|
|
Enron Mail |
Enron Reportedly Looking to Sell India's Dabhol Power Plant
Dow Jones Business News, 07/28/01 INDIA: Enron says wants Indian govt to buy its Dabhol stake. Reuters English News Service, 07/28/01 Weekend: DAM BUSTER: Arundhati Roy achieved worldwide success as a Booker Prize-winning novelist. But she has given up the glory trail to become India's most prominent activist, campaigning against nuclear tests and the dams that threaten the homes and li The Guardian, 07/28/01 India: Demand for DPC power only at 'particular' price Business Line (The Hindu), 07/28/01 Enron wants to sell its stake in DPC to fed govt or lenders Press Trust of India Limited, 07/28/01 Enron wants out of India power plant / Company seeks buyer for its 65% stake Houston Chronicle, 07/28/01 Wind power scrutinized as state considers energy plans Associated Press Newswires, 07/28/01 5 State Energy Advisors Fired Over Conflicts Ethics: The consultants were involved in buying electricity for California from a generator whose stock they owned, setting up a clash of official duties, personal interests. Los Angeles Times, 07/28/01 Chasing the powers that be Small energy projects generate excitement The Seattle Times, 07/28/01 Power to the People: L.A.'s Merry Monopoly The Washington Post, 07/28/01 SAN FRANCISCO / PG&E creditors won't be shielded in dealings The San Francisco Chronicle, 07/28/01 Enron Wants India to Buy Dabhol, Still Eyeing Options (Update4) Bloomberg, 07/28/01 Enron Reportedly Looking to Sell India's Dabhol Power Plant 07/28/2001 Dow Jones Business News (Copyright © 2001, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) Associated Press HOUSTON -- Enron Corp. would like the Indian government or one of the lenders on a dispute-plagued power project to buy out the Houston-based energy company's majority stake, officials said. Such a sale of its 65% stake is the best way to go as long as it provides Enron (ENE) a "complete recovery of capital costs and related expenditures," company spokesman John Ambler said in Saturday's editions of the Houston Chronicle. Enron has invested $875 million in the Dabhol power plant project. The plant stopped production in May after its sole customer, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, told Enron it was canceling a 7-year-old power purchase agreement. Enron contends the board didn't have the right to cancel. The company also denies the board's allegations that Enron has not lived up to its contract. Jeff Dietert, an analyst with Simmons & Co. International in Houston, said he doesn't anticipate the matter will be resolved quickly. Enron's public statement of its willingness to sell sends a signal to companies that might be interested, said Mr. Dietert, who added that the energy giant would be well served by resolving the protracted dispute. "The stock is going to be much better off after the issue is settled," he said. Mr. Dietert said the sharp rhetoric associated with the conflict between Enron and Indian officials have cast a shadow over the company's stock. Enron chairman Kenneth Lay visited India earlier this month and was hopeful a solution could be worked out after meeting with the country's finance and energy ministers. Uncertainty has clouded the $3 billion project, India's largest ever foreign investment, after Indian politicians argued the state couldn't afford Enron's prices and called for renegotiating the purchase agreement. Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. INDIA: Enron says wants Indian govt to buy its Dabhol stake. 07/28/2001 Reuters English News Service (C) Reuters Limited 2001. BOMBAY, July 28 (Reuters) - U.S. energy group Enron Corp said on Saturday it wants to sell its stake in the Dabhol Power Company either to the Indian federal government or to the project's lenders. "As the largest investor in the DPC, Enron believes that selling its interest either to the government of India or to the project's lenders is the best approach to resolve the protracted dispute," a spokesman for its Indian unit told Reuters. This follows comments made by Enron chairman Kenneth Lay in Friday's issue of Financial Times that Enron is looking to exit from its Indian venture. The Dabhol Power Company (DPC), 65 percent owned by the Enron Corp, is currently locked in a bitter dispute with a local utility over a payments default. "We want out," said Enron's Chairman Kenneth Lay in an interview with the Financial Times. DPC which is India's biggest direct foreign investment, had signed a contract to supply power to a state-owned utility, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), from its gas-based plant on the state's west coast. But MSEB stopped buying power in May calling it expensive and defaulted on payments jeopardising the project's future. "We have made it pretty clear to the government leadership we are now at a point where we would like to be taken out and we think most of our partners do," Lay said in the Financial Times interview. Besides Enron, the other shareholders in DPC are U.S. group General Electric and Bechtel which own 10 percent each and MSEB with 15 percent. Earlier this month Lay had a meeting with India's Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha to try and resolve the issue but talks ended without any solution. "We have fought this once before, put it back together, fixed the contracts, but we don't want to do that again and have the same problems in a few years," Lay was quoted by the paper as saying. DPC's power plant is being built in two phases. The first phase of 740 MW is up and running and the second phase of 1,444 MW is 97 percent complete. Some analysts say India's attempts to resolve the Enron dispute is a test case of its ability to attract more foreign investment. Last week U.S. assistant secretary of state on South Asian affairs, Christina Rocca, said the problems surrounding India's investment climate could be summed up in a five-letter word, "Enron". "I have to emphasise that it will be difficult for international investors to view India favourably until it (Enron issue) is resolved and in a reasonable manner," she told a meeting in New Delhi. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Weekend: DAM BUSTER: Arundhati Roy achieved worldwide success as a Booker Prize-winning novelist. But she has given up the glory trail to become India's most prominent activist, campaigning against nuclear tests and the dams that threaten the homes and li MADELEINE BUNTING 07/28/2001 The Guardian Copyright (C) 2001 The Guardian; Source: World Reporter (TM) Arundhati Roy burst on to the Indian national stage from nowhere in 1997. A drop-out architecture student and one-time aerobics instructor, she had turned her hand to writing a novel. It was The God Of Small Things, and it earned her one of India's biggest ever advances before going on to win the Booker Prize and sell six million copies. The rebellious outsider - southern and female - had trumped the coterie of men who dominate India's literary world, and the reward was an insatiable international fascination. She found herself cast in the role of Indian national mascot, adored and feted for her global success. Four years later, there have been no more novels, and the now 39-year-old darling of India's middle class has become a painful thorn in its side, writing a series of savage critiques of India's development - its nuclear tests, its huge dam-construction projects and its cringing obeisance to western corporate power. These are home truths that powerful interests in India do not want to hear, and Roy has made herself many enemies. Irritated by her criticisms and the publicity they invariably attract in the west, the Indian establishment has set about trying to cut this awkward rebel down to size. This week, Roy faces a contempt of court charge before the Indian Supreme Court - her first appearance in the drawn-out case was four months ago. Her alleged crime is to have attended a demonstration against the court's decision last autumn to give the go-ahead to the country's most controversial dam project, the Sardar Sarovar in the Narmada valley, central India. Roy is accused of inciting violence and attacking a court official. Ludicrous though many aspects of the case appear to be, the lawyers Roy consulted advised her to plead guilty and apologise. When she refused, none would risk his career to represent her. Undeterred, she wrote her own affidavit and defiantly had it published in a mass-circulation magazine on the day of her first court appearance, much to the fury of the court, which has threatened further proceedings. Roy risks a six-month jail sentence. How did the writer of an intensely lyrical novel become a committed activist with an analytical prose worthy of a barrister? What induced her to swap her status as Delhi's most-favoured dinner party guest for night marches and sit-ins at the dam sites, and even, possibly, jail? Why did the whimsical chronicler of "small things" - the beetles and creeping, lush greenery of Kerala - turn to fighting big things such as nuclear bombs, dams, the Indian state and globalisation? Roy comes down four flights of stairs to open the door to her apartment block. Here, where she writes and spends most of her day, she has none of the small army of servants considered necessary by middle-class Delhi. Her flat is surrounded by the contradictions of Indian development, which she analyses in her essays: a comfortable suburb of New Delhi, where cows rummage in the rubbish piled up in the open gutters, and where a man has set up shop in the shade of a tree, ironing the neighbourhood's washing, probably earning in a day just enough to buy one cafe latte in the new, empty, air- conditioned coffee shop. We sit in a crepuscular gloom, the fierce Delhi summer requiring that all the blinds be drawn, and the air-conditioning is on in Roy's small apartment of strong primary colours, books, a big television and computer. She talks in a low, gentle voice. It's a sharp contrast to the vehemence and coruscating wit of her writing. "I like the fact that my rage goes into bigger things, not into small, petty things with people around me," she says. "I am surrounded by people I love, and what I crave is gentleness." Friends come and go, and the telephone rings frequently. We get off to a bad start, because Roy hates the "writer-activist" label with which she is saddled - it reminds her of "sofa-bed". She writes what she sees, she says, and she sees no great distinction between fiction and non-fiction; all she does is keep her "aching eyes open". She refers me to an address on writing that she gave earlier this year in the US: "In the midst of putative peace, a writer can, like I did, be unfortunate enough to stumble on a silent war. The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out." She stumbled on a silent war in 1998, after a giddy year of international celebrity which, she admits, she enjoyed "immensely" (all those hotel towels, she enthuses in one essay), but she knew, in the end, that the "good manners and hygiene" would kill her. What anchored her as she spun around the globe was home, and she resisted the temptations of emigration. "I'm not the sort of person who can buy a life." She came to see fame much like a tin can trailing noisily behind her wherever she went: eventually, it would drop off and she would then write some "worstsellers" and eat mangoes in the moonlight. But the prospect of such leisure vanished as she returned home to look at her country with new eyes: India was jubilant at its first nuclear test, and Roy penned The End Of Imagination, a furious attack on this symbol of national pride. The title was misplaced, however, because what then captured her imagination, and has done ever since, was that the biggest mass non-violent movement since Indian independence - the campaign against the Narmada valley dams - was then on the brink of victory. She set aside the novels she had been planning to read and threw herself into the detail of technical subjects such as irrigation and drainage. Since then, her voracious curiosity has ranged from export credit guarantees to electricity distribution rates and resettlement programmes for those displaced by the dams. Roy has spent much time reflecting on the direction her life has taken. She describes, with a romanticism akin to Tolstoy's, how the marches she attends in the Narmada valley have given her a pride in her people and her land, and also a philosophy. The struggle has rooted her, intellectually and emotionally, after the upheaval of celebrity. It also helped assuage the guilt over her sudden wealth, which she once described as making her feel she had "perforated the huge pipeline that circulates the world's wealth . . . and it is spewing money at me, bruising me with its speed and strength. I began to feel as though every emotion, every little strand of feeling in The God Of Small Things, had been traded in for a silver coin." Her interest in the dam is less personal, she says. Like any writer, she wants to understand and tell stories, and dams sum up, like nothing else, the story of modern India: its greed, its wanton violence and its centralisation of power. Surprisingly, in all these reflections, Roy steadfastly omits any reference to the deep emotional attachment to the rivers of her Kerala childhood, which is so evident in the novel. In one vivid passage, she describes the humiliation of the river after a saltwater barrage has been built: "A thin ribbon of thick water that lapped wearily at the mud banks on either side, sequinned with the occasional silver slant of a dead fish. It was choked with a succulent weed, whose furred brown roots waved like thin tentacles under water . . . Once it had had the power to evoke fear. To change lives. But now its teeth were drawn, its spirit spent. It was just a slow, sludging green ribbon lawn that ferried fetid garbage to the sea." Almost every page of The God Of Small Things reverberates with the fragile vulnerability of the small - children, for starters, and an intense awareness of millions of tiny living things, and the preciousness of small quotidian events. This reflects a fierce protectiveness towards the small and the powerless that predates her literary fame; her student thesis, she says, was on the housing of the marginalised urban poor. Bombs and dams are the corollary of India's slums: the bombs have diverted the taxes, and the dams have deprived millions of their lands and their rivers. Despite the legal cases, and the veiled threats and savage attacks in the media, even by erstwhile allies, Roy is standing her ground. Her political writings have evolved from passionate polemic into something more dangerous: a considered and witty analysis of globalisation and its impact on India. She asks questions that are particularly awkward for the nationalist middle classes who are prospering on neoliberalism. Is globalisation "a process of barbaric dispossession which has few parallels in history? Is it a mutant variety of colonialism, remote-controlled and digitally-operated?" Roy has a wonderful sense of her own pace - she will not be hurried, or hurry herself - but she is slowly putting together what she calls a "politics of opposition". She already senses her place on the intellectual map of anti-globalisation; she's been reading Noam Chomsky, John Berger and tomes on the history of the third world; she is keen to meet the Mexican Zapatista hero, Subcommandante Marcos; and she wants to attend the next meeting of the World Trade Organisation. But she is aware that this is not just a matter of acquiring the right intellectual baggage. Her politics flow seamlessly from her public life into her private; her analysis of power is not just applied to Indian democracy, but also to how she relates to her family and friends, and how she deals with her celebrity and wealth. Roy's political essays, powerful though they are, have not so far achieved their objectives. The End Of Imagination in 1998 won her many admirers in the west, but in India it failed to dent the extraordinary consensus behind the nuclear bomb. The Greater Common Good in 1999, on India's preoccupation with dam-building in the 50 years since independence, pointed out that the dams had woefully failed to meet targets for either power generation or irrigation, while at the same time displacing at least 33 million people. Roy argued that the bulk of those displaced were untouchables or tribal peoples, and that this amounted to a form of genocide. The essay won her more admirers in the west and lent weight to the international campaigns against dams. The worldwide publicity that Roy has attracted by campaigning against the dams has succeeded in scaring off several western contractors of the huge Narmada project - it involves building 3,200 dams, including 30 major ones. But despite all her eloquence, and despite the mass protest movement, the Supreme Court ruled last October that work on the huge Sardar Sarovar dam could resume. It was a bitter setback to a movement that had believed it was on the brink of victory after a series of stunning successes, including the withdrawal from the project of the World Bank. The defeat means that now, as Roy faces her court hearing in Delhi, hundreds of miles away in Narmada the arrival of the monsoon season has set the waters rising again behind the dam. Over the next few weeks, police will have to drag people from their homes to prevent suicide protests by drowning: "While the judges are discussing our contempt of court case, people will stand chest-deep in water for days. Forget the Narmada, where hundreds of thousands of cases [of compensation for lost land] are pending in the courts; a three-judge bench will spend days discussing my case. But losing their dignity is much more important to the judges." The Sardar Sarovar dam alone will displace 400,000 people, and the state worst affected, Madya Pradesh, has officially declared that it has no land on which to resettle the people whose whole way of life for thousands of years has been bound up with the Narmada, one of the great rivers of India. What has embittered the battle is that most of the thousands of poor farmers and fishermen displaced in the past decade have yet to be resettled. In reality, many of those who lose their lands or livelihoods are likely to receive nothing more than paltry financial compensation. They end up either as cheap agricultural labour or swell the shanty towns. Both options are close to destitution. Meanwhile, promises that the dams will help irrigate dry regions of Gujarat ring hollow, not least because none of the necessary canals has been budgeted for. In reality, the dams will provide electricity and water for the prospering urban industrial interests of the state - which is why the Supreme Court judgment was greeted with jubilation in Gujarat's cities. The dam presents a stark conflict between the interests of urban and rural, between industrial and subsistence economies; and it crystallises Roy's own questions about progress - that the poorest are crushed in the pursuit of development. "I can imagine in the 50s what a fantastic feat of engineering a dam appeared to be, but now, when what we know about nature is little enough, how can you continue to think this is a wonderful thing to do? To intervene in such a massive way in such a complex process - it's like putting a jackboot into a spider's web. What kind of civilisation is it when you teach men in college to look at a river and imagine pouring concrete into it?" she demands. The one hope of forestalling the next big Narmada dam scheduled, the Maheshwar, is that it will fail to find the necessary financing within India, now that the project has become too controversial for any western contractor. Emboldened by this success, in her two most recent essays Roy has broadened the scope of her attacks to include the western corporations involved in the privatisation of Indian state electricity companies, in particular the US company Enron. Enron was accused of smoothing the path of its massive contract to build a power plant near Bombay with Dollars 20m to "educate" politicians and bureaucrats; now the electricity Enron produces is more expensive than any of its competitors', yet Maharastra state is locked into contractual payments of Dollars 220m a year. Such "business arrangements between these huge multinationals in the west and the third world elite", says Roy, promote a consensus that their model of globalisation - liberalisation and privatisation - represents progress: "It's a form of fundamentalism to believe that this is the only measure of progress - how much electricity is consumed, how much more rice is produced, whether it is eaten or goes to waste in warehouses. Even the tools the economists have developed to measure progress are flawed," she says, adding, "I think of globalisation like a light which shines brighter and brighter on a few people and the rest are in darkness, wiped out. They simply can't be seen. The lobotomy in the west is that you stop seeing something and then, slowly, it's not possible to see it. It never existed and there is no possibility of an alternative." But the alternative still exists in India, she believes - the country is too old and clever to be lobotomised into believing in the one single idea, "that life is profit". Defying the tyranny of this idea is a constant thread running through Roy's politics and her private life. It lies behind plans to set up with friends an Indian-based Corporate Watch to monitor corporate power. It informs how she is mapping out a politics that demands accountability, whatever the regime. "The only way to keep power on a tight leash is to oppose it, never to seek to own it or have it," she says. "Opposition is permanent." But these big political ideas also have deeply personal implications, she adds: "Personal politics and what you do from day to day is just as important as globalisation, and opposition to power has to be matched by a reluctance to use power in your own relationships. You oppose by the way you live as much as by what you say and do - and that is painful and joyful." Joy features prominently in her description of the politics of opposition - against all the odds, you defy your critics simply by having too much fun. That's why they couldn't forgive her and her mother when she was growing up in Kerala, she remembers - they simply weren't as unhappy as a single mother and her "thin, black, clever" daughter should have been. "The whole point of the feminist fight was that there has to be fun at the end of the tunnel. You don't want this image of beaten, oppressed, moaning women. You think about things, engage with the world, and you're aware of the terrible suffering that is happening around you, and the way to be with all of that is to enjoy the process of what you are doing and to speak joy in the saddest places. If you're living in a world that is telling you that only if you have hamburgers, buy diamonds and have a Rolls-Royce can you be happy, then you're saying in the happiest possible way that that is completely wrong." She adds, "It's a game of survival, and if you allow yourself to become unhappy, you will lose everything. I remember what my mother said to me: 'I've never known anyone who guards their happiness so fiercely.' I think it's important to patrol the borders of your happiness, to understand your sources of joy and to protect them, and to know that, so often, it's only when that happiness has gone that you know what it was. But you can be cooking or listening to music and think, I don't need anything else to happen or anyone else to be any other way in order to be happy." Happiness for her, she says, might be going to the market and choosing glass beads after weeks of late nights drafting an affidavit, or just lying on the floor all day with friends under a ceiling fan in the Delhi summer. Even gossiping with friends about relationships as the police move in to break up a demonstration at a dam site. These are what Roy describes as the "small delights" of her life, a source of the strength that has seen her through the turbulence of her meteoric rise to global fame and, now, the anxiety of the court cases. She describes her friends as "extraordinary people" for dealing with her sudden fame and money, and managing to maintain the "democratic nature of our friendships". None of them had money before, now she gives hers away, "and I know that it is as sophisticated an act to receive as to give it". She has probably made enough from the one novel to live on for the rest of her life; she eschewed more, refusing to sell the film rights, arguing democratically that six million readers had their own version of the film in their heads and she didn't want a single film-maker to replace them all. The fame has been burdensome, although she claims (somewhat implausibly, since she had her hair cut, a symbol of rare defiance in a culture that fetishises long hair) that she has some anonymity in India (when asked if she is Arundhati Roy, she says her standard reply is that she wishes she were). The causes in need of her celebrity are endless, and she turns down most of the requests that come in from all over the world: would she open a lung hospital in Kerala? Attend a conference on water in the Hague? Give a speech on being a writer at Amherst? Model for Cartier? Make a BBC television documentary? Roy smiles mischievously: "One woman phoned me and said, 'Oh, darling, that essay on the Narmada was absolutely wonderful. I wonder if you could do one for me on child abuse?' And I said, 'For or against?'" The most important thing, she says, is to keep in mind your own insignificance; she can't speak about every issue and do them all justice. She adds thoughtfully, "Sometimes it's hard, because fate has conspired to make my voice heard, so you have the illusion - or other people have - that you can do a lot." Roy is wary of the fickleness of fame, and likens it to a wind blowing through a house and all the shutters banging: "There were moments when I was so unhappy that I wished I hadn't written the book and I hadn't won the Booker." The "huge public fairytale" had "another, equal, opposite version in my private life - a terrible dark side". She refuses to expand, preferring to answer questions with general reflections on the nature of relationships between men and women - which perhaps supports rumours in Delhi that her marriage has broken down. In any case, the upheaval in her life has now been resolved. She lambasts the pact of mediocrity to which the vast majority of people subscribe in their marriages, and confesses herself bewildered as to why so many women have children. She has none herself by her marriage to a film-maker 10 years her senior, and has no plans to have any: "Until recently, I was never secure financially or sure enough about my life to think of having children. I'm so scared of the vulnerability of children. I suppose, in some deep way, I have not been able to cope with my own childhood. I wouldn't know how to protect the child's magic. Now, I want to live my life backwards, I want to be free to change my mind, to think my thoughts, and not to be responsible for moulding somebody and for teaching them what is right." Living backwards means that Roy is now looking forward to living out her teenage years and growing old, becoming a "fit, old witch"; a form of liberation that means being irresponsible, keeping everybody she loves feeling loved (that's not a matter of luck but hard work, she maintains) and depending on no one for anything - dependence is a form of selfishness, she insists. Roy admits there is a great struggle between political engagement - the demos, the preparations for the court cases - and her desire to concentrate on her writing. Her enthusiasm for the latter is undiminished: "I think writing is such a beautiful thing to play with all the time - having your hands in that stuff. I use it to live my life in the most public and the most private way, and I love all different kinds of writing: a novel, an affidavit, a letter. Writing leads me through my life, and I trust my writing so much more than anything else about myself." In the immediate aftermath of the Booker Prize, she said she would never write another novel - she objected to the way people treated her like "a factory". Now, she says, she will know instinctively when it is time to write and will be ruthless about applying herself to it. It is Roy's passion for writing that stiffened her resolve not to take the lawyers' advice and apologise to the Supreme Court, and she describes a poignantly revealing dream she had before the last hearing: "I had been sentenced to prison, but that was not the fear. The only way I could live out the sentence and be released was to learn not to form an opinion about anything. There was a sort of big playground with a dazzling dance performance, and I was unable to watch it because I was struggling not to have an opinion about it." She is more afraid of not being able to speak her mind than she is of prison, but she is also well aware that is a ghastly choice, one that she would much prefer not to be facing. For now, she feels a judge's hammer hangs over her every word. "It's never what it appears to be. It's much more a slow grinding down - of a writer in one way, of a lawyer or an activist in another. It's not about whether you go to jail, but how you have to adjust yourself to survive, and that's the issue - the fatigue, the complete fatigue in the end." This is the Indian state's version of the country's tradition of non-violence, she adds with wry resignation. But she also well knows that the same establishment can be vicious and violent. It is dark when we finish talking, and the apartment block is silent. She offers me a lift back to my guesthouse and as we leave, the back alley is deserted and Roy seems all of a sudden terrifyingly vulnerable. She is nonchalant, however. We get hopelessly lost in a suburb of New Delhi, going around in circles while she entertains me with anecdotes of being a judge at the Cannes film festival last year. I ask if she sees herself becoming a standard-bearer in the anti-globalisation movement? "Only if I can say something simple, something complicated and something magical," she says, her eyes gleaming with mischief 'The only dream worth having, I told my friend, is to dream that you'll live while you're alive and die only when you're dead. "Which means exactly what?" (Arched eyebrows, a little annoyed.) I tried to explain, but I didn't do a very good job of it. Sometimes I need to write to think. So I wrote it down for her on a paper napkin. This is what I wrote: To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never to forget.' Taken from The End Of Imagination, collected in The Cost Of Living, by Arundhati Roy, published by Flamingo priced pounds 5.99. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. India: Demand for DPC power only at 'particular' price 07/28/2001 Business Line (The Hindu) Fin. Times Info Ltd-Asia Africa Intel Wire. Business Line (The Hindu) Copyright (C) 2001 Kasturi & Sons Ltd. All Rights Res'd MUMBAI, July 27. THE Godbole panel today conveyed the power-offtake proposals of six States to Dabhol Power Company (DPC) officials. The company was told that there was combined demand for 800-1000 MW power at not more than Rs 2.50 per unit. "One thing is abundantly clear. There is demand for (DPC) power at a particular price. If the price increases the demand may not be large" Dr Godbole told reporters. " We have told Enron that the need for 800 to 1000 MW DPC power is not at baseload, nor is it an all-year-round demand. The States will require this power only between the months of April to November and the demand will fall during the rainy season," he said. Karnataka, Punjab, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh made representations to the panel yesterday. Rajasthan and Haryana have presented written proposals asking for 300 and 100 MW each. While Madhya Pradesh has asked for power at Rs 1.65 per unit, other States have said they will not pay more than Rs 2.25 to Rs 2.40 per unit. According to Dr Godbole, the company officials will "take up the matter with lenders and collaborators" before the next meeting which is expected to be held in August. Meanwhile, according to DPC, the power purchase proposals presented by various States "are totally unrealistic and unattainable by new generation liquid fuel plants including even those in the public sector such as NTPC's Kayamkulam". Dr Godbole had suggested that DPC power "at competitive rates" could replace captive power in a number of States. He said though DPC had earlier agreed to reduce tariffs by 50 paise, this would no longer be easy as the project has seen cost escalation after stoppage of phase II work. "Our dialogue with Enron is bogged down by two issues- the plant load factor at which the unit is run and the price of power," Dr Godbole said. He said there was a need to take a "serious look at whether demand projections in the country are realistic". - Our Bureau Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Enron wants to sell its stake in DPC to fed govt or lenders 07/28/2001 Press Trust of India Limited © 2001 PTI Ltd. Mumbai, Jul 28 (PTI) US energy major Enron Saturday said it was ready to sell its entire stake in Dabhol Power Company's (DPC) USD three billion power project to "either the federal government or the project lenders". "This is the best approach to resolve the protracted dispute between DPC and Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB)," Enron India said in a statement here Saturday. It said any sale would need to be on terms of providing complete recovery of capital costs and related expenditures. Friday, in an interview to the Financial Times, London, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay had said the multinational wanted to be out of India and he expected Indian government to buy the 2,184 MW project at Dabhol. "We have made it pretty clear to government leadership we are now at a point where we would like to be taken out and we think most of our partners do," he had said. Enron said as the largest investor in DPC, it believed that the issue was clearly "having an adverse effect on confidence of potential foreign investors to India and pursuing a buyout option can help resolve the dispute in a timely manner". In a clear reference to its estranged relationship and bitter battle with MSEB and state government over unpaid dues upto USD 45 million, Enron said failure to reform power sector in India, especially in western state of Maharashtra, makes it "extremely difficult" for an outside generator to operate effectively. "We have serious concerns that DPC not become embroiled in a perpetual series of renegotiations, given our experiences of having already renegotiated the contract in the 1990s," it said. In his interview, Lay had echoed a similar view, saying "We have fought this once before, put it back together, fixed the contracts, but we don't want to do that again and have the same problems in a few years," he said. Enron was involved in arbitration over the Dabhol power purchase contract in 1995 with the earlier Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Maharashtra. Currently, Enron has a 65 per cent stake in DPC, MSEB has 15 and GE and Bechtel each has 10 per cent. The multinational also made it clear that till date it had received no "realisitic proposals" and there was no progress in creditworthy buyers, who could purchase power that was reasonable for new generation plants. Friday, Renegotiations Committee chairman Madhav Godbole had said Karnataka, Delhi, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh were ready to draw power from DPC's 1,444 MW phase-II at an average of Rs two to Rs 2.25 per unit. Meanwhile, the DPC's foreign lenders including Bank of America, ABN Amro Bank, Credit Suisse First Boston and Citibank also joined the US energy major in its special leave petition in the Supreme Court. However, DPC's Indian lenders led by Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) have not yet taken a decision over participating in DPC's petition with their foreign counterparts. DPC has approached the apex court challenging Mumbai High Court's order directing it to go back to Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commision (MERC) and also allow the multinational to activate the escrow account and a green signal for pursuing international arbitration. MSEB has stopped drawing power from DPC since May 28 and has also rescinded the PPA. Work for the project's phase II stopped after construction contractor GE and Bechtel terminated their contracts due to non-payment. (THROUGH ASIA PULSE) 28-07 2001 Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. BUSINESS Enron wants out of India power plant / Company seeks buyer for its 65% stake LAURA GOLDBERG Staff 07/28/2001 Houston Chronicle 3 STAR 3 (Copyright 2001) Enron Corp. said Friday the best way to resolve protracted disputes surrounding the Dabhol Power Co. is for the Indian government or one of the project's lenders to buy out Enron's stake. There has been continued speculation that the Houston-based energy company is looking to sell its 65 percent stake in the project, which has faced ongoing problems almost from the time of Enron's initial investment in the early 1990s. Enron spokesman John Ambler said Friday the company believes a sale is the best way to go but that any deal would need to provide the company a "complete recovery of capital costs and related expenditures." Enron has $875 million of equity investment in the project. In May, the Dabhol Power plant stopped production after its sole customer stopped ordering electricity. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board told Enron the week before it was canceling a 7-year-old power purchase agreement. But Enron said it didn't have that right. The board had also refused to pay for power, saying Enron wasn't living up to its contract, while Enron said it was. Days before the board gave notice to Enron, the company started proceedings to end the contract because of the unpaid power bills. But six months must pass before Enron can end it. Enron will also continue to pursue other remedies for solving the problems, Ambler said. Enron Chairman Ken Lay was in India a few weeks ago and met with government officials. Jeff Dietert, an analyst with Simmons & Co. International in Houston, doesn't anticipate the matter will be resolved quickly. He had anticipated Enron would try to sell its stake. "It's going to be difficult to come out any other way," he said. But by publicly stating its intentions, Enron puts out a signal to other companies that also might be interested in the stake, he said. Dietert wants to see Enron done with the situation. "The stock is going to be much better off after the issue is settled," he said. It's not so much because of the amount of money involved, he said, but because the rhetoric has created a big overhang on the stock. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Wind power scrutinized as state considers energy plans By MELANIE S. WELTE Associated Press Writer 07/28/2001 Associated Press Newswires Copyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. ALTA, Iowa (AP) - Rising out of a cornfield less than half a mile from Chuck Goodman's back door are three huge, whirling wind turbines, pumping electricity into the state's energy grid. Goodman leases the property to Enron Wind Corp., a California-based energy company, for its 292-foot-tall turbines. In all, the company has 247 sets of black, swooping blades churning out 193 megawatts of electricity - enough power for 72,000 homes. Twenty-one miles long, 7 1/2 miles wide, it is touted as the world's largest wind farm. "It's something I believe in and I want to see it grow," Goodman, 73, says of wind power. "It's clean. It renews itself every day." Wind power has become a buzz word among energy companies, planners and environmentalists in Iowa as the state looks ahead to its energy needs. State regulators expect Iowa to exceed its current energy supply within two years. By 2003, Iowa's demand for electricity in the summer, when the need for air conditioning peaks, will outstrip generating capacity by 191 megawatts, an Iowa Utilities Board report said. Legislators, spooked by rolling blackouts in California last spring, reacted with a bill that makes it easier to build new power plants in Iowa by removing some regulatory hurdles. Among the policymakers pressing for more consideration of wind power in Iowa's future plans is Sen. Charles Grassley. "Iowa may someday be considered the Saudi Arabia of wind energy," the Iowa Republican said. "Wind is obviously clean. It's abundant, even though it's not regular, but it's an abundant natural resource." A Web site by the American Wind Energy Association, a trade association representing wind power plant developers and others involved in the industry, lists Iowa as the 10th windiest state in the nation. But traditional utilities say that - because the wind does not blow all the time and because there is currently no technology to store it - it cannot be a large portion of the state's energy mix. "You certainly couldn't depend on wind for a large portion of your supply," said Dean Crist, senior vice president of MidAmerican Energy, the state's largest investor-owned utility. "When they're talking about Iowa being one of the windiest states, that's a year-round average," said John Ruff, spokesman for Alliant Energy, the state's second-largest utility. "The National Weather Service charts show that Iowa is good at three seasons out of the year as far as being windy. "In the summertime, when we need energy the most is when there tends to be not enough wind." Crist and Ruff say until technology allows storage of wind-generated power, it will be inherently unreliable. State Rep. Ed Fallon, a Democrat from Des Moines, said the utilities' real reason for hesitation is profit. Iowa utilities have fought wind power and other alternative energy sources for years, he said. "They can't control the wind like they can control energy generated by a coal plant or a nuclear plant," Fallon said. "The bottom line is that the energy companies don't want to lose control. The more we can move toward resources that don't subject themselves to control, the less influence they're going to have," he said. The American Wind Association says wind energy is cheaper to generate than coal-fired or natural gas power. Iowa currently gets 87 percent most of its power from coal, all of which comes from outside the state, the association said. In 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, the state's utilities spent $310 million on coal alone, not including the cost of the plants themselves, it said. By contrast, it costs about $750,000 to build a wind turbine, said Al Zeitz, site superintendent for Enron Wind's Storm Lake II wind farm. Wind farms near Clear Lake and Storm Lake also pay about $2,000 a year to each of 115 landowners to rent the land on which each turbine sits - a total of $640,000 per year, the Wind Energy Association said. Ruff said those figures don't include the backup generation necessary to provide electricity when the wind isn't blowing. That drives the cost of wind power up and makes it more expensive than either coal or natural gas, he said. Since June, utilities have announced plans for three new power plants in Iowa - one burning coal and two of them fired by natural gas. MidAmerican plans to build a 540-megawatt gas-fired plant just east of Des Moines and an 860-megawatt coal-fired plant with the location yet to be announced. A Louisiana company, Entergy Corp. of New Orleans, plans to build a 600-megawatt gas-fired in Adair County in southwest Iowa. However, MidAmerican also is seeking proposals from wind farm developers to provide 100 megawatts of electricity. "We think there needs to be a balanced approach on energy ..." Crist said. --- On the Net: Iowa Department of Natural Resources: http://www.state.ia.us/dnr Enron Wind Corp.: http://www.wind.enron.com American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/ U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.eren.doe.gov/wind/feature.html AP Photos DCN109-DCN111 of July 26 Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Metro Desk 5 State Energy Advisors Fired Over Conflicts Ethics: The consultants were involved in buying electricity for California from a generator whose stock they owned, setting up a clash of official duties, personal interests. JEFFREY L. RABIN; DARYL KELLEY; RICH CONNELL TIMES STAFF WRITERS 07/28/2001 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-1 Copyright 2001 / The Times Mirror Company The Davis administration, stung by charges of excessive secrecy, disclosed late Friday that it has fired five energy consultants because of conflicts of interest involving their official duties and personal finances. A sixth consultant hired to help California purchase electricity has quit, according to state records. All were involved in purchasing electricity for the state from a generator whose stock they owned. In addition, the top lawyer for the agency buying the power was removed from her position because of concern about the way the issue of potential conflicts was handled. Top advisors to Gov. Gray Davis told The Times that they learned of the conflicts in the last week, after belatedly asking the consultants to file required economic disclosure statements. A review of those documents, which included stock holdings, showed that some of the consultants "may have crossed the line," said the governor's senior advisor, Nancy McFadden. State law prohibits officials from participating in decisions involving their personal financial interests. Although portraying himself as seriously concerned that such conflicts could undermine public confidence, the governor has not required some of his most influential private-sector advisors to file the kind of disclosure statements that led to the firings. Among them are two Wall Street veterans who have been most influential in promoting the governor's energy rescue plan, which includes the largest state bond sale in U.S. history. The New York firms that employ executives Joseph Fichera and Michael Hoffman have been paid $275,000 a month to, among other things, help pitch the $12.5-billion bond issue to Wall Street analysts and state lawmakers. The companies stand to make an additional $14 million if the state goes through with the purchase of utility transmission lines. Davis contends that Fichera, Hoffman and their associates fall into a separate category of advisor, beyond the reach of the state's political reform laws. Critics question the distinction. "The governor's approach may be convenient for him," said Jim Knox, executive director of the watchdog group California Common Cause, "but it ignores the law." Disclosure is crucial because the public needs to know that "decisions are not being made by people who have a conflict of interest," Knox said. "Trying to evade the law with a creative use of semantics is not what they ought to be doing." The firings disclosed Friday are unlikely to diminish criticism surrounding the more than 50 consultants and advisors hastily hired by the administration as it rushed into the power trading business this year. More than $25 million is being spent by the state on consultants, according to state records. In the process, seemingly little attention was paid to routine government ethics laws. It took six months for state officials to direct the consultants to file even basic disclosures of their personal finances, including investments. The state Political Reform Act normally requires such forms to be filed publicly within 30 days of starting work for state agencies. Even with the hastily ordered disclosures made public thus far, the circumstances of most of the stock transactions remain a mystery because key information was omitted. Most of the consultants, for example, failed to state when they bought the energy stocks. One of those pressing hardest for an investigation of possible conflict of interest violations and insider trading is Secretary of State Bill Jones, a Republican who hopes to challenge Davis next year. Jones has accused the governor of "a conscious policy of secrecy" in enforcing compliance with public disclosure laws. This week Jones called for a federal Securities and Exchange Commission probe of stock purchases by state energy consultants. 4 Traders Owned Shares of Calpine The four traders removed this week all owned shares of Calpine Corp., a San Jose-based power generator that has landed the largest share of the $43 billion in long-term state power contracts. Their investments ranged from several thousand dollars to more than $100,000, records show. While working for the state Department of Water Resources, officials said they bought undetermined amounts of Calpine power on the state's behalf. More than $14 million worth of electricity was purchased from the state by Calpine in the first quarter of this year, according to the most recent records available. "We did not want them making governmental decisions and holding these stocks," the governor's legal affairs secretary, Barry Goode, said in an interview. The highest-ranking consultant removed, Richard Ferreira, was hired on a $500,000 contract in January to assist in obtaining bids for long-term power and negotiating contracts, records show. A former assistant general manager with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Ferreira was paid $200 an hour by the state. After he disclosed owning as much as $10,000 in Calpine stock, officials discovered he had participated in a review of one of the company's contracts. Ferreira could not be reached for comment. The governor's office identified the other four as traders William F. Mead, Herman Leung, Constantine Louie and Peggy Cheng, most of whom could not be reached Friday by The Times. All of them formerly worked as energy schedulers at the Power Exchange, a now-defunct energy market similar to a stock exchange created in the early days of California's electricity deregulation. Hired by the state in February and March, the four signed temporary contracts calling for maximum payments of between $15,000 and $21,000 a month, including living expenses in Sacramento and flights home to Southern California. Mead, 55, a former Edison engineer, said state officials never warned him that owning energy stock was a problem until they demanded that he sell the stock a week ago. He said he bought nearly all of his shares 2 1/2 years ago for $12,000 and saw its value skyrocket as the stock split three times, doubling in value each time. Mead said he was called by the head of the state's energy buying team Thursday and fired. "I asked very directly, 'Is this because of the stock?' and they wouldn't give me an answer," Mead said. "[He] just said your services are terminated. "I came up here, away from home, living in a hotel room, trying to keep the lights on, trying to get the state through a crisis and now I get a finger pointed at me as if I'm some sort of criminal. I guess it's just politics and we're the pawns." Administration officials said they also are examining the actions of other traders, including one who bought Calpine stock just before beginning work for the state. That trader, Elaine Griffin, who also came from the Power Exchange, left the state power buying operation July 14, three days after disclosing her energy industry investment. Griffin, who the governor's office said had obtained another job, could not be reached for comment. Griffin reported purchasing $10,000 to $100,000 of Calpine stock on Feb. 1, in her final days working at the electricity exchange. A few days later, Calpine signed and announced a $4.6-billion, 10-year deal to sell power to the Department of Water Resources. On Feb. 20, Griffin joined the state power buying agency, just as the state and Calpine were finalizing an additional $8.3 billion in power contracts. One of those, a 20-year deal signed Feb. 27, was the longest. The state has awarded Calpine about $13 billion in contracts to supply power for up to 20 years. In addition to the state consultants who bought Calpine stock, two others reported owning stock in Texas-based power marketing giant Enron Corp. And two more bought stock in Southern California Edison, the faltering utility that Davis has committed himself to saving from bankruptcy. Another consultant bought stock in Reliant Energy of Houston, a large power plant operator that bought several California plants from utilities after deregulation. Bernard Barretto, an energy trader, who buys energy on the daily spot market, said in an interview that he bought about $2,000 in Enron stock shortly before he began work for the state Feb. 28. Purchase of Enron Stock Defended "I don't see a conflict," he said. "At the time, we weren't really dealing with Enron. I [still] haven't bought from Enron." Barretto said he never considered his Enron ownership a possible conflict until he received notice July 18 that he had to sell the stocks by noon or lose his job. That notice came from Goode, the governor's lawyer. "We expect and have always expected the state's consultants to uphold the highest ethical standards," he wrote. "That standard is not met by those who hold a financial interest in one or more energy companies while trading on behalf of the state on energy related matters." "Therefore each consultant who holds an interest in an energy company must divest himself or herself of that interest by noon today. If he or she refuses, the state will sever its contract with that person." However, the governor's office has taken a distinctly different stance with his closest financial advisors, Fichera and Hoffman. Davis aides cite an opinion sought last week from attorney Raquelle de la Rocha, a former member of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and the state Fair Political Practices Commission. She concluded that the advisors do not have to file disclosure statements because they are contractors, not consultants, and will be working for less than a year on a limited range of projects. Fichera is Davis' point man on the governor's energy rescue plan--including the unprecedented bond sale. He has pitched the plan to lawmakers, reporters and the Wall Street financial community. Fichera refused to comment on the record. Fichera and Hoffman's companies, Saber Partners and Blackstone Group, prepared a controversial analysis that helped underpin legislative approval of the bond measure, intended to pay for past and future power buying. Pact Specifies Financial Advice The state's contract with the Fichera and Hoffman firms calls for them to provide "financial advisory services" to the state. The decision not to require public disclosure of their financial holdings stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken with Montague DeRose and Associates. That consulting firm was hired on a $1.8-million contract. Like the other two firms, it too was hired to provide "financial advisory services" to the state. That firm's top advisor, Douglas S. Montague, was required by the administration to fill out a disclosure statement. He reported no power company interests. The governor's legal advisors said the difference is that Montague is on a longer contract. PHOTO: Barry Goode, above, governor's legal affairs secretary.; Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Business Chasing the powers that be Small energy projects generate excitement Justin Pope The Associated Press 07/28/2001 The Seattle Times Fourth C1 (Copyright 2001) BOSTON - Not so long ago, investing in the energy industry meant buying pieces of oil wells, hydroelectric dams and big, clunky utility companies. But power deregulation broadened the possibilities, and the headlines from the California power crisis have drawn entrepreneurs and investors into the sector. While traditional energy companies are attracting most of the attention, there's growing interest in smaller companies in an emerging sector called "energy technology": software, microturbines, Web-based electricity trading and more. The companies and venture capitalists are after the "$300 billion jump ball" made possible by electricity deregulation, said Todd Klein, managing director of Kinetic Ventures, a Chevy Chase, Md.- based VC firm. Their monopolies gone, power companies are being forced to improve productivity. Start-ups are trying to help with a new generation of high-tech gadgets. Meanwhile, technology companies are demanding cheaper and more reliable power sources. Entrepreneurial talent is drifting to energy, and several technologies developed in government labs are now commercially viable. "We have been following these technologies 10 years, and they never were anything more than science experiments," said Jeff Miller of Boston's Beacon Group, which manages $1.6 billion in two energy venture-capital funds. "Now you've got the demand coming from the marketplace and very serious managers with very focused business plans." Offsetting the flurry of enthusiasm is tighter funding from venture capitalists. According to research firm Venture Economics, 77 companies took in more than $1.2 billion in funding in the sector last year, but so far this year just 17 companies have raised a total of $132 million. David Lincoln, founder of EnerTech Capital in Wayne, Pa., told entrepreneurs at a recent tech conference in Boston that nobody is in a hurry to make deals, and the conditions that venture-capital funds impose now "were virtually unheard of 18 months ago." The California power crisis has grabbed the attention of the entire investment community - every major investment bank is now tracking a sector. "Everybody's backing out of the dot-coms and telecoms," said Bradley Johnson, president of Washington-based Pepco Technologies. "They're saying the next new thing is energy, but they haven't figured it out yet." They are chasing some minor success stories like Chatsworth, Calif.-based Capstone Turbine, which makes free-standing microturbines that allow businesses to produce their own electricity. Company shares have traded as high as $100, but have fallen to under $20, and the company still hasn't turned a profit. The next little thing is on the minds of venture-capital funds as much as the next big one. That means they're interested in technologies that don't necessarily revolutionize how electricity is produced so much as help traditional companies produce it and customers use it more efficiently. "With the events which occurred in California and which are threatening to occur in other parts of the country, people are focused on immediate solutions to those problems," Klein said. These solutions include systems to help companies manage their electrical use and flywheels that store electricity on site to guarantee a steady stream of power to sensitive equipment. Other companies target the power companies themselves, with everything from software to satellite meter-readers. At the venture-capital level, backers tend to be looking for smaller investments and quicker returns. That's been an obstacle for some early-stage "green" companies. "Everybody's supply-side," lamented R.W. Cushing, an entrepreneur whose Austin, Texas, alternative-energy marketing company got the cold shoulder from venture-capital funds at the Boston tech conference. "Nobody thinks in demand terms." But in fact, alternative energy firms raised $2 billion last year from IPOs and VCs, according to research firm Clean Edge, based in Oakland, Calif. Renewable energy requires deep pockets and patience, and tends to be backed by big power companies that, if they can make alternative energy work, have the infrastructure in place to distribute it. Many big power companies are ensuring that they get the needed technology by backing start-ups themselves. Houston-based conglomerate Enron, for instance, has invested $90 million in 12 companies it sees as strategic partners. "I don't think there is a dearth of interest or investment in renewable technologies," Lincoln said. "(But) ... the reason why you see such a strong level of interest in helping the supply-side companies is, right now, that's where the capital is being spent." photo; Caption: Bloomberg News : Capstone Turbine President and CEO Ake Almgren, center, describes their microturbines in Chatsworth, Calif., to Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, right, and S. David Freeman of L.A.'s Department of Water and Power. Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Style Power to the People: L.A.'s Merry Monopoly William Booth Washington Post Staff Writer 07/28/2001 The Washington Post FINAL C01 Copyright 2001, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved LOS ANGELES -- Power crisis? The state's most powerful city does not have a power crisis. No whiff of summer brownout here. If every one of the 3,849,000 citizens served by the infamous Los Angeles Department of Water and Power turned on every hair dryer they owned, the mood lights would not even flicker. You could wear a parka in our multiplexes. It's freezing in here. Why? This is the best part. Socialism and coal, my friends, socialism and coal. The City of Los Angeles gets its electricity from a paternalistic monopoly run for the public good by bureaucratic lifers with engineering degrees who built belching coal-fired generating stations, nuclear power plants and gigantic hydroelectric dams -- and they built them (you have to respect the genius here) in other states. Imagine that. It is a most perverse turn of events. The rest of the country likes to wag its finger at California and tsk-tsk us for being flighty granola-heads who cannot grasp the brutal rules of supply and demand. That is the rest of the state. As California lurches ahead into August, spending billions of dollars for power from its dwindling state surpluses, praying for another month of unseasonably cool summer weather, Los Angeles thermostats are set on . . . whatever. Our Department of Water and Power did not join the stampede toward the flawed half-and-half deregulation. Five years ago, the DWP was assumed to be in need of supplemental oxygen. Aged, bloated, deeply in debt -- the department was seen as a dinosaur running on the fumes of an earlier age. The DWP did not deregulate for the simple reason that its managers and overseers did not believe it could compete in the go-go world of open energy markets. Silicon Valley is now begging L.A. for spare kilowatts to run its Web servers holding auctions for office furniture from failed dot-coms. Pacific Gas and Electric? Bankrupt. Southern California Edison? Teetering on the brink and waiting for a bailout from Sacramento. San Diego Gas and Electric? Defending itself against consumers outraged at some of the steepest rate hikes ever promulgated. The Department of Water and Power? Selling power at relatively low rates to happy customers who appreciate stability. To understand history's last laugh, one must comprehend how deeply the L.A. Department of Water and Power has been reviled in the past. The DWP is not simply another municipal utility its customers love to hate. It is not some Pepco occasionally pulling the plug on meter cheaters. No, the DWP is mythic. Question: How many public utilities have had starring roles as the bad guy in Oscar-winning movies? Answer: Remember Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown"? Remember what he was investigating, some nefarious plot to steal water from a faraway valley and bring it to a thirsty young city? The greed? The mendacity? The gall? That was the DWP. Critics of the DWP -- and
|