of have to pinch yourself." ??The moment of elation was fleeting. At 7 a.m. the next morning, Abraham began touring the country to promote _ and defend _ the controversial energy policy he helped create as a member of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Policy Development Task Force. ??Even before its release, the plan _ which supports drilling in Alaska's Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge and building more refineries _ faced fierce opposition from Democrats and environmentalists who want more emphasis on conservation and immediate relief for consumers. ??"Someone in the department told me, 'It's a good thing you've got a good sense of humor,'" aid Abraham, who is the scheduled luncheon speaker Friday on Mackinac Island at the Detroit Regional Chamber's 21st annual Leadership Policy Conference. ??His sense of humor has come in handy, he said, since taking the helm of the bedeviled Department of Energy and becoming the point man in the middle of a national energy crisis. ??He has hoped for rain in the drought-stricken Pacific Northwest to power hydrogenerators, but the region remains dry. ??He has been barraged with complaints from Michigan and other Midwestern states where gasoline prices are skyrocketing. ??He has called for conservation to curb blackouts in California _ but the state faces a summer of more blackouts than ever before. ??New Yorkers haven't weighed in yet _ but Abraham is sure he'll hear from them, too, because New York City is facing possible power outages this summer. ??"We can't create new generating machines for them," Abraham said, only half-joking, in an interview last week. "We don't have a big generator in the basement that I can turn on and point towards California." ??The problem with politics, he said, is that "people always expect instant solutions. We have long days here." ??His days have been long since January when the Washington rumor mill said he was being considered for transportation secretary. Even his critics would not have been surprised if Bush had tapped him for that job. In 1983, he chaired the Michigan Republican Party. ??In 1989, he became deputy chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, he was involved in transportation issues and helped Michigan get millions of dollars in highway funding. ??But his nomination to head the Department of Energy surprised many _ and outraged environmentalists. As a senator, Abraham was conservative and firmly pro-business. Environmental groups graded him lax on pollution and conservation. ??His critics pointed out that during his Senate term, he had pushed to eliminate the very department he was now being tapped to head. At the time, he said, the department was "redundant," duplicating the work of other departments. ??"It was surprising, given his position as far as abolishing the Energy Department," said Tanya Calaba, land and water conservation coordinator for the Lake Michigan Federation in Traverse City, which opposes drilling for oil and natural gas in the Great Lakes. "I don't know what expertise he brings." ??But Abraham contributed heavily to Cheney's task force meetings, said Mary Matalin, an adviser to Bush and Cheney. The group met 28 times in 14 weeks. Abraham attended nearly every meeting, between trips to California to deal with the rolling blackouts. ??"He was, in every presentation to the president and every task force meeting, a key player," Matalin said. "There wasn't an issue on the table that Spence did not have an articulation on." ??Even Abraham's supporters don't claim that he had a major hand in writing the energy plan. His job, they say, has been as adviser and point man. ??"His role has been largely providing support to the Cheney task force and to make certain some new ideas get implemented," said Robert Walker, chairman and chief executive officer of the Wexler Group in Washington. The company lobbies for BP (formerly British Petroleum) and other energy industry clients. ??Despite his lack of background on energy issues, friends and adversaries say Abraham has stepped up to the job with his sharp intelligence and hard work. The same traits served him well in the Senate, they say, where he never missed a roll call vote in six years and passed more bills than any other senator in his freshman class. ??"I think he has one of the best political and strategic minds that I've seen," said Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, who has known Abraham since his days as chairman of the Michigan Republican Party. ??"If he doesn't have a photographic mind, he's as close to having one as you can get." ??Abraham had just passed his confirmation hearings when Cavaney showed up at his office with five petroleum CEOs. ??Sure that he was overwhelmed with his new position, the men offered their congratulations, extended their assistance and asked for a follow-up meeting to discuss the complicated world of refineries. ??But Abraham was ready to talk, Cavaney said. ??"It's extraordinarily complex. Here he was very fresh to the job, and he got it," Cavaney said. "He's very quickly able to grasp the context, to get into the real nut of what the problems are." ??At an Energy Department budget presentation in April, Abraham said the department faced "a truly extraordinary collection of difficult and pressing issues." ??The current problems "are modest compared to what they could be in another five years," he said. ??Rising demands for oil and gas are strapping tight supplies as the nation also deals with an aging power infrastructure. The results: Natural gas bills in Washington, D.C., have tripled. California predicts it could spend 260 hours this summer in the dark. ??The Food and Agriculture Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, reports that farmers are likely to see their incomes drop 20 percent during the next two years because of high energy costs. In Michigan and other states, gasoline is threatening to top $2.50 a gallon by summer. ??"He's in a hot spot," said Joseph Stanislaw, president of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consulting firm in Washington. "What's the approach to the challenge? What balance does one strike?" ??That's yet to be determined. But one thing that everyone is predicting: Abraham will clash with environmentalists on what to do about the nation's emerging energy crisis. ??It won't be the first time. When Abraham was a senator, the Sierra Club, an environmental protection organization, included him in its media campaign against officials it contends don't protect the environment. It also opposed his re-election, saying Abraham was in the pocket of the petroleum industry. ??Abraham's re-election campaign received $414,000 from the petroleum industry. Bush received $2.8 million from the industry in his bid for the presidency. ??"He is energy-industry sympathetic and energy-industry friendly," said Lana Pollack, president of the Michigan Environmental Council, a coalition of more than 50 environmental agencies in Michigan. ??Pollack has known Abraham since 1994 when they both were running in primary elections for the U.S. Senate. Pollack lost the Democratic primary. Abraham won the GOP primary _ and the election. ??"He's never been a friend to the environment," said Daniel Becker, director of global warming and energy for the Sierra Club. ??Not long after that Air Force One ride, gas prices shot up nearly 25 cents overnight in Michigan. ??California Gov. Gray Davis announced that his state would sue the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to force it to institute federal price controls on California's rising electricity prices. ??Despite those problems, Abraham's sense of humor was firmly in place. He recalled again that night aboard Air Force One, when he was pinching himself in disbelief at his good fortune. ??"And people were sending me condolences because I lost the Senate," he deadpanned. ??© 2001, Detroit Free Press. ??Visit the Freep, the World Wide Web site of the Detroit Free Press, at http://www.freep.com. JOURNAL-CODE: DE LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????10 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ?????????????????????May 31, 2001 Thursday ?Home Edition SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 17; National Desk LENGTH: 702 words HEADLINE: NATION; ; FERC Chief Unfazed By Threat of Third Lawsuit BYLINE: RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, JUDY PASTERNAK, TIMES STAFF WRITERS DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY: ??The beleaguered chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that he was not fazed by California Gov. Gray Davis' threat to sue the agency for failing to cap wholesale electricity rates. ??California officials have gone to the federal courts twice before to force FERC to impose price caps, Curt Hebert told reporters. And the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has twice rejected the suits. ??Davis, observing that FERC has a legal obligation to ensure that wholesale electricity rates are "just and reasonable," threatened to go to court again after he failed in a meeting Tuesday to persuade President Bush to support caps on wholesale electricity prices. ??"They've sued us two times and they have been [dismissed ] two times," Hebert said. "I feel very good about it." ??Responding to reporters' questions, Hebert also appeared to be unaware of media reports that President Bush had asked a rival for his chairmanship, Patrick Wood III, to play a special role in dealing with California's problems. ??Wood, a Bush confidant who until now had been chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, was confirmed by the Senate as a FERC commissioner last week and is widely expected to be named to Hebert's job. The president can designate any FERC commissioner as chairman without further action by the Senate. ??White House officials said during Bush's visit to Los Angeles on Tuesday that Wood would follow up on concerns raised in the president's meeting with Davis. ??Wood said in an interview that he talked briefly with Davis three weeks ago and more recently with California PUC President Loretta Lynch. He said his charge is vague: to review the entire situation. ??"I'm looking at short-term things and long-term things," he said, noting that he had heard from lawmakers "on both sides of the aisle" complaining that FERC had not gone far enough. ??Wood, who advocates a more activist role for FERC, said he wants to monitor how the agency's efforts to limit price spikes in California are working and that he might push for changes. Unlike Hebert, he said the agency's standard for deciding whether a company has market power--enough influence to sway prices--needs to be reconsidered. He said he is also open to increasing the amount of rebates ordered to utilities for January. ??And he said he thought FERC should also take another look at the design of California's deregulated market. "Your work never stops," Wood said. "You never get there and say, 'We're done.' " ??California, he added, "is salvageable," though he said blackouts are inevitable this summer. ??FERC itself has acknowledged that California is paying unfair prices for electricity, particularly during power shortages. But instead of imposing price caps, the agency has instituted a complex system to monitor the market and seek refunds from power sellers that overcharge during emergencies. ??A majority of FERC's governing board believes that price caps would deter investors from building new power plants in California, thereby complicating efforts to increase energy supplies. Price caps "would destroy what is left of California," Hebert said Wednesday. ??State officials disagree. ??With California paying as much as $1,900 per megawatt hour to avert blackouts earlier this month--five times the current market price--state officials argue that FERC's approach is no deterrent and that the agency has a legal obligation to impose price caps. ??Davis and others contend that temporary controls would bring order to the power markets and prevent further damage to California's economy. They point out that the energy industry operated efficiently under government-set rates until the recent onset of deregulation. ??But the courts have held that FERC has wide latitude in fulfilling its obligations under federal law. ??In an April 11 decision denying a petition for relief by the city of San Diego, a 9th Circuit panel ruled that the same law that gives FERC authority to impose price caps also allows it to pursue alternatives. ??On Tuesday, the same court dismissed a petition from state Senate leader John Burton, citing its earlier decision in the San Diego case. LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????11 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ?????????????????????May 31, 2001 Thursday ?Home Edition SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 14; Letters Desk LENGTH: 523 words HEADLINE: Bush, Davis Clash on Energy Price Caps BODY: ??I am disappointed that President Bush and Gov. Gray Davis could not agree on short-term price caps for electrical rates in California during their May 29 meeting. As a businessman and resident of California, I support the free-market system; however, the demand for electricity is no higher now than a year ago. The supply of electricity is no smaller than a year ago. The only thing that has changed is the system that is used for setting prices. ??Businesses in California deserve a break from the crippling increase in prices. Working moms and dads should not be asked to subsidize power executives in other states. The federal government owes the working people and businesses of California a chance to sort out the mess imposed upon us. We deserve a short-term cap on prices. ??Steve Graves ??Highland ??* ??Bush is correct to say that electricity price caps will not change either the supply or the demand. But he is wrong to allow the greed and price-gouging of the energy suppliers. Greed and gouging are not parts of compassionate capitalism. ??Porter Ewing ??Van Nuys ??* ??Davis has done nothing toward solving the energy crisis over the past year and a half. He has overwhelming party majorities in both the Assembly and Senate and yet has passed no meaningful legislation regarding energy. Furthermore, California voted against President Bush by a 2-1 margin in the recent presidential election. Despite this, all we hear from the governor is, "President Bush, federal government, save us! We need price controls." ??Governor, instead of crying to the federal government for help, provide leadership for solving a California problem. California created the problem, not the federal government. It is our responsibility to solve our problems. There is nothing stopping you from enacting meaningful solutions to the energy crisis except your own indecisiveness. ??John Anagnost ??Torrance ??* ??Hurray for Davis! Finally he's going to do something: Sue the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for relief from the gougers. Our "compassionate" president, who thumbed his nose at California, is certainly not going to do anything to help us, like capping the prices. He's only interested in his big business and oil friends in Texas making even more money. ??Ann and Dale Johnston ??Thousand Oaks ??* ??Perhaps if Intel (headquartered in Santa Clara) and Advanced Micro Devices (headquartered in Sunnyvale) charged Dell (headquartered in Round Rock, Texas) and Compaq (headquartered in Houston) 50 times more for their chips than they charged Gateway (headquartered in San Diego), Bush might realize that there is something he can do about extortion. ??Arnie Pierce ??Shingle Springs, Calif. ??* ??In "Governor to Stress Price Caps to Bush" (May 29), Davis is quoted as saying, "The marketplace is not working." I am curious as to how he knows that, when the consumption side of the market has had price caps on it from the very beginning. If those caps have created the price extremes and supply shortages that we have seen, just wait until you see both ends of the market with price caps. ??Russell H. Jeans ??San Pedro LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????12 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ?????????????????????May 31, 2001 Thursday ?Home Edition SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 8; Metro Desk LENGTH: 759 words HEADLINE: The State; ; Bush Blunders Into Equal Footing With Davis BYLINE: GEORGE SKELTON DATELINE: SACRAMENTO BODY: ??When the president holds a "summit" with a governor, you can figure one of three things: this president--politically--is weak, desperate or inept. ??With President Bush, we've just seen indications of all three. ??Presidents of the United States simply do not hold summits with governors--of any state. Presidents hold summits with leaders of equal stature: other heads of state or prime ministers. ??A governor is not a head of state. ??Sacramento is not a little Washington. It's a big Carson City. ??Ronald Reagan never held a summit with Jerry Brown. Bill Clinton barely acknowledged the existence of Pete Wilson. ??So why would this Republican president fly across country to elevate a Democratic governor to the exalted level of summitry? Must be that Bush has looked at private polls and seen he is weaker in California than he'd ever imagined possible, even after losing here last November by 12 points. ??Indeed, the independent Field Poll recently found that 54% of Californians think Bush has done a "poor" job of trying to improve the state's energy mess. ??It's desperation time. Better get out to California and show that he does too care about the nation's most populous state before it's too late--before the damage is irreparable. Before he's a liability to Republican members of Congress, whose reelections next year will be crucial to the GOP's continued control of the U.S. House. ??And better make that first trip to California about public policy--not about political fund-raising. ??But the president could have--should have--avoided what the news media would characterize as a summit. On the governor's L.A. turf, no less. This was political ineptitude. ??Weeks ago, Bush could have invited Gov. Gray Davis into the Oval Office for a chat. Then he could have dismissed any later calls for a second meeting, saying there was nothing new to discuss. ??Or Bush could have sent his energy guru, Vice President Dick Cheney, to meet with Davis. Then there wouldn't have been the summit circus that elevated a governor, in news coverage, to the level of a president. ??But Bush set his own trap by declaring, even before taking office, that California was on its own. He ignored the state for four months, then was goaded into a summit. ??"We outfoxed them," says Paul Maslin, Davis' pollster. "We turned up the heat and made it politically impossible for Bush not to meet." ??Consequently, there was the specter of a governor's "post-summit" news conference being carried live on CNN. And split screens with Bush on one side, Davis on the other, both waving presidential-like. Davis sit-down interviews with all networks. The story at the top of the nightly news. ??One national TV reporter spoke ominously of a "rift" between the governor and the president. A newspaper banner screamed: "Bush-Davis Standoff." ??Presidents simply do not have standoffs with governors who are poking them in the eye. ??However, it was Bush to the rescue--not of energy consumers, but the governor. Davis remains one lucky politician. Here he is, foundering in the polls--his job rating down to 42%, according to Field--and the president rides out to save him. ??Bush helped Davis onto a tall platform and handed him a loud mike to make his pitch to California voters. The governor made it over and over: ??This is not about the philosophy of price controls. It's about federal regulators ignoring a law that requires wholesale prices to be "just and reasonable." Enforcing that law is solely a federal responsibility. ??I'm doing everything I can to increase supply. The president needs to rein in his buddies--those gougers and market gamers from Texas. ??"This is no time for harsh rhetoric," Bush said. "It's certainly no time for name-calling." ??The president's certainly wrong. It's time to call out and embarrass--if possible--the power pirates who are turning 700% profits. Take 40% and be satisfied. Spare us a recession. ??"Price caps may sound appealing," Bush asserted, "but their result will ultimately be more serious shortages and therefore even higher prices." ??Wrong again. California didn't suffer supply-caused blackouts until the Feds lifted wholesale price caps last December and power producers began gaming the market to finesse top dollar. In fact, most power plants now being built in California began under price caps. ??Bush likes to hearken back 30 years to failed price controls under Richard Nixon. But if Nixon's mind had been as inflexible as Bush's, he never would have gone to China. ??Now that was a summit. LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????13 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ?????????????????????May 31, 2001 Thursday ?Home Edition SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 1; Metro Desk LENGTH: 842 words HEADLINE: See How You Like This Action, Mr. President BYLINE: PETER H. KING DATELINE: SACRAMENTO BODY: ??And so the president of the United States made his way to California this week and offered some advice. What Californians need to do, President Bush said, is quit whining about the energy mess and take action: "Energy," he said, "is a problem that requires action, not politics, not excuses, but action." ??Issuing $12.5 billion in bonds, pushing a dozen or so new power plants through the pipeline, launching a World War II-style conservation campaign--apparently these don't qualify as action. And asking federal so-called regulators to step forward and bring some order to a deregulated wholesale market run amok--well, apparently, that would fall under the heading of "excuses." ??And excuses won't do. No, sir. Action is the answer. Now just what action the president believes Californians should take he did not make clear. At this point, however, there seems to be about only one course left untried--seizing power plants. Now there's action. ??It's fun just to imagine the potential theatrics. National Guard troops swarming the gates, while plant operators, screaming strange Texas curses, frantically shred the maintenance records. And, look, there goes Gray Davis himself, shinnying up a smokestack to unfurl the bear flag, shouting "Eureka! We have seized it!" ??Alas, however glorious such imagery, this is not how it would work. The most persistent proponent of plant seizure option has been state Treasurer Phil Angelides, and in an interview he described an almost bland procedure: a paper battle that ultimately would engage, as he put it, "fleets of lawyers and accountants." ??Before he delved into specifics, Angelides, a Democrat and former land developer, paused to make the historical case for taking public action to rein in runaway private markets and protect common interests. He spoke of Teddy Roosevelt and the trustbusters, of the federal response to the Great Depression, of the long history of regulated power utilities, and also of zoning laws and the not uncommon instances of eminent-domain property seizures for roadways and schools. ??"The notion of a society and economy protecting itself through public action against a private market gone awry," Angelides said, "or through the acquisition of private property in the public interest, is not a novel one, a radical one, or one that is inconsistent with the successful American economy of the 20th century--when prudently used." ??In fact, he said, "it's as American as apple pie." ??So then, how would a seizure work? ??Angelides picked up a government code book and read aloud the section that empowers the governor "in a state of emergency to commandeer or utilize any private property or personnel deemed by him necessary in carrying out the responsibilities hereby vested in him as chief executive of the state, and the state shall pay a reasonable value thereof." ??He explained that the governor would issue an order to give the state temporary title to either a plant or the power it produced. The plant would keep operating as usual. Once the energy crisis had passed, ownership would be returned to the private company and there would be negotiations or court contests to determine the "reasonable value" of what the state had taken. The question of reasonable value, of course, is where the accountants come in, attempting to prove that their prices were reasonable. ??"It might be worth seizing the contracts of one power plant," Angelides said, "just to see how they could justify these prices. They couldn't." ??What plants do we seize? ??Angelides made reference to the 23 California plants purchased by outside companies, most of them Texas-based, after the state's deregulation plan was hatched. The utilities sold these plants--constituting about a third of the state's generating capacity--for a total of about $3.2 billion. At the time, it was thought that PG&E and Edison had snookered the Texans. Hah. ??The treasurer said his staff, using figures favorable to the generators' case, has calculated that the reasonable price of power from these plants ought to be running at about $110 to $150 an hour. Instead, they are commanding prices double or triple that amount. Said Angelides: "They are making profits unseen any time in our history, a classic example of a private market run amok." ??OK, then, when do we saddle up? ??It is the governor's call, but in Angelides' view seizures should be made only if current "obscene prices" jump even higher this summer to a level of "horrifically obscene prices." At present, he said, through a combination of bonds, rate increases and aggressive conservation, the state can stagger through the crisis and into a more orderly energy future. ??If wholesale prices shoot any higher, though, the plan will collapse, leaving California with few options. Rates cannot be raised again without jeopardizing the economy. The bond card has been played to the hilt. And there are limits to how much demand can be curbed by conservation. What's left? Plant seizures, of course. Action. LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????14 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ?????????????????????May 31, 2001 Thursday ?Home Edition SECTION: Business; Part 3; Page 1; Financial Desk LENGTH: 796 words HEADLINE: Estate Tax Repeal to Hurt State Revenue; Finances: Without a portion of the federal money, California stands to lose $356 million next year as the credit is phased out. BYLINE: LIZ PULLIAM WESTON, TIMES STAFF WRITER BODY: ??At a time when energy woes and a slowing economy are threatening California's fiscal health, Congress' repeal of federal estate taxes is expected to cost the state $356 million next year and more than $1 billion annually by 2005. ??In fact, California stands to lose more money than any other state as the repeal legislation reduces the number of people who face the estate tax and chokes off the portion of federal revenue that used to be diverted to the states. ??"Given the circumstances we find ourselves in right now, this certainly will make future budgets tighter and more difficult," said Brad Williams, senior economist for the California Legislative Analyst's office. ??Few state officials were willing Wednesday to publicly criticize the popular repeal plan, despite the cost. State Controller Kathleen Connell said that estate tax repeal was supported by most Californians, who eliminated the state's own estate tax by a 64% majority in a 1982 referendum. ??"Any loss of revenue, when we're impacted doubly by the energy crisis and the slowing economy, is going to be painful," Connell said. "But I find it hard to argue against eliminating the federal tax when we eliminated our own." ??Although California repealed its own estate tax, it--like every other state--continues to collect a portion of the federal taxes levied each year on the estates of affluent Americans who die. ??This so-called state death tax credit has been part of federal estate tax law since 1926, and essentially allows states to coordinate their own estate taxes with that of the federal government. ??States that don't have estate or inheritance taxes of their own collect the full amount of the credit they're allowed under federal estate tax law. Many of the 12 states that have their own estate tax systems collect the difference between the federal credit they're allowed and the amount of money they collect directly from their citizens. ??California, thanks to its huge population and wealth, is by far the largest recipient of the credit. The Golden State received $937 million in estate tax revenue in fiscal year 1999-2000--an amount equal to 1.3% of the state general fund, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group. Nationwide, states collected more than $5.5 billion in 2000, according to the group's figures. ??To reduce the overall cost of estate tax repeal, however, Congress decided to phase out the states' ability to collect this revenue--and to do it twice as fast as the phase-out of estate taxes overall. ??By 2005, the states will no longer receive a portion of federal estate tax revenue, even though the federal government is scheduled to continue collecting estate taxes until 2010. The changes were part of the $1.35-trillion tax cut approved by Congress on Saturday. ??Congress' repeal plan also will decrease the number of people who are subject to the tax by 40% by raising the amount of money that can be passed tax-free to heirs. Next year, for example, people who die can leave up to $1 million without having to pay estate taxes, up from $675,000 this year. ??Congress' changes are expected to cost California $356 million in fiscal year 2002-2003, said Sandy Harrison, assistant director for the state Department of Finance. That's enough money to pay salaries and benefits for nearly 12,000 beginning teachers, said Mike Myslinski, spokesman for the California Teachers Assn. ??The losses will mount to $1.1 billion by 2005 and $1.5 billion by the time the federal estate tax is scheduled to be eliminated on Dec. 31, 2009. ??California is facing other strains on its budget, including more than $7 billion spent so far to purchase electricity and a $5.6-billion drop in taxes collected from stock options and capital gains, thanks to stock market slowdowns. ??But California isn't the only state that will suffer. Florida collected $779 million last year--4.1% of its general revenue--while New York collected $450 million, or 1.3% of its revenue, from the state death tax credit, according to the research group's figures. ??Nevada--which like Florida has no personal income tax--may take the biggest hit. Nevada collected $76.7 million from federal estate tax revenue, an amount equal to 4.9% of its general fund revenue. ??"[Nevada and Florida] don't have a personal income tax, so they're more reliant on other sources of revenue," such as the estate tax, said Arturo Perez, senior policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. ??Unlike most other states, Nevada segregates estate tax money into a special endowment fund to pay for education, including University of Nevada programs, state officials said. LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????15 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ??????????????????????????????The New York Times ?????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 27; Column 2; Editorial Desk LENGTH: 687 words HEADLINE: Bush's Mistake in California BYLINE: ?By Gray Davis; Gray Davis is the governor of California. DATELINE: SACRAMENTO BODY: ??I hope President Bush understands how perilous a course he is setting for both California and the national economy with his opposition to caps on the outrageously high wholesale price of electricity -- opposition he reiterated to me when we met Tuesday. ??California is experiencing an energy shock like that perpetrated by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the 1970's. That episode plunged the United States into deep recession and gave rise to a long period of stagflation -- rising prices in a no-growth economy. ???The size of the energy shock to California this year is likely to be in the range of $40 billion to $50 billion, according to Alan Blinder, the former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. It is enough to threaten the still solid California economy with recession and to knock the nation's gross domestic product down by at least half a percent -- enough to counter the stimulative effects that the Bush tax cut is intended to have on the stumbling national economy. As the Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, observed in late January, "It is scarcely credible that you can have a major economic problem in California which does not feed to the rest of the 49 states." ??The president's energy policy sets long-term goals of self-sufficiency through increased power generation, energy efficiency and fuel supplies. These are many of the same solutions we in California are rapidly pursuing. But the short-run emergency in California stems as much from energy cost as from energy supply. ??Since I've been in office, we've cut approval times in half and licensed 15 major power plants. And we have put in place the nation's most comprehensive conservation program. Still, we are being squeezed to the breaking point by outrageous prices for the electricity we buy. This is why I called on the president for an energy policy that includes short-term caps on the price of wholesale power. Under the Federal Power Act of 1935, only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to ensure a just and reasonable wholesale electricity market in California. This is not a matter of discretion for federal regulators; it is an obligation. The law requires the F.E.R.C. to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. California itself can do nothing about the unconscionable wholesale electricity prices that are often more than 700 percent higher than they were just a year ago. President Bush must direct the commission to exercise its authority under the law. ??In a letter Tuesday to the president, 10 economists warned, "F.E.R.C.'s failure to act now will have dire consequences for the State of California and will set back, potentially fatally, the diffusion of competitive electricity markets across the country." ??It is true that California's problems stem from a fundamentally flawed 1996 state electricity deregulation law. The utilities were required to sell off half of their fossil-fuel-fired power plants while they were barred from entering into contracts for a long-term supply of cheap electricity. The result is an unregulated sellers' market for electricity, susceptible to naked manipulation. ??The agency that runs California's power grid has identified $6 billion in overcharges by the generators. Prices are greatly inflated. The same electricity that cost Californians $7 billion in 1999 was $27 billion in 2000 and is projected to cost upwards of $50 billion in 2001. Much of this is fed by escalating wholesale natural gas prices that were 1,000 percent higher in Southern California in December 2000 than in December 1999. The F.E.R.C. has failed to curb these natural gas prices as well. ??The Bush administration still maintains that the energy policy it has proposed is all that can reasonably be done and says it opposes further federal intervention in the energy market, even if the problem threatens the nation's economy. The threat is real, and the Bush administration must adopt a more responsible energy policy, one that restrains energy price manipulation and creates a fair and competitive energy market across the West and the whole country. ??http://www.nytimes.com GRAPHIC: Drawing (Wes Bedrosian) LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????16 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ??????????????????????????????The New York Times ?????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 5; Business/Financial Desk LENGTH: 1396 words HEADLINE: In California, Blackouts Spur A Search forHome Remedies BYLINE: ?By LAURA M. HOLSON DATELINE: LOS ANGELES, May 30 BODY: ??For Evans Keller, a turkey farmer in the Central Valley of California, the energy crisis has become a matter of life and death. ??For 17 years, he and his family have raised turkeys near Fresno, far from the dot-com companies of Silicon Valley and the "Baywatch" beaches most outsiders associate with the state. In his world, where daily summer temperatures soar above 100 degrees on dusty ranches, Mr. Keller is forced to use electric fans and fog-making machines to cool his one million turkeys -- or watch them roast in tin-roofed sheds. ???But with energy experts forecasting more than 260 hours of blackouts this summer and no relief in sight from regulators or politicians, Mr. Keller has taken matters into his own hands. In April, he bought eight small generators at Costco that he could hook up to tractors and use to keep the fans and misters running when the Pacific Gas and Electric Company cuts his power. ??Since then he has regularly conducted drills on the 14 farms that supply him with turkeys -- 4 farms he owns and 10 run by independent contractors -- and has spent weeks winnowing the routine down to 40 minutes, barely enough time before the birds begin to wither under the searing sun. ??"Believe me, we're not proud," said Mr. Keller, who said he had appealed earlier this year, without success, to Pacific Gas and Electric for advance warnings of blackouts. "We'll do what we have to to protect our investment." ??The energy crisis here has come to this: from tourist attractions in sunny Southern California, to farmers who dominate the central region of the state, to technology concerns up north, businesses are coming up with novel ways to cope with what many fear will be an unpleasant summer. ??The concerns are understandable given the issues that many businesses face, including lost revenue and potential layoffs, as the state's power shortages continue. "The uncertainty is what kills you," Jerry Meek, utility operations manager at Roche Pharmaceuticals in Palo Alto, said. ??Trying to reduce that uncertainty, businesses are applying to the state's Public Utilities Commission for exemptions from having their power turned off this summer. (The deadline is Friday.) Last week, Gov. Gray Davis announced that the state would begin a three-tiered warning system for residences and businesses that are likely to be affected. The first warning will come two days before a blackout; the second, one day in advance; and the final warning, one hour before the lights go out. ??A more radical approach is being suggested by Mike Briggs, a Republican assemblyman from Fresno. He is asking the state to schedule potential blackout days as much as months in advance so business owners know when their turn is coming. "It is scary what this has come to," Mr. Briggs said. "But this gives people options." ??Farmers in the Central Valley, for instance, have to order water for their crops a day ahead. But if the power is off when the water shows up in an irrigation canal, he said, "they can't open the gates and the water flows right past them." One business owner told Mr. Briggs that he spent $30,000 one month to lease two generators that were never used. "He said it would have been nice to know ahead of time so he could rent the generators for a day," the assemblyman said. ??Of course critics worry that burglars will know when the lights go out, too. "Yes, there is the downside of more potential burglaries," Mr. Briggs said. "But maybe people are willing to make that trade-off." ??Even those business owners who say they are currently protected from power failures are making preparations -- just in case. The Legoland California amusement park in Carlsbad, near San Diego, has an arrangement with its utility, the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, to keep the lights on, said a spokeswoman, Courtney Simmons. Still, she added, the park is prepared in the event of a loss. ??The contingency plan consists of keeping open the 3 rides, of the 20 total, that are not powered by electricity, she said. Barbecues would be rolled out to cook food, and the park's boulevards would be flooded with performers, including singers, dancers, jugglers and musicians who will entertain until the power comes back on. "We are prepared for outages no matter what the cause this summer," she said. ??Many tourist attractions, including Disneyland in Anaheim, are already prepared because they upgraded their systems in 1999, fearing a Year 2000 disaster that would threaten the power grid. "A lot of these things were already tested and documented," said Ray Gomez, director of communications at Disneyland Resorts. "We are skilled at emergency evacuations. Energy is only one part of that." ??As part of its plan, Disneyland shored up its emergency operations center, holding employee drills to turn on emergency power. This summer, Disneyland will have employee volunteers who roam the park day and night, turning out lights and replacing incandescent bulbs with more energy-efficient ones. The park also works with the city of Anaheim, which supplies the park with power, to conserve 5 to 10 percent, minimizing the risk of blackouts at all. ??Oddly enough, Disneyland is reviving its Main Street Electrical Parade, a 29-year-old light show that had most recently been an attraction in Florida. Leslie Goodman, a senior vice president for strategic communications for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, said the park had made sure that the parade did not use energy when Californians need it most. The lights in the parade are powered by battery, and are recharged during off-peak hours. But, she added, despite what was a difficult decision and a potential public relations nightmare, "the show goes on." ??While most businesses make an effort to conserve (if for no other reason than to save money as rates soar), some communities are giving corporations added incentives. The city of Palo Alto, for example, has agreed not to cut off power to Roche Pharmaceuticals as long as the company reduces energy consumption by 15 percent within 30 minutes of an announced Stage 3 alert, the state's most critical. Only once has Roche lost power, said Mr. Meek, the company's utility operations manager. And that, he added, was because of a mistake. ??Roche has a plan to ensure that a blackout does not happen. Once Mr. Meek gets an alert on his pager from a city representative (who can see how much is being saved because the company has a real-time meter for the 15-building campus), voice mail and e-mail messages are sent to more than 1,000 employees asking them to turn off nonessential lights. The air-conditioning is changed to raise the temperature in most areas to 78 degrees from a normal 72 degrees. Lighting in all offices is reduced, and some employees move from their dark cubicles to the window-walled cafeteria to work, he said. ??"The question is, do you treasure light or do you want your computer shut down?" Mr. Meek asked. If these measures do not reduce overall demand by 15 percent, Roche will switch on backup generators to power the laboratories. Why? If laboratory tools are not properly shut off before a loss of power, it takes days to recalibrate them, costing thousands of dollars and wasted time, Mr. Meek said. "My focus with the uncertainty is to do what we can to get around it," he said. ??One way that California businesses are seeking certainty is by appealing to the state's Public Utilities Commission for relief. One commissioner, Carl Wood, said in a recent interview that about half the customers who got electricity from the state's three largest utilities were exempt from blackouts because their services were considered essential, like fire stations or hospitals, or because they shared power with an essential source. No more than 60 percent of the state's customers can be exempted from blackouts. ??Recently, an exemption was granted for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, which runs 95 miles of commuter train service in the San Francisco metropolitan area, Mr. Wood said. Pacific Bell Park, home of the San Francisco Giants, has asked for one, too; that request is being reviewed. ??"It can be extremely disruptive and expensive if there are lots of blackouts this summer," he said. "This is a big economic issue." ??Just imagine, he said, musing about how the summer could end: "Disneyland without rides?" ??http://www.nytimes.com LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????17 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ??????????????????????????????The New York Times ?????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 18; Column 4; National Desk LENGTH: 135 words HEADLINE: National Briefing West: California: Utility Donations BYLINE: ?AP BODY: ??The state's three investor-owned utilities gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to former Gov. Pete Wilson and crucial legislators who pushed through the state's electricity deregulation law, a political watchdog group said. The group, the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan organization in Washington, D.C., said the utilities spent $51.6 million on campaigns from 1994 to 2000. About $39 million was spent to defeat a 1998 ballot measure that would have rolled back important provisions of the state's 1996 deregulation law. From 1994 until he left office early in 1999, Mr. Wilson received $171,000 from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company; the Southern California Edison Company; the San Diego Gas and Electric Company; or their parent companies, the center said. ??http://www.nytimes.com LOAD-DATE: May 31, 2001 ?????????????????????????????19 of 114 DOCUMENTS ??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service ????????????????????????????San Jose Mercury News ????????????????????????????May 31, 2001, Thursday SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS KR-ACC-NO: ?K0555 LENGTH: 1171 words HEADLINE: San Jose mayor reverses position, endorses Calpine power plant project BYLINE: By Mike Zapler BODY: ??SAN JOSE, Calif. _ After a year of staunch opposition to a majo
|