|
|
Enron Mail |
Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2001, California Companies Combine, To Influence
Power Regulation, By ????? ???MITCHEL BENSON Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2001, Energy Commission, California, Clash Over Power-Grid Control ???By REBECCA SMITH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Business Wire, June 4, 2001, Monday, 09:11 AM Eastern Time, 307 words, ????Tired of Constantly Changing Energy Prices? NewPower Offers California ????Natural Gas Consumers A Two-Year, Locked-In Rate, PURCHASE, N.Y., June 4, ????2001 United Press International, June 4, 2001, Monday, 08:23 AM Eastern Time, ????GENERAL NEWS, 3236 words, What U.S. newspapers are saying CNN, CNN SUNDAY 16:00, June 3, 2001; Sunday, 5:19 PM Eastern Time, ????Transcript # 01060307V36, INTERVIEW, News; Domestic, 816 words, Are Price ????Caps a Solution for California's Energy Woes?, Barbara Shook, Stephen ????Frazier The Gazette (Montreal), June 4, 2001 Monday, 802 words, Dim policies in ????California, P.J. O'ROURKE Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2001 Monday, Home Edition, Page 2, 1700 words, ????Los Angeles; ; An Illuminating Look Several Light-Years Back; Utility ????Players Bat Cleanup, PATT MORRISON, TIMES STAFF WRITER The San Francisco Chronicle, JUNE 4, 2001, MONDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A1, 581 words, Electricity usage shrinks by 11%; ???State's consumers ????beat goal set by governor, Keay Davidson The San Francisco Chronicle, JUNE 4, 2001, MONDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A1, 1092 words, Eliminating night games may seem like a bright idea, but ????. . .; ???Baseball is balking, Erin Hallissy The San Francisco Chronicle, JUNE 4, 2001, MONDAY,, FINAL EDITION, ????EDITORIAL;, Pg. A19;, 682 words, Gloom today, glut tomorrow, Carolyn ????Lochhead The Washington Times, June 04, 2001, Monday, Final Edition, PART A; ????COMMENTARY; Pg. A14, 805 words, Shedding light on Bush's energy plan, Charli ????Coon The Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 4, 2001, Monday, BC cycle, ????12:09 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 745 words, Developments in ????California's energy crisis The Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 3, 2001, Sunday, BC cycle, ????State and Regional, 839 words, Critics say FERC ignored California's ????deregulation flaws, FOLSOM, Calif. The Charlotte Observer, June 3, 2001, Sunday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, ????K1149, 1806 words, Duke Energy rates spike in emergency, By Stella M. ????Hopkins and Peter Wallsten Contra Costa Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, K1314, ????653 words, Judge refuses to override PUC over PG&E bankruptcy, By Matt ????Sebastian Contra Costa Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, K1316, ????731 words, Gloomy electricity supply forecast in June may have been ????optimistic, By Mike Taugher and Rick Jurgens Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 3, 915 words, ????Los Angeles; ; Key Figures Trade Views of Energy Picture; Forum: Most of the ????12 discussing crisis agree only on blaming federal regulators. They find no ????consensus on a solution., JOE MOZINGO, TIMES STAFF WRITER Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 1, 828 words, ????Thanks for Your Concern, Wall Street, PETER H. KING, SAN FRANCISCO Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 1, 4230 words, ????The Nation; THE ENERGY CRISIS; Watchdogs Take a Hit in State's Power Ills; ????Energy: Ex-federal officials say oversight of California's deregulation ????suffered due to a push for free-market competition., JUDY PASTERNAK, ALAN C. ????MILLER, TIMES STAFF WRITERS, WASHINGTON The New York Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 4; ????Page 18; Column 5; Week in Review Desk, 788 words, The Nation; Econ 101: ????It's Right and It's Wrong, By MICHAEL M. WEINSTEIN; Michael M. Weinstein is ????a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The New York Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 4; ????Page 17; Column 1; Editorial Desk, 739 words, Reckonings; Watt Price ????Ideology?, By PAUL KRUGMAN The New York Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; ????Page 37; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk, 1065 words, One Developer's Power ????Solution: Build a Plant at the Office, By CHARLES V. BAGLI The Orange County Register, June 3, 2001, Sunday, DOMESTIC NEWS, K1495, 757 ????words, California may have already spent energy money it plans to borrow, By ????Hanh Kim Quach Sacramento Bee, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Pg. A3;, 491 words, State heeds call ????to conserve energy Californians trimmed their use of electricity by 11 ????percent in May., Emily Bazar Bee Capitol Bureau Sacramento Bee, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Pg. L4;, 625 words, Lone shining ????light State power authority a future market tool San Jose Mercury News, June 3, 2001, Sunday, DOMESTIC NEWS, K1534, 2242 ????words, U.S. approved California's power-deregulation plan despite flaws, By ????Eric Nalder and Mark Gladstone The San Francisco Chronicle, JUNE 3, 2001, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, ????Pg. A1, 2344 words, Cutting a deal on the environment; ???Activists accused ????of favoring cash over mission at Moss Landing, Scott Winokur, Christian ????Berthelsen The San Francisco Chronicle, JUNE 3, 2001, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION, ????EDITORIAL;, Pg. C6;, 554 words, Draw a line in the sand, Debra J. Saunders The Seattle Times, June 3, 2001, Sunday, Sunday Edition, ROP ZONE; News;, ????Pg. A1, 1633 words, the energy crisis: ground zero In Stockton, Calif., ????where a long, hot summer looms, keeping the power on seems an easy trade for ????saving the salmon in the Northwest, Lynda V. Mapes; Seattle Times staff ????reporter, Stockton, Calif. The Associated Press, June 2, 2001, Saturday, BC cycle, Washington Dateline ????, 249 words, Democrat calls on Bush to cap energy prices in radio address, ????WASHINGTON June 4, 2001 ???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ California Companies Combine To Influence Power Regulation By MITCHEL BENSON Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Some big hitters in California's business community, angered by the pace and direction of the state government's efforts to solve the energy crisis, are launching a massive coalition aimed at boosting their influence on legislative and regulatory actions. In fact, the new business group, tentatively named the Coalition for Energy Action, is gearing up just as lawmakers here are desperately scrambling to promote the latest in a series of so far unsuccessful plans to save the financially crippled Southern California Edison Co. from bankruptcy. A primary component of this latest proposal: big business -- large energy users -- would pay nearly $3.1 billion of the utility's $3.5 billion in unpaid wholesale electric bills. That is just one reason why an unexpectedly large crowd of 60 representatives of high-tech, agriculture, manufacturing, oil and natural-gas, construction and most every other economic sector gathered here last week at the headquarters of the California Chamber of Commerce for the coalition's first organizational meeting. Chamber President Allan Zaremberg, who is leading the effort, has in the past organized effective business coalitions to oppose increased managed-health-care costs, restrictions on diesel fuel and efforts to re-regulate the state's electricity market. Mr. Zaremberg and others say their latest gambit is spurred by two main concerns: Gov. Gray Davis, the legislature and the state Public Utilities Commission are taking a worryingly scattershot approach to the state's energy pricing and supply-and-demand problems, even as the state's economy continues to deteriorate; and if and when policy makers do offer solutions, the business community worries it will be left paying a disproportionate share of the tab. "I understand the politics here, I understand the worry," says Jack Stewart, president of the 800-member California Manufacturers and Technology Association and one of the meeting attendees. "But sometimes you have to look a little bit beyond that, because the next step will be closing down plants, laying off workers and moving production out of California." While the coalition is just now getting off the ground, Mr. Zaremberg and others already are working with a pair of political and public-relations consulting firms. Those firms, in turn, recently conducted several focus groups in Northern and Southern California, in preparation for the May 31 meeting. After a positive reception, the consultants are now discussing a range of options for the coalition that could range from scheduling one-on-one meetings between coalition members and public officials to spending several hundred thousand dollars on a newspaper advertising campaign. Consumer activists say they find it ironic that many of the business interests who fought for the state's electricity deregulation plan in 1996 are now considering spending big bucks to seek protection from it. "The big business lobbyists bought the politicians and propelled deregulation through the legislature, and now they're upset because the politicians aren't paying attention to them anymore," says Harvey Rosenfield, president of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "Because now, the politicians are more worried about the voters." Indeed, the business community feels it is being taken advantage of. As evidence, Mr. Stewart and others point to the PUC's decision last month to boost electricity rates for customers of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit of PG&E Corp. and the Southern California Edison unit of Edison International. The PUC decision estimates that more than 60% of residential customers -- those who are deemed low-income or who use relatively small amounts of electricity -- will see no increase. Yet many small business and industrial customers will face rate increases of 37% to 50%, while some businesses could see their monthly bills jump by much more. Just last week, lawmakers began circulating their latest proposal to rescue Southern California Edison from possible bankruptcy, now that it appears an agreement reached between the governor and the utility earlier this year has gained no traction in the legislature, which must approve the pact. Among other things, the latest approach calls on Southern California Edison's 3,600 largest electricity users to pay nearly $3.1 billion of the total $3.5 billion that the utility owes in unpaid wholesale-power purchases. The large consumers would pay that debt off through a surcharge on their electric rates over an estimated 20 years. Under the proposal, lawmakers say, large consumers also will be permitted to buy directly from generators. As a result, the lawmakers argue, the overall electricity costs to large consumers actually will be less than under the new PUC rate increases. But the business community remains skeptical. The Chamber's Mr. Zaremberg says the approach "doesn't send conservation signals to the residential community, and that should be paramount." Moreover, he is concerned that "the attitude of public-policy officials [is] that business consumers have to subsidize residential users." Write to Mitchel Benson at mitchel.benson@wsj.com ?? June 4, 2001 ???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Commission, California Clash Over Power-Grid Control By REBECCA SMITH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL As California politicians wade deeper into the energy crisis, the state's electric-grid operator appears headed toward a showdown with federal energy regulators over whether its board is independent enough. The California Independent System Operator Friday bowed to pressure from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and submitted its qualifications to continue as a federally sanctioned grid operator. But the tardy filing is almost certain to be challenged by federal regulators and market participants because the ISO's governance structure has strayed from a "bedrock requirement" that it be "independent of control by any market participant." The market participant casting the long shadow is the state of California. Since January, when the state of California began buying huge sums of electricity on behalf of its nearly broke utilities, the ISO has been under pressure to give state officials preferential treatment and unique access to market-sensitive information. Its chief operations officer, paid $245,000 a year according to the most recent IRS filing, is on indefinite loan to the governor's office where he is working as an energy adviser. This politicization of the ISO is significant because the organization's purpose is to run a market for power needed to keep the electric system in balance and to give buyers and sellers impartial access to the power lines on which they depend to move electricity. Unlike other commodities, electricity can't be stored. Transactions, therefore, depend completely on instantaneous access to the electric superhighway of high-voltage lines. The FERC worries that a loss of political independence by the ISO will further degrade the state's already dysfunctional energy market. The FERC hasn't formally accused the ISO of acting improperly, but it is clear that a wall between the state and the ISO that once was solid has become permeable. Last month, the ISO notified the FERC that the state of California had asserted "it must have access to the ISO control room floor" and "nonpublic information" as a "necessary condition" of continuing to buy power, even though such preferential access violates ISO rules. But without the state to back power purchases -- it has spent nearly $8 billion on electricity since January -- the ISO's market would collapse and blackouts and chaos likely would ensue. The governance issue, which may appear esoteric, actually cuts to the heart of the power crisis in California. State officials feel they have ceded too much control to the FERC, which they accuse of shirking its duty to protect consumers. As a consequence, the state has forced its way into the inner workings of the formerly arcane ISO, a public-benefit corporation formed three years ago amid California's push to deregulate its electricity market. In January, the state legislature authorized the governor to eject a FERC-approved board of directors and hand pick his own five-member ISO board. The state attorney general ordered old board members to resign or face personal fines of $5,000. Currently, one ISO board member is a former member of the governor's staff, while another, on the governor's behalf, negotiated the proposed purchase of utility transmission assets by the state, all the while serving as chairman of the supposedly independent board. The ISO's chairman says changes in the board structure have made the ISO more answerable to the citizenry and "efficient." Michael Kahn, who is a San Francisco attorney, added that the governance structure had to change to reflect the fact that "we're in a state of emergency." In its filing Friday, the ISO took the position that the tighter relationship between the ISO's board and the state doesn't violate the FERC's requirement that ISO boards be free of control by market participants. Even though the state has been "required to provide financial support," the ISO asserts, this "participation does not make ... the State a market participant." Many market watchers scoff at that contention. "Inevitably, this will lead to a showdown," said N. Beth Emery, former general counsel of the ISO and now an energy attorney for Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll in Washington, D.C. "Clearly, the ISO is in violation of the independence requirement." But the FERC doesn't have many tools for enforcing its vision of autonomy. That may explain why it has failed to intervene. It can order the ISO to make board changes, for instance. But if it refuses, there may not be much the FERC can do except threaten to rescind the ISO's operating tariffs. That, of course, is the opposite of what the FERC wants to do, which is encourage creation of multistate grid organizations free of any political favoritism. But California's angry isolationism appears to be growing. Gov. Gray Davis said the ISO's filing ensured the state will "maintain control of our own energy destiny and not be subject to the whims of federal regulators or the interests of other states." To date, the FERC has been steadfast in its resolve to make regional grid operators independent organizations, free of control of utilities and power marketers. It has rejected other grid-operator proposals because it felt utilities that owned the power lines were attempting to retain too much control. But Order 2000, the landmark decision issued in December 1999 that promoted the creation of independent grid runners throughout the nation, never contemplated a state government assuming such a huge role in a market as has occurred in California. If anything, that role is likely to increase. Not only is the state of California the biggest power buyer in the nation now, but it has formed a power authority that intends to build and operate generating plants. In addition, Mr. Davis is promoting a plan to buy the transmission systems of the state's investor-owned utilities. As such, a new vertically integrated utility is forming that could be larger than any the nation has seen since the "power trusts" of the 1930s were broken apart by Congress. It is rife with conflicts of interest. The ISO's drift has created a fissure in the solid support it enjoyed from the state's big utilities that transferred control of their transmission systems to the ISO in 1998. PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit, which is in bankruptcy proceedings, declined to join the ISO filing, which was supported by Edison International's Southern California Edison unit and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric Co. unit. PG&E said in a separate grid-plan filing that it would prefer the ISO join a multistate grid organization. It expressed reservations about the independence of the current board. Opposition to the state's influence is becoming more vocal. The Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group representing power producers, warned FERC last month that the ISO has become "a partisan advocate for the State of California" and sought FERC intervention to defend the rights of all market interests. Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com. Copyright 2001 Business Wire, Inc. Business Wire ??????????????????June 4, 2001, Monday 09:11 AM Eastern Time DISTRIBUTION: Business Editors LENGTH: 307 words HEADLINE: Tired of Constantly Changing Energy Prices? NewPower Offers California Natural Gas Consumers A Two-Year, Locked-In Rate DATELINE: PURCHASE, N.Y., June 4, 2001 BODY: ??The New Power Company(TM), a subsidiary of NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW), the first national residential and small business energy provider, today announced that it has begun offering consumers in northern California a two-year, fixed-price natural gas contract. Consumers in Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s service territory can lock in a low fixed rate for the entire two years. ??"NewPower is enormously pleased to provide California consumers, who've been buffeted by volatile energy prices, with a stable, gas contract," said H. Eugene Lockhart, The New Power Company's president and chief executive officer. "Smart energy shoppers in California will join the 600,000-plus customers we now serve in 19 markets." ??With today's announcement, natural gas from The New Power Company is available in the following PG&E counties: ??Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, Yuba ??Consumers who need additional information or who want to sign up with NewPower can visit the Company's Web site at www.newpower.com or call 866/402-3949. ??About NewPower Holdings, Inc. ??NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW), through its subsidiary, The New Power Company, www.newpower.com, is the first national provider of electricity and natural gas to residential and small commercial customers in the United States. The Company offers consumers in restructured retail energy markets competitive energy prices, pricing choices, improved customer service and other innovative products, services and incentives. ??SOURCE: The New Power Company ? LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2001 ??????????????????????????????2 of 143 DOCUMENTS ????????????????????????????Copyright 2001 U.P.I. ??????????????????????????United Press International ??????????????????June 4, 2001, Monday 08:23 AM Eastern Time SECTION: GENERAL NEWS LENGTH: 3236 words HEADLINE: What U.S. newspapers are saying BODY: ??Compiled by United Press International ??New York Times ??Faced with resistance from Moscow, objections among NATO allies and opposition from Democrats about to assume control of the Senate, the Bush administration needs to reassess its missile defense plans and scale them back to a realistic level. The kinds of ambitious systems that Bush advisers have described are not technologically or politically attainable today. Clinging to these outsized concepts can only damage American diplomatic interests and delay the development of more modest and feasible missile defenses that could enhance the nation's security. ??Long-range missiles now being developed by North Korea, Iraq and Iran pose a legitimate security concern. The Pentagon should target its missile defense efforts on meeting that specific threat. There is a good chance that a system designed to achieve that limited purpose could be made palatable to Russia and America's European allies and, once tested and proved to be technologically reliable, win funding from Congress. ??Russia's thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles could easily overwhelm any defensive shield the United States could build today. Moscow's real concern is that if the restraints built into the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty are abandoned, America might one day be able to develop more advanced technologies that could blunt the effectiveness of Russia's strategic missile force and leave it vulnerable to attack. It is unrealistic to expect Moscow to agree to such open-ended development. But the Kremlin has signaled that it might be willing to contemplate a more limited defensive system bound by mutually agreed restrictions. ??The Bush administration seems to recognize that an agreement with Russia on missile defenses would help dispel European and Congressional misgivings. In recent weeks, Washington has made constructive proposals for cooperation with Moscow on related issues like early-warning radar and tactical missile defenses. But the administration has not yet addressed Russia's core concerns. ??There is ample time to pursue further diplomacy with Moscow before any defensive system is built. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is soon to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has rightly stated that whatever technology the Pentagon decides on must be thoroughly tested and shown to be reliable before funds are appropriated for construction. But some increased financing would be justified over the next few years for expanded research and testing. ??That would allow the Pentagon to explore sea-based systems designed to shoot down missiles soon after they are launched, as well as refining the land-based approach pursued by the Clinton administration that is designed to intercept enemy warheads in mid-flight. Both technologies hold some promise of successful development. But neither is yet far enough advanced to justify construction of a system within the next several years, a step that would breach the ABM treaty. Space-based interceptors are a bad idea. As the country most dependent on satellites for reconnaissance and communications, America has the most to lose if space becomes a potential battlefield. ??The time needed for further testing and research should be used to try to negotiate a deal with Moscow. The administration also ought to consult further with its NATO allies and begin serious discussions with China. Beijing understandably worries that an American missile shield could undermine the credibility of its small force of long- range missiles and require it to build many more. ??A narrowly targeted, technologically reliable missile defense is desirable and may be possible to develop. To produce such a system, the Bush administration must set aside its exaggerated expectations and commit itself to a program of careful testing and patient diplomacy. ??0- ??Christian Science Monitor ??Living as he does among many wolves of war, the kind who would send a suicide bomber to a Tel Aviv night club to kill young Israelis, Palestine leader Yasser Arafat made a bold gesture on Saturday. He ordered a cease-fire. ??Such an order -- unusual for him -- assumes a lot. It assumes the chairman of the Palestine Authority has the power to carry it out. It assumes Mr. Arafat spoke from the heart rather than from international pressure or a fear that he might be the next Palestinian official assassinated by Israel. (Israel holds him "responsible" for Friday's bombing that killed 20 people and injured 90.) ??Maybe, though, one could assume Arafat has finally seen the futility of eight months of an increasingly violent uprising that's spinning toward wider war, with no conceivable endgame. ??And on that slim hope -- that maybe Arafat is finally sticking his neck out -- many nations have gone into diplomatic overdrive to push Israel and Arafat to again engage each other in making trade-offs needed for peace. ??Arafat's order included resuming patrols by Palestinian security forces at points of friction, such as Israeli checkpoints. But so far he has not ordered the arrests of known militants that he freed from jail when the current intifada began last fall. Without that, an Israeli military reprisal is assumed, only re-escalating the conflict. ??For a decade, the peace process has hung on an assumption that this one man is willing to make sacrifices and has the power to do so. Both have been in doubt recently. ??If Arafat isn't able to end attacks on Israelis, then it may be time to try other ways of bringing about peace without him. Perhaps the United States and Europe can broaden their approach and reach the Palestinian people directly. ??The days when one man could deliver peace - Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, King Hussein - may be over in the Middle East. Flows of information, money, and weapons now spread so far and so fast that those seeking peace must deal more with public opinion. Encircling the wolves with hearts of peace may be the only way. ??0- ??Washington Post ??The recently approved tax bill, among other goodies, grants a tax break to savings that can be used to send children to private elementary and secondary schools. It's an expansion of what was formerly a college savings program and allows contributions of as much as $2,000 a year to education accounts whose earnings accumulate tax free. Some school-choice proponents hail the provision as a first step toward vouchers. If so, it's an odd first step, because it does little to help the families who most need financial help. Where Congress should be going on vouchers is toward a pilot program that would focus on helping poor children stuck in failing schools. ??The House generously granted the middle and upper-middle class tuition tax break as part of the tax bill but rejected vouchers when it passed its version of an education reform bill. Now the Senate is expected to take up the issue when it returns to work this week. One proposed amendment, offered by GOP Sen. John McCain, would create a four-year test voucher program for low-income students in the worst-performing D.C. schools. District officials weren't consulted and are uniformly opposed to vouchers. Staffers say Sen. McCain is reacting to persistent low achievement by D.C. students. That's a valid concern, but singling out the District in this fashion is an affront to home rule. ??Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., has a better idea. He would create a pilot program for which interested systems -- as many as 10 cities and three states -- could apply. It would make vouchers available to low-income children in schools that have been failing for three years. It allows participating districts to set the vouchers' value, holding out the chance that some students might get enough money to actually meet the cost of private tuition. It provides for an outside evaluation of students' performance and the effect on the public schools involved. This experiment might help some individual students trapped in failing public schools while also providing useful data to inform the long-running debate about vouchers' potential effects. ??Opponents argue that any available federal money should be spent on the public system. It's true that the president's proposed budget falls short of what will be needed to carry out the initiatives in the education bill. Offering vouchers does not take away the obligation to improve troubled public schools. But it's also true that too many students pay dearly, and for the rest of their lives, because they have no alternative to a failing public school. Congress should be willing to explore what might come of giving more choices to some of those low-income students. D.C. officials, given the chance to make their own decision, should be willing to explore that option as well. ??0- ??Omaha World-Herald ??Homosexuals in Nebraska could be forgiven for wondering if there's an agenda by some in the state to marginalize them. ??Last year, a statewide referendum added to the state constitution a prohibition against state recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships, although there was no known move afoot to allow such formalizing of relationships. ??Now a legislatively sustained veto by Gov. Mike Johanns has choked off an attempt to provide them legal protection against discrimination in renting or buying homes. ??Housing bias against gays in Nebraska is, as far as we can tell, rare. Yet that's not exactly the point. Johanns said he opposes creating "a special classification" based on sexual orientation. Yet the stroke of his pen effectively did just that. Today, anyone who follows the legislature knows that the state had an opportunity to ban such discrimination. It had the opportunity and refused. ??Of course the legal situation is unchanged. But a subtext exists that did not exist before. Defeat of the legislation called attention to the fact that some types of discrimination in housing are not prohibited by state law - discrimination not only on the basis of sexual orientation but also on the basis of religion, sex, family status and disability (although federal law, in some cases, applies). State law prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, national origin or ethnic group. ??This is one of those cases in which refusing to take action makes a statement all its own. And the statement for gays and lesbians is extremely negative. ??Actually, Johanns didn't exactly refer to sexual orientation. He offered as accepted fact what in reality is a hotly disputed contention: that homosexuality is about "sexual choices." There's a substantial body of scientific evidence that says sexual orientation is, in fact, inborn -- not, perhaps, up there with eye color, but nonetheless a strong predisposition rooted in people's genetic coding. ??Johanns is not obliged to accept such research as fact, but somewhere in the discussion he ought to be candid enough to admit that honest minds have disagreed and do disagree on the matter. (Food for thought: Given the amount of grief society often gives gays, if homosexuality is a choice, why does anyone choose it?) ??Interestingly, the two groups that presumably could be most affected by such legislation were for it, or at least neutral. The Nebraska Real Estate Commission and Nebraska Board of Realtors said they had no objection to the amendment, since they basically don't engage in such bias. And their observation just underscores common sense: Realtors are in business to sell property, not shoo people away from it. (The amendment wouldn't have affected landlords or other non-license-holders who may rent or sell property.) ??The real agenda seems to be that Johanns and other opponents of this measure are content to let gays (whose sexual relationships are not prohibited in Nebraska) get the cold shoulder in certain aspects of day-to-day life. Foes of the just-vetoed measure, notably including Family First and the Nebraska Family Council, say they'll continue to fight against other legislation that contains protections or concessions for homosexuals. ??Our interpretation is that gays and lesbians want to be quietly left alone like everybody else. They seek no special privileges. They just want to be accepted for what they are. But on such points, Governor Johanns becomes Governor No. A pity. ??0- ??Sacramento Bee ??Years from now, when California looks back on this expensive failure of electricity competition, one bright light will shine from this dark moment in history. That was the decision by the California Legislature and Gov. Gray Davis to create a California public power authority. ??Recycling the rhetoric of decades past, when utility monopolies and holding companies fought the creation of municipal utilities, critics today see public power as an unwelcome, inefficient intruder into the free market system. ??But public power's role isn't to replace that market. It is to make sure that it behaves. Californians can adjust to price gyrations for things such as airline tickets and cherries. Electricity, however, is too vital a commodity, and without regulation and competitive policy, the electricity market, as Californians have so painfully learned, is too easily gamed. ??There is now a brief window to contemplate how this state public power authority can stay one step ahead of market manipulation. The governor has signed the authorizing legislation, but the authority won't officially exist for another two months. Once in operation, its potential is enormous. ??As financial capital, the Legislature has authorized it to sell up to $5 billion worth of bonds to build new power plants to create electricity to be sold at cost. As human capital, the governor will likely tap the wisest old owl in the public power trade, David Freeman. Having already run the public power agencies of the Tennessee Valley, the state of New York, Sacramento and Los Angeles, Freeman brings experience that likely will never be duplicated. ??Freeman's strategy is to ensure that California races to turn a shortage of electricity into a surplus of about 15 percent. Private generators are busy building new plants and applying to build others. Yet at some point these companies may conclude it is not in their interests to compete so vigorously against each other. They feast on shortage and volatility. That's where a vigilant public authority can provide supply to keep the market balanced. ??An ideal partner in generating ventures would be the existing cities that run their own power authorities. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, for example, is looking to build a generating plant fired by natural gas at the site of the former nuclear plant, Rancho Seco. By partnering with the state authority, SMUD could build a larger plant. The state could sell the surplus at cost. SMUD could get even more reliable power. ??With its surplus, the state may wish to direct some to new municipal districts. Customers in several communities are mulling whether to create their own municipal power agencies as a way to avoid the volatility of the deregulated world. Davis, San Francisco, Fresno and other communities are in various stages of this exploration. This very threat of competition keeps down the charges of both the private utilities and the generators. ??The cheapest power of all is that which California doesn't have to buy. The power authority's greatest contribution to California may end up being on the demand side of the electricity equation. It is ideally suited to lead future conservation and efficiency initiatives. Lowering demand lowers the price for the power that Californians do have to buy, whether their utility is public or private. ??"We will be masters of our own destiny," says Freeman. The history of public power's vital role in the market place suggests that Freeman is right about the future. LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2001 ??????????????????????????????5 of 143 DOCUMENTS ??????????Content and programming copyright 2001 Cable News Network ?????????????Transcribed under license by Federal Document Clearing ?????????????House, Inc. Formatting copyright 2001 Federal Document ??????????Clearing House, Inc. All rights reserved. No quotes from the ??????????materials contained herein may be used in any media without ???????????attribution to Cable News Network. This transcript may not ???????????????????????be copied or resold in any media. ?????????????????????????????????????CNN ????????????????????????????SHOW: CNN SUNDAY 16:00 ??????????????????June 3, 2001; Sunday 5:19 PM Eastern Time ???????????????????????????Transcript # 01060307V36 SHOW-TYPE: INTERVIEW SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 816 words HEADLINE: ?Are Price Caps a Solution for California's Energy Woes? GUESTS: ?Barbara Shook BYLINE: ?Stephen Frazier HIGHLIGHT: ?As the U.S. deals with energy woes, there has been heated rhetoric over price controls for power. ?But could they, in fact, make a difference. BODY: ??THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. ??STEPHEN FRAZIER, CNN ANCHOR: As the U.S. deals with energy woes, there has been heated rhetoric over price controls for power. ?But could they, in fact, make a difference. ?Barbara Shook joins us now from Houston to help answer that question. ?Mrs. Shook is the Houston bureau chief for the Energy Intelligence Group. ??Mrs. Shook, welcome, thanks for joining us. ??BARBARA SHOOK, ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP: Thank you, Stephen. It's good to be working with you again. ??FRAZIER: Let's talk a little bit about what happened the last time we tried price controls, remember, in '79 or so when we had an energy crisis stretching on. ?What do you think happened then to the price of energy? ??SHOOK: The price of energy was held artificially low in that period of time. They actually started during 1971 under the Nixon administration, and price caps sent false signals to consumers, and they don't encourage consumers to conserve or to find alternative sources of energy. ??FRAZIER: So, historically, we had just what the president said in comments in week that they didn't improve -- they didn't reduce demand and they didn't increase supply, in his words. ??SHOOK: Very true. ?I would have to agree with the president on that. ??FRAZIER: So, there's a historic precedent for that which proves it. ?Why, then, such a call for price caps? ?Even now, Governor Gray Davis in California saying he's going to sue the federal government for those caps. ??SHOOK: I don't understand where the governor's reasoning is on this issue because price caps, as we have already pointed out, have not worked in the past. What the people are doing is trying to avoid paying the cost that they have tried to avoid for all these years but not building additional plants. ?If they had had the additional facilities in place, it might have cost them a little bit more in the short run, but now it's going to cost them a whole lot more. ??FRAZIER: Of course, in your experience, the resistance to building new plants is more sort of a not in my backyard process kind of in California, isn't that it? ??SHOOK: Well, in California, it's gone beyond the not in my backyard, or NIMBY, syndrome. ?You can describe Californians' attitude as either BANANAS, for build absolutely nothing here anybody, or NOPE, not on planet Earth. ??FRAZIER: So, as result, then, they have kind of a patchwork of half deregulation and half forces that are not market forces at all, and it's something of their own doing, as the federal government likes to point out. ??SHOOK: Yes, it is. ?The plan that is in place right now was formulated in 1996 by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats. ?You had a Democratic state assembly, you had a Republican executive branch under Governor Wilson. ?So, it's -- you can't make this a partisan issue. ?Both sides are at fault. ??FRAZIER: Now, you have spoken earlier this week with a newly- appointed member of the Federal Energy Resource Commission, Pat Wood. What were his thoughts on what's going to happen, how to resolve this crisis? ??SHOOK: Commissioner Wood has chaired the Texas Public Utilities Commission, and done a very successful job. ?What he said to me that he was going to recommend to California was first, discuss the number of plants that will be coming on in the near future. ?They will have additional plants that start up this summer, and then more in 2002. ??That will bring the price down just because of the expectation of additional supply. ?It will certainly mitigate more price spikes and it should bring the price down. ?He also recommended that the state do whatever possible to improve the creditworthiness of all the electricity buyers out there. ??In California, the consumers are being charged a penalty, if you will, in the cost of their electricity because of the credit problems, just as somebody who has a bad credit rating pays a higher interest rate on a home or car. ??And finally, Commissioner Wood recommended that the folks in California just turn down the rhetoric and start addressing the issues as adults, and stop making this just a finger-pointing game. ??FRAZIER: Right, in 25 words or less, because we're running out of time, did he think they are doing anything right there? ??SHOOK: He thinks that the fact they are building plants and expediting process and are expanding their gas pipelines and are going to expand some of their electricity transmission systems are steps in the right direction. ??FRAZIER: Right, that new Path 15. ?Well, Barbara Shook from the Energy Intelligence Group, once again, we're grateful for your insights. ?Thanks for joining us on a Sunday night. ??SHOOK: Thanks for having me. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com LOAD-DATE: June 3, 2001 ?????????????????????????????11 of 143 DOCUMENTS ?????????????????????????Copyright 2001 Southam Inc. ????????????????????????????The Gazette (Montreal) ??????????????????????June 4, 2001 Monday FINAL EDITION SECTION: EDITORIAL / OP-ED, Pg. B3 LENGTH: 802 words HEADLINE: Dim policies in California BYLINE: P.J. O'ROURKE SOURCE: Knight Ridder BODY: ??California is in the midst of an enormous stupidity crisis. Californians have been sitting in the dark because they didn't turn the lights on. ??They say they're short of electricity. Yes, they are. Between 1988 and 1998, California's electricity consumption increased by 15 per cent. Meanwhile, California's capacity to generate electricity shrank by 5 per cent, even as the state hesitated to build new power lines to tap into neighbouring states' power supplies. ??Californians didn't want dams across their rivers, derricks on their ocean, power lines across their borders or fossil-fuel smoke in their sky. These might interfere with all the smart things Californians do, such as hang-gliding. California was going to rely on so-called negawatts: dramatic power conservation. (But California regulators put price controls on electricity that lowered prices, and even Californians weren't dumb enough to skip a bargain.) And California was going to rely on alternative-power generation. With all the puffery from Silicon Valley dot.com start-ups, wind farms wouldn't be a problem. But it turns out that alternative power generation is an alternative, mostly, to generating power. ??U.S. President George W. Bush was wrong to extend executive orders requiring out-of-state utilities to supply power to California. And everyone is wrong to listen to Californians whine about electricity deregulation. ??Never Deregulated ??There never was any deregulation. The California Public Utilities Commission merely changed its regulations, which apparently weren't stupid enough to meet Golden State standards. Under California's 1996 reregulation plan, electric companies sold their generating plants and became distributors. They were required to buy their power on the wholesale spot market and forbidden to enter into any long-term power-supply contracts. Retail electricity prices were lowered by 10 per cent and frozen at the new rate until March 2002. ??This is like requiring A&P to sell you porterhouse at $2 a pound, no matter what the price of beef on the hoof. Imagine how many steaks there would be, and how many supermarkets. ??La-la Land, however, is a state of mind as well as a state of the Union. The world is full of mental Californians who, despite a century of socialist catastrophes, are willing to blame the free market for things like the California energy crisis. ??The critics of economic liberty are right: the free market did cause California's energy crisis. Hooray. Capitalism is doing its job. The critics are right without knowing what they're talking about. The free market isn't a means "to provide for people's basic needs." It doesn't come in or out of political fashion. The free market is a precise measurement of voluntary price settings. ??Free Market Was Ignored ??Californians devised a system of electricity sales that ignored every dimension of the free market. (Interesting that the Information Economy is centred in a place that's immune to information.) The free market is a yardstick, and Californians got smacked with it. Mideast oil jitters, cold weather, natural-gas price spikes and the plain unpredictable freedom of the free market caused wholesale electricity costs to rise and California utilities to go $12 billion into the red. ??California Governor Gray Davis responded with the full force of bikini-beach brain. In a Jan. 8 speech to the state legislature, Davis proposed creating a state agency to buy generating plants and build new ones. He threatened to expropriate power generators and transmission grids. He called for laws to allow criminal prosecution of wholesale suppliers that withheld electricity from California markets. And he said the state's universities and community colleges would build co-generating plants and become energy independent. (With gas produced by the cafeteria food?) Davis sounded like Joseph Stalin with the IQ of Keanu Reeves. "Everyone should understand that there are other, more drastic measures that I am prepared to take if I have to," Davis declaimed. ??"Take" is the key word. Grabby Californians tried to regulate themselves into some cheap electricity. Hoggish California power companies went along because the state-imposed retail-price ceiling was also a retail-price floor. According to the Los Angeles Times, during the first 28 months of the scheme, Pacific Gas and Electric and California Edison made $20 billion from the legally required mark-up between wholesale and retail electric prices. ??It would be wrong to call Californians stupid. They're sleazy, too. ??- P.J. O'Rourke is H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and foreign-affairs desk chief for Rolling Stone. This op-ed is adapted from an article published in the latest edition of the Cato magazine Regulation. TYPE: Business LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2001 ?????????????????????????????12 of 143 DOCUMENTS ??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times ??????????????????????June 4, 2001 Monday ?Home Edition SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 2; Metro Desk LENGTH: 1700 words HEADLINE: Los Angeles; ; An Illuminating Look Several Light-Years Back; Utility Players Bat Cleanup BYLINE: PATT MORRISON, TIMES STAFF WRITER BODY: ??In the years between 1994 and 2000, California's three little pigs--its investor-owned utilities and/or their parent companies--spent $51.6 million on political campaigns. Most of it, about $39 million, was spent beating back Proposition 9, which if you don't remember (and who can?) would have thrown deregulation into reverse. ??An additional $18.6 million was shelled out for six years of lobbying the governor, the Legislature and state agencies. The point-six part of that was spent by Pacific Gas & Electric .tin the first quarter of this year, even as PG&E was prepping itself to file for bankruptcy protection and make a bid for a bailout. ??The study by the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity found that way over half a million went to the campaigns of three leading politicians, all of whom have said the dough did not influence them: $171,000 to then-Gov. Pete Wilson, who signed deregulation into law; $212,186 to state Sen. Jim Brulte, the Rancho Cucamonga Republican whose name topped the author list on the deregulation law; and $268,135 to the campaign causes of state Sen. Steve Peace, the El Cajon Democrat held up as the Frank Lloyd Wright of deregulation (Wright's houses always looked fabulous but didn't always function ideally). ??The utilities are, of course, PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric: the one that's filed for bankruptcy protection, the one that may want to, and the one that's still carrying a torch, a lighted one. ??All Moneyed Up and Nowhere to Go ??OK, everybody: s-l-o-w-l-y take one step back. ??Now that it looks like Newport Beach Republican Chris Cox won't be taking off his congressional neckties in exchange for a black robe on a federal bench, anyone who had been angling to run for his seat had better make other plans. ??This means you, Mark C. Johnson. ??With Cox staying put--his odds of surviving confirmation in a newly Democratic Senate were shriveling anyway--Johnson has the million and a half for a campaign, and nothing to spend it on. ??Johnson is co-founder of Republicans for a New Majority, a bunch of people with a bunch of money to spend on moderate GOP candidates. He won't run against Fullerton Republican Rep. Ed Royce, or against Orange County's solitary congressional Democrat, Loretta Sanchez. But reapportionment might open up a new congressional district, or rejigger the one that now belongs to surfin' Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who expected to collect big at his $1,000-per Arnold Schwarzenegger fund-raiser over the weekend. ??Think the Balkans are complicated? Look behind the Orange Curtain. "Things," said Johnson circumspectly, "may turn out to be a lot more convoluted than any of us are expecting." ??Walt Yes, Al No ??Disney plus Navy equals "Pearl Harbor" the movie. The U.S. Navy gave Disney unprecedented access, and Disney made script changes per the Navy. ??But actor Ben Affleck, aboard the carrier Constellation off San Diego on Sept. 13, filming scenes involving Gen. Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, took a break from films for . . . politics. Surrounded by sailors, he began making a commercial on behalf of Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign. Cut! Cut! Military property is off limits for political purposes, sailor! A Navy lieutenant stuck a hand in front of the camera--and it wasn't a salute. ??Biting the Hand That . . . ??Barely a month ago, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus gave a pass to Rep. Maxine Waters, saying it wants to elect more Latino politicians but not at the expense of simpatico non-Latinos like Waters, whose South-Central Los Angeles district has a huge Latino population. ??But in comments last week about Antonio Villaraigosa, the man running to be Los Angeles' first Latino mayor in more than a century, the African American member of Congress (who endorsed Villaraigosa's opponent, Jim Hahn), demanded, "Who is Antonio Villaraigosa? Where did he really come from? How much time has he spent in public service? . . . We need to know these things." ??For the record, Villaraigosa has spent six years not exactly hiding in the Legislature, including nearly two years as Assembly speaker, and years more as a community activist. He comes from L.A. Waters was born in St. Louis. ??The Man in Tartan Returns? ??It's the question all of Sacramento is asking: With state Sen. Tom McClintock considering another run at the state controller's job, will "Cousin Angus" be back? ??In ads for his 1994 campaign, which he lost to Kathleen Connell, the Thousand Oaks Republican tapped his Scottish roots to conjure the kilted cousin, who bragged in an accent as dense as highland heather that Cousin Tom is a true skinflint Scot, "tighter than a bullfrog's behind." Has anyone called the Scottish Anti-Defamation League? ??But Cousin Angus, says McClintock, "is so angry about the energy situation he may be running himself--for governor." ??A Little Rice, A Lot of Oil ??The few, the proud, the California Republicans are desperately trying to flush some big-name candidates out of the undergrowth, and the latest quail to emerge is Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security advisor and a former Stanford provost. ??The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call says state party Chairman Shawn Steele is talking her up to run against Sen. Barbara Boxer: "There's a long list of quality, top-flight Republicans emerging to run against Boxer [pregame big talk, there], and Rice would be among those ideal candidates." ??Besides saying "Condi loves" California, Rice's office demurred, with the usual "no plans" quote that always leaves some running room. ??With gas above $2 a gallon in the state, maybe now is not the right moment for Rice, who sat on the Chevron board and has a 150,000-ton oil tanker named after her. ??Quick Hits ??At an Irvine fund-raiser, former GOP Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle drummed up $15,000 for a Democratic former colleague, L.A. mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, whom Pringle called "an honorable guy." . . . Amid the talk of outgoing L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan running for governor on the Republican side, records show Riordan donated $12,500 to Davis' campaign on March 2, 2000, which his wife matched a day later. . . . Two dogs, each kitted out in Hahn or Villaraigosa political trinkets, met nose to nose in Venice to urge the candidates to support a canine beach in Los Angeles, which has none. ??Word Perfect ??"What do you want from me, a quote that I'm going to raise taxes? That will kill me when I run for president in New Hampshire." ??State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, to reporters asking whether he'd raise taxes to plug the holes left in the budget by the energy crisis. ??Columnist Patt Morrison's e-mail address is patt.morrison@latimes.com. This week's contributors include Nick Anderson, Mark Z. Barabak, Dan Morain, Jean O. Pasco, Tony Perry, Margaret Talev and Jenifer Warren. GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Numbers Game: Mayor Richard Riordan welcomed President Bush to the World Affairs Council luncheon in Los Angeles last week by noting that he arrived "during stressful times" . . . meaning the NBA playoffs. (The mayor has been working on his comedic timing with his pals at the Friars Club.) He presented Bush with a pair of Shaquille O'Neal's shoes that could seat four, and a Lakers jersey, he said proudly, bearing the number 43 (it's right next to Bush's right hand), as in the 43rd president--except the jersey bore the number 34. Cut--propman! Was that a Bush-dyslexia joke or just a slip of the mayor's alphanumeric tongue? PHOTOGRAPHER: BRIAN WALSKI / Los Angeles Times LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2001 ?????????????????????????????13 of 143 DOCUMENTS ?????????????????Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co. ?????????????????????????The San Francisco Chronicle ?????????????????????JUNE 4, 2001, MONDAY, FINAL EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1 LENGTH: 581 words HEADLINE: Electricity usage shrinks by 11%; State's consumers beat goal set by governor SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer BYLINE: Keay Davidson BODY: By turning off lamps, turning up thermostats and buying energy-efficient light bulbs, the people of California helped reduce the state's electricity consumption last month 11 percent below the May 2000 level, more than was expected, Davis administration officials said yesterday. ???The "fairly remarkable" response to the governor's appeal for energy conservation came not only from business but from ordinary electric customers: "If you go into any hardware store, people are buying new lighting facilities. . . . It's truly a tribute to the people of California who are doing this," said Steve Larson, executive director of the California Energy Commission, in a conference call with news reporters. ???In May, the state consumed 18,616,485 megawatt hours of electricity, a drop of 2,289,362 megawatt hours or 11 percent from May 2000, said Gov. Davis' press secretary, Steve Maviglio. ???The governor called for a 10 percent reduction in May, whereas his energy advisers forecast that only 7 would be achieved, Maviglio noted. ???In the news conference, officials also said: ???-- The state signed nine new contracts in May with out-of-state power sources to boost Caliornia's available megawattage by 900 megawatts. Presently, that makes a total of 36 contracts with out-of-state energy sources. ???-- The price of electric power in May was 45 percent below the January amount, thanks to market fluctuations. ???Prices "are much more stable today -- things are really coming together," said Ray Hart of the Department of Water Resources. ???-- An unknown number of rolling blackouts are ahead as the state enters energy-hungry summertime. "Who knows?" Larson replied when asked by a reporter to forecast the likely number of blackouts. ???"It's the job of the state to look under every rock for every megawatt possible," Larson said. "During the month of May, we did a pretty good job." ???All in all, Maviglio concurred, it's "very good news for this month." ???"Californians exceeded the governor's expectations," Maviglio added in a post-conference interview with The Chronicle, "and it's critical to note all this (energy conservation) was voluntary. . . . If this is a harbinger of the summer, it's good news." ???During the news conference, a reporter from another publication asked for comment on Chronicle reports that certain energy providers deliberately throttled their available supply early in the crisis. ???While declining to discuss the newspaper's charge in detail, Hart replied: "What we do know -- I do not have specific information -- (is) the amount of forced outages were more than double the norm, and that's never happened (before). And (the forced outages were) up to four times (normal) some days. That is extraordinary, in itself, (and) that really makes you wonder whether there was (power) idling that was intentional." ???Officials also discussed the Davis administration's push to negotiate power purchases at reasonable prices from municipal utilities. They vaguely hinted at legal action if the state doesn't get what it wants, namely reasonably priced power from such sources. ???Negotiations with the utilities are continuing, said Dick Sklar, energy adviser to the governor. "I think the first step is to see if we can get people (at the municipalities) to act in a reasonable way before (we start) talking about punitive action. . . . The state has weapons I hope we never have to go (toward using)."E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com LOAD-DATE: June 4, 2001 ?????????????????????????????14 of 143 DOCUMENTS ?????????????????Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co. ?????????????????????????The San Francisco Chronicle ?????????????????????JUNE 4, 2001, MONDAY, FINAL EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1 LENGTH: 1092 words HEADLINE: Eliminating night games may seem like a bright idea, but . . .; Baseball is balking SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer BYLINE: Erin Hallissy BODY: It's the way baseball was meant to be played, some say: under a summer sun instead of huge banks of lights. ???Now, some power misers are joining baseball purists by complaining about all those games played at night, saying they're as wasteful as leaving the air conditioning running when no one's home. ???From the small minor-league parks in places like Vacaville to games played in the state's five major-league ballparks, all those light banks could be shut down, all those power-using concession stands and scoreboards and illuminated billboards could be turned off. ???"It is my contention that we had better start seeing all five major league baseball teams, and many of the other sports activities at all levels of competition, being rescheduled to the daytime," said Blaine Nicol, who wrote to The Chronicle advocating the change. ???"It can be done," said Ed Moose, owner of Moose's restaurant in San Francisco and a fan of day baseball games. "It only takes a fiat by the president of the United States or the governor or the Legislature to say that this is what we have to do to get through a crisis. A lot depends on how important we say this is. Is it more important that we start a ballgame at 7:15 p.m. than at 12:30?" ???MOST LIKE SCHEDULE AS IS ???But energy crisis or no, don't look for baseball to move its night games to daytime. The leagues don't want it, the teams don't want it, the players don't want it and many of the fans don't want it, either. ???"Baseball during the day -- it's fabulous," Hillary Lassetter said before an Oakland A's night game last week. "But I can't get there." ???Like thousands of other fans, the 31-year-old Los Gatos woman works during the day. Lassetter, who has been going to games with her father since she was in first grade, works at a San Jose construction office, and her job isn't flexible enough to let her go out for an afternoon of baseball. ???Teams at all levels of baseball say they can't change the schedule this late in the season. It isn't just that many fans who have already bought tickets wouldn't be able to go to day games -- television contracts, player contracts and stadium leases wouldn't allow it. In some cases, even the weather wouldn't allow it. ???"On a promotional basis, once in a while, yeah, a day game is maybe fine," said Joe Gagliardi, president of the California League, which has 10 Class A (low minor league) teams affiliated with major-league clubs. "But if we had to switch to all day games, it would put at least 60 percent of our ballclubs out of business." ???That's because some of those teams play in the high desert Southern California towns of Lancaster and Adelanto and Central Valley cities like Stockton and Modesto, where summertime temperatures often soar well over 100 degrees. ???Teams without hot-weather problems won't be changing their schedules, either. ???GIANTS LIMITED TO 13 DAY GAMES ???The San Francisco Giants have a lease with the city limiting them to 13 weekday games a year because of the disruption to nearby businesses and commuters, said Giants executive vice president Larry Baer. The team is playing nine weekday games this year. ???"The schedules are put out a year in advance," Baer said. "I think it's unrealistic that we'd change after the season started." ???Fans who couldn't get to the park for day games wouldn't be the only ones who would be upset. ???Through yesterday's game, Giants second baseman Jeff Kent was hitting .343 during the day and .230 at night. But improving his overall numbers isn't worth giving up his free time with his three young children. ???"I'd hate to play day games every day," Kent said last week. "I'm a big family man, and if you play day games, your day is just burned. With all due respect to people who work 9 to 5 -- I guess that's what people in the real world do -- that would make it really hard to spend time with my children." ???State Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, toyed with the idea of introducing a resolution calling for more day games before deciding he had to review the legal ramifications of player and TV contracts along with season ticket sales. ???Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said Davis has wanted to minimize disruptions to businesses. ???One of the things to consider, Salazar said, is whether the power saved by playing in the daytime "outweighs the fact that many of those people aren't at home (using energy)." ???ECONOMI
|