Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 6
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20010517/us/energy_davis_3.html

Excerpt: SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Gray Davis attacked President Bush's energy plan Thursday, accusing the administration of ``turning a blind eye to the bleeding and hemorrhaging that exists in this state.'

The Democrat said Bush's pledge to speed up power plant permits and conserve energy at federal buildings offers no short-term relief from California's rolling blackouts and soaring electricity bills.

``We are literally in a war with energy companies, many of which reside in Texas,' Davis said. ``Californians want to know if he is going to be on their side.'


It is well established that California's politicians and voters brought on it's current particular problem themselves by enacting an irrational scheme which prohibited its local electricity distribution companies from locking up supply under long-term contracts after deregulation of wholesale electricity prices, while capping the retail rates the distribution companies were permitted to charge, and simultaneously forcing its electric utilities to divest their own power-generating assets and prohibiting, via restrictive permitting practices and other means, the construction of new power-generating capacity within the State. This nonsensical public policy put California in the position of having to pay whatever the market would bear, on a day-to-day basis, for whatever surplus electricity its distribution companies could find on the spot market, provided it could be transmitted into the State from wherever it was generated. What utter, blind, [f]oolish nonsense.

All of that was done while its economy flourished in the high-tech boom, increasing power demand exponentially. And--also--while putting on a parade of dot.com IPOs to lure $capital dollars into its state to feed the high-tech frenzy.

OK, Governor, here's a possibility--round up all the dot.coms that are trading below their IPO prices and have the State of California reimburse all the investors who funded dot.com-mania. Then we'll consider giving you that much relief on energy costs. Meanwhile, if California is going to declare war on Texas . . . I can't wait to sign up. Don't you Fools think that kind of talk is a bit over the line for a sitting governor of one of the sovereign States of the USA?

/s/ S.T.

[Oh, BTW, does anyone recall how California was weeping and gnashing teeth during the last Bush administration because a few military bases had shut down and some defense spending was cut back after the collapse of the USSR? And how the then-Mayor of San Francisco went on TV to berate George H. W. Bush because he sent his sitting Vice-President to tour the devastation of the San Francisco earthquake instead of dropping the country's business and travelling himself? Message to SoCal and NoCal: grow up and get a life. If you want to drop out and start your own country, just say so. We'll work on it for you.]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Gray Davis attacked President Bush's energy plan Thursday, accusing the administration of ``turning a blind eye to the bleeding and hemorrhaging that exists in this state.'

The Democrat said Bush's pledge to speed up power plant permits and conserve energy at federal buildings offers no short-term relief from California's rolling blackouts and soaring electricity bills.


I'm sure Bush would be more than happy to arrange for a shipment of candles. A shovel might help too, since many of the folks in California have had their heads in the sand for way too long.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your posts are valued at the Cambridge Group board! Keep up the excellent work!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Now Gray Davis has hired a couple of Clinton/Algore's political snipers to escalate his "war" on common sense and energy policy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20010519/t000041900.html

The good people of California--and there are enough of them to put a stop to this idiocy if they will just take a bit of time off from wine-sipping and sun-basking--need to wake up and do exactly that. Davis and the rest of his gang are trying to stir up hysteria by criticizing the only rational course of action--enhancing fuel supply and power generating capacity. All this silliness about sun and wind solving energy issues is just that. It has been looked at by experts for decades--and it does have some small-scale applications--and they have been put to good use where feasible. But Silicon Valley is not going to be lit up with windmills, Governor.

And what about the critical element of the Clinton/Algore constituency during the '90s--our beloved "soccer moms"? Must be millions of them in SoCal and NoCal. Where will they be on the conservation issue? Will they be driving their gas-guzzling SUVs to anti-Bush protest riots--to pile them up like 1960s-era brassieres to be bashed and burned? Or will they wake up, at long last? Hopefully the latter--it's hard (through these male heterosexual eyes) to see how Gray Davis could cast the same spell that Clinton did on that demographic segment.

There is an opportunity here to break this particularly loathsome and divisive brand of political demagoguery--which achieved such prominence during the Clinton debacle--and return it to the lunatic-fringe where it properly belongs. As a sitting governor, Gray Davis should acquire a reputation lower than that of George Wallace or Orville Faubus or Lester Maddox for his irresponsibility and irrationality.

What a shame that W has to waste even one minute of his time or one nickle of his resources to deal with this character.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The good people of California--and there are enough of them to put a stop to this idiocy if they will just take a bit of time off from wine-sipping and sun-basking--need to wake up and do exactly that. Davis and the rest of his gang are trying to stir up hysteria by criticizing the only rational course of action--enhancing fuel supply and power generating capacity.

How true, but the liberal media is out to fry Bush, and this is one of the issues they are using in their effort to do it. One only can hope that the good people of California and the nation realize that BS won't fix the energy crisis, and it is a crisis.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Perception is reality."

I believe in this theory.

The Bush energy plan, is going to come down to one thing...perception. As usual, Liberals, and their accomplices in the media, will use every focus grup tested trick in the book. Expect to see some of the following:

*The plan favors "Big Oil"

*The plan favors "Big corporations."

*The plan is "risky for the environment."

As Springtex has pointed out, this process has only just begun. Fabiani is a seasoned pro at doing this, and the $30,000 in taxpayer funded monthly salary, is being paid to him for a reason. These guys are the best, let usn ot underestimate them.

In my opinion, Bush cannot combat this with spin of his own. It is hard to compete against emotional fear tactics: Liberals will have pictures of little furry animals from an oil spill, they will threaten people with "pipelines" in their neigborhoods, etc. The "nuclear power" soundbytes, will be harsh.

Team Bush, needs to combat this with education, from a credible source.

Enter Dick Cheney. Yes, Liberals will point to his background at Halliburton, but it wont work. In my opinion, Cheney carries tons of credibility. I think the public views him as a very intelligent, informed man. He knows this issue, and he can articulate it very well. When Liberals launch hostile arguments, Cheney keeps his cool, smiles, and replies with logic and facts.

We need to get this one done, because with the tax bill passsed, the education bill getting passed (waterred down albeit), this energy issue, is easily demagogued, and therefore Liberals will hang there hat on this in 2002, and even 2004.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In my opinion, Bush cannot combat this with spin of his own. It is hard to compete against emotional fear tactics: Liberals will have pictures of little furry animals from an oil spill, they will threaten people with "pipelines" in their neigborhoods, etc. The "nuclear power" soundbytes, will be harsh.

The harsher the better. The only way to defeat this kind of BS by the Dems is for them to beat themselves through the use of overly harsh criticism of Bush's plan. I hoping the Dems' penchant for overkill will backfire in their faces.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here's a good non-political source of information on energy matters--a website maintained by the University of Oklahoma:

http://www.oil360.org

I haven't checked every nook and cranny, but I'd be surprised if it has much in it to support Gray Davis. It probably would be a good source for rebuttal of the nonsense that "Fab" Fabiani will produce.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Springtex,
Here is another article on the problem:


http://www.citizen.org/press/pr-cmep103.htm

Jan. 30, 2001

It's Greed, Stupid!
Debunking the 10 Myths of Utility Deregulation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Proponents of deregulation have developed a repertoire of excuses for why electricity deregulation is failing miserably. Rather than admitting that a speculative market for a life-sustaining commodity such as electricity does not work, they have cultivated such myths as, "California just didn't deregulate enough."

In fact, if the retail price for electricity was completely deregulated as the industry suggests, the average consumer's electric bill would be $600, rather than the approximately $55 charged before deregulation, according to Public Citizen's calculations.

This is just one of ten myths debunked by a Public Citizen report released today. The report examines in detail arguments that deregulation proponents are making and explains why these contentions are false.

"Already, consumers and small businesses have been hijacked because California's deregulation law, which has allowed so-called 'free market' forces to reign in California's electricity market, has allowed power suppliers to rake in billions in excess profits," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said.

By both exerting market power and manipulating the next day's spot market for electricity, these suppliers keep electricity supplies low and prices high, for instance by employing unscheduled power plant closings. They have created a crisis in California that may drive the state into a recession and has done nothing to ensure that consumers have affordable, reliable electricity.

In keeping with their long-range business plans to dramatically expand sales, power suppliers blame the current problems on too few power plants. Their solution is to repeal power plant and transmission line siting laws and to suspend environmental regulations that protect people's health, so that they can engage in a building frenzy.

"If the power suppliers selling electricity in California have their way and retail prices for this important commodity are left to the vagaries of the market, the average consumer could be paying 12 times more for electricity than they were before deregulation," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.

The myths include:

Prices are high because California's strict environmental standards have slowed power plant construction. In fact, there is currently more than enough capacity to meet maximum demands. Power demand during four of the past six months in California was lower than during the same period in 1999. However, power producers under deregulation have strong incentives not to run plants at full capacity or to shut them down altogether to manipulate prices. Even so, since April 1999, the state's Energy Commission has approved nine major new power plant projects, six of which are under construction.
The purpose of deregulation was to lower costs for consumers. To the contrary, deregulation has resulted in higher prices for consumers. Even if long-term contracts are entered into with suppliers, as is being discussed by state officials, consumers will still be paying an average of three times more for the price of electricity than they would have under sensible regulation.
Deregulation is good for the environment. Market forces driving deregulation will only encourage cost-cutting measures that will result in more pollution. In fact, deregulation creates incentives to produce power from the cheapest source — dirty coal plants. Suppliers want to continue operating these older plants as long as possible, because it costs less than building new, more efficient plants. (The new plants being proposed would run in addition to existing plants.) Deregulation thus provides no incentive for conservation, which produces no profits for power producers.
California's energy crisis is best resolved through state, not federal, actions. Under the deregulation law, California's utilities sold most of their fossil fuel power plants to out-of-state power wholesalers who are profiting at the expense of consumers. To remedy this situation requires federal action. The best short-term solution for the crisis would be for the federal government to impose cost-based rates on these power suppliers, who now are charging utilities outrageous prices and far more than utilities are permitted to charge consumers. The federal government is the sole entity with the power to do this. This action would give California time to thoughtfully restructure its electric industry.
California's utilities are close to bankruptcy and need to be bailed out. In fact, the utilities' parent companies have spent billions on buying other assets in recent months. They should be forced to sell off these assets before having the state – and therefore, the taxpayers – assume the burden and future risk for utility debts.
Electricity deregulation is working in other states. In other states that have deregulated, like Pennsylvania, the temporary protections that made deregulation legislation politically viable for passage are still in effect. Pennsylvania's utilities have a regulated rate for electricity that new suppliers must beat to be competitive. Over the next few years, as these protections are sunset, we will see many states follow in California's footsteps if deregulation is not canceled.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<<Springtex,
Here is another article on the problem:>>>

Yep, if you enjoy reading that kind of bunk, Becky, there are, and always have been, plenty of sources. They cranked that stuff out by hand, even, way back before word-processors and copy machines and the 'net made it so easy to distribute.

One has to wonder who supports all that effort, doesn't one? It couldn't be the poor, who can't afford their fuel bills--by definition they couldn't afford to support it. And it couldn't be anyone who actually cares about the poor and their fuel bills, because they would be supporting anything that enhanced supply and, first, stopped the rolling blackouts, then took the upward pressure off the price. So who could it be? And what could be their real agenda?

This matter of contention about the appropriate level of governmental involvement in energy markets has a very long history. It would be good if everyone who becomes interested in the subject would get as well-acquainted with that history--the economics of it as well as the legal and legislative battles that have been fought. It will be a shame, indeed, if all that history has to be repeated, when the cost of all that effort could be directed at providing product where it is needed.

Meanwhile, for some good reading about life in a country that has abundant natural resources but quite a different history than ours, may I suggest "Siberian Dawn" by Jeffrey Tayler. Find this book at http://www.amazon.com

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

S.T.,
Here are some other thoughts:


http://www.citizen.org/press/pr-cmep103.htm
Jan. 30, 2001

It's Greed, Stupid!
Debunking the 10 Myths of Utility Deregulation


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Proponents of deregulation have developed a repertoire of excuses for why electricity deregulation is failing miserably. Rather than admitting that a speculative market for a life-sustaining commodity such as electricity does not work, they have cultivated such myths as, "California just didn't deregulate enough."

In fact, if the retail price for electricity was completely deregulated as the industry suggests, the average consumer's electric bill would be $600, rather than the approximately $55 charged before deregulation, according to Public Citizen's calculations.

This is just one of ten myths debunked by a Public Citizen report released today. The report examines in detail arguments that deregulation proponents are making and explains why these contentions are false.

"Already, consumers and small businesses have been hijacked because California's deregulation law, which has allowed so-called 'free market' forces to reign in California's electricity market, has allowed power suppliers to rake in billions in excess profits," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said.

By both exerting market power and manipulating the next day's spot market for electricity, these suppliers keep electricity supplies low and prices high, for instance by employing unscheduled power plant closings. They have created a crisis in California that may drive the state into a recession and has done nothing to ensure that consumers have affordable, reliable electricity.

In keeping with their long-range business plans to dramatically expand sales, power suppliers blame the current problems on too few power plants. Their solution is to repeal power plant and transmission line siting laws and to suspend environmental regulations that protect people's health, so that they can engage in a building frenzy.

"If the power suppliers selling electricity in California have their way and retail prices for this important commodity are left to the vagaries of the market, the average consumer could be paying 12 times more for electricity than they were before deregulation," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.

The myths include:

Prices are high because California's strict environmental standards have slowed power plant construction.
In fact, there is currently more than enough capacity to meet maximum demands. Power demand during four of the past six months in California was lower than during the same period in 1999. However, power producers under deregulation have strong incentives not to run plants at full capacity or to shut them down altogether to manipulate prices. Even so, since April 1999, the state's Energy Commission has approved nine major new power plant projects, six of which are under construction.
----
The purpose of deregulation was to lower costs for consumers.
To the contrary, deregulation has resulted in higher prices for consumers. Even if long-term contracts are entered into with suppliers, as is being discussed by state officials, consumers will still be paying an average of three times more for the price of electricity than they would have under sensible regulation.
----
Deregulation is good for the environment.
Market forces driving deregulation will only encourage cost-cutting measures that will result in more pollution. In fact, deregulation creates incentives to produce power from the cheapest source — dirty coal plants. Suppliers want to continue operating these older plants as long as possible, because it costs less than building new, more efficient plants. (The new plants being proposed would run in addition to existing plants.) Deregulation thus provides no incentive for conservation, which produces no profits for power producers.
----
California's energy crisis is best resolved through state, not federal, actions.
Under the deregulation law, California's utilities sold most of their fossil fuel power plants to out-of-state power wholesalers who are profiting at the expense of consumers. To remedy this situation requires federal action. The best short-term solution for the crisis would be for the federal government to impose cost-based rates on these power suppliers, who now are charging utilities outrageous prices and far more than utilities are permitted to charge consumers. The federal government is the sole entity with the power to do this. This action would give California time to thoughtfully restructure its electric industry.
----
California's utilities are close to bankruptcy and need to be bailed out.

In fact, the utilities' parent companies have spent billions on buying other assets in recent months. They should be forced to sell off these assets before having the state – and therefore, the taxpayers – assume the burden and future risk for utility debts.
Electricity deregulation is working in other states. In other states that have deregulated, like Pennsylvania, the temporary protections that made deregulation legislation politically viable for passage are still in effect. Pennsylvania's utilities have a regulated rate for electricity that new suppliers must beat to be competitive. Over the next few years, as these protections are sunset, we will see many states follow in California's footsteps if deregulation is not canceled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nader's power crisis remedy: Re-regulation, conservation
By David Whitney
Bee Washington Bureau
(Published Jan. 31, 2001)


WASHINGTON -- Consumer crusader Ralph Nader said Tuesday that California's answer to its staggering electricity problem should be re-regulation of utilities, refunds of utility profits and a crash program promoting conservation and alternative energy.

Nader's remarks at a press conference here with the activist organization Public Citizen were reminiscent of the presidential campaign last year when he denounced corporate greed and political indifference as the Green Party candidate. He captured about 3 percent of the national vote, and some Democrats blamed him for former Vice President Al Gore's loss.(Note from Becky: No, he 'almost' lost because of his belief in 'the Third Way(?)'----renouncing Democratic principles and going for 'The New World Order'. He chose NAFTA, more Nuke power and the ways of the Multi-National Corporations to keep the Money flowing into his campaign coffers, rather than listen to the people.)

At the press conference, Nader chastised the California congressional delegation for not being organized and unanimous behind federal caps on wholesale power prices in the West. And he condemned lawmakers meeting in Sacramento for not seizing an opportunity to move away from its failed experiment with deregulation to rapid expansion of public power.

"Instead of bailouts and the conflict-of-interest-ridden stock warrants proposal now circulating in Sacramento, there should be a buyout of the private utilities' generating and distribution facilities," Nader said.

He said that if the state could take over Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison and operate them as publicly owned utilities overseen by a residential ratepayer association, it would be able to stabilize prices without having to permit new thermal generating plants.

Nader challenged the popular notion that the West Coast is facing a major power shortage because of bureaucratic obstacles to new plant construction, saying the total demand for power has dropped in four of the past six months when supplies have been the tightest and prices at their zenith. Isn't that interesting?

The problem, he said, is that power producers are "manipulating" the schedule of plant operations and maintenance shutdowns to hike the spot price of power on the wholesale market.

"When mainstream economists start talking about these power generators reducing their power supplies just in order to increase prices, it's time for both the U.S. Justice Department and the California attorney general to launch vigorous investigations under federal and state antitrust laws," Nader said.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyear has been conducting just such an investigation, said spokeswoman Sandra Michioku.

Since last August. Hmmmmmm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this was on TomPaine.com

Nine power companies and a trade association that stand to gain the most from President Bush's hands-off policy in California contributed more than $4 million to Republican candidates and party committees during the last election, and some of the company heads have close personal ties to Bush, according to a new Public Citizen report.

Three of the companies -- Enron, Reliant Energy and Dynegy -- are based in Texas and gave more than $1.5 million to Bush's campaign, his inauguration committee, and the Republican National Committee, which served, in effect, as an arm of the Bush presidential campaign. Two companies -- Enron and Reliant Energy -- are headed or steered by Kenneth Lay and James Baker III, both close Bush advisors.

According to the report, the contributions and personal relationships could explain why the Bush administration has refused requests by bipartisan groups of eight western governors and 20 members of the California congressional delegation to intervene in the California and regional power crisis, and cap wholesale electricity prices. The companies and the association more than doubled their contributions in 1999-2000 compared to the last presidential cycles, as they pushed for deregulation in Congress and across the nation.

"It seems clear that the Bush administration is trying to return the favors done by friends and donors," Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook said. "Bush is helping out his buddies at the expense of every consumer in California, and his refusal to cap wholesale prices is threatening to wreak havoc on the entire western region of the United States."

The Bush administration has the authority to intervene in the crisis through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which can impose "just and reasonable" wholesale prices, according to federal law. However, Bush has declined to call on FERC to act in the face of price-gouging by and skyrocketing profits of wholesale power companies. Recently, FERC imposed such price caps in the Northeastern United States.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Public Citizen's analysis shows that the trade association, the top nine power suppliers involved in California's market and their executives gave nearly $4.1 million to Republican candidates and party committees, including more than $1.5 million to Bush and the Republican National Committee. In addition, they gave $500,000 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural committee during the 1999-2000 election cycle.(Hmmmmmmmm)

"This once again shows why we so desperately need genuine, loophole-free campaign finance reform that removes the ability of big corporations to push their agendas onto the rest of the country," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Clearly, the money in this case is having a huge impact on the way the administration handles energy issues." (AMEN.)

The top three contributing companies were Enron, Southern Company and Reliant Energy. The remaining seven entities are the Edison Electric Institute (an industry association), Williams Companies, Duke Energy, Arizona Public Service, Dynegy, AES Corp. and Calpine.

Enron's CEO is Kenneth Lay, a long-time Bush family friend and an architect of Bush's policies on electricity deregulation, taxes and tort reform while Bush was Texas governor. Baker, who serves on Reliant Energy's board of directors, is also a long-time Bush family adviser who oversaw Bush's legal efforts in the Florida election controversy. Baker Botts, the Houston law firm founded by Baker's great-grandfather and where Baker is a partner, was one of the largest contributors to the Bush campaign, contributing $113,621 in 1999-2000.

Further, two Reliant Energy top brass are members of the Bush "Pioneers," an elite group of people who pledged to raise at least $100,000 each to help launch Bush's presidential campaign. Bush Pioneer Don D. Jordan was CEO and chairman of Reliant Energy until June 1999 and December 1999, respectively. Pioneer Steve Letbetter, Reliant Energy's current CEO, is a long-time top corporate officer of the company. The company and its employees gave $47,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns in 1994 and 1998, and gave Bush and the RNC $289,000 for last year's election.

Many have blamed California's energy crisis on a faulty deregulation plan in which the government could cap the rates utilities charged consumers but was not permitted to control the prices wholesalers charged the utilities. As a result, the utilities have been threatening to file for bankruptcy because they cannot charge customers enough to cover what they owe wholesalers.

Meanwhile, the price of wholesale electricity in California was 276 percent higher last year than in 1999, and the top 10 sellers and marketers posted profits that were 54 percent higher in 2000 than in 1999, according to the companies' published financial reports.

Three of the Houston companies -- Enron, Reliant Energy and Dynegy -- reaped huge profits last year. According to company financial reports filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, Enron posted a 42 percent increase in profits last year, while Reliant's profits rose 55 percent and Dynegy realized a whopping 210 percent profit. Profits for the other six companies ranged from 3 percent (Southern Company) to 240%.
Becky

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Whenever any money is made, the first words out of everybody's mouth is "GREED!" Those individuals who say such ignorant things have obviously never taken an Economics class. High prices occur when demand is greater than supply. Because no new power plants have been built in over a decade as energy usage has soared in the state of California, high prices have naturally occurred. (The fact that the state of California also prevented utility companies from entering long-term contracts - thus requiring companies to buy energy on the spot market - hasn't helped.)

http://www.rppi.org/electricity/ebrief011001.html
http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15009520
http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14635624
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/printac20010202.shtml

Take care and God bless,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A good piece to help illuminate the truth and discredit the bunk:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_22_01_JG.html

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Here is another fabulous article on California's (self-imposed) "Power Crisis":

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/

Bankrupting California electric utility companies could have been figured out by a 4-year-old. First, in the name of deregulation, incentives were created for utility companies to stop generating their own power. California utilities companies were producing 72 percent of their power, now it's 20 percent.

The state mandated that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in the North and Southern California Edison in the South charge electricity customers 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which the utility companies had to purchase on "spot" markets for as much as 75 cents per kilowatt hour.

One of the supreme tragedies of California's calamity is that it is being sold as a failure of deregulation and capitalism. "Capitalism is falling apart," whined L.A. Times columnist Robert Scheer in late December. MIT economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blames placing "blind faith in markets" for California's crisis. Lynch and Moore point out that California's scheme may be many things, but it's surely not deregulation.


Take care,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
California's dream could become a real nightmare:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,5-2001181106,00.html

The lawsuits over dot.com-mania are starting to pile up. No wonder SoCal and NoCal are trying to rush up price controls on energy.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


Here's a good non-political source of information on energy matters--a website maintained by the University of Oklahoma:

http://www.oil360.org

I haven't checked every nook and cranny, but I'd be surprised if it has much in it to support Gray Davis. It probably would be
a good source for rebuttal of the nonsense that "Fab" Fabiani will produce.

--------------
S.T.
OK I'm incredibly behind, but tell the truth----if Grey or Davis were anywhere to be found on this site and if it were bad, I'd be looking at it right now:)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Yep, if you enjoy reading that kind of bunk, Becky, there are, and always have been, plenty of sources. They cranked that stuff
out by hand, even, way back before word-processors and copy machines and the 'net made it so easy to distribute.

One has to wonder who supports all that effort, doesn't one? It couldn't be the poor, who can't afford their fuel bills--by definition
they couldn't afford to support it. And it couldn't be anyone who actually cares about the poor and their fuel bills, because they
would be supporting anything that enhanced supply and, first, stopped the rolling blackouts, then took the upward pressure off the
price. So who could it be? And what could be their real agenda?

-------
Well, me for one. GM tried to bury Nador years ago, failed. He was followed by the 'Pinkerton' boys.
You can't convince me he'd lie about anything--you probably mean who?
Commies?
My agenda? My daughter and her husband who just bought a new house and
sure wouldn't have if they knew we would have an "overnight" oil crisis.
And you don't have to bash Grey, neither of them voted for him.
Also, I care for the poor--who you agree can't pay their fuel bills.
Lucky it doesn't get too cold there--but how can they work with out gas money, bathe, clean the house, yadda yadda. When our power goes out I
get scared cause I don't know how to live with out power!
Beckyz

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


Whenever any money is made, the first words out of everybody's mouth is "GREED!" Those individuals who say such ignorant
things have obviously never taken an Economics class.

-------
"Ignorant". My articles are "bunk". No.
My opinion is "my opinion". And if I'm ignorant---never mind. I sure am ignorant as to what drives your lack of care for those who don't have
your education or self confidence. "the bootstrapless"
And I have taken several Economics classes.
Beckyz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Uh Oh...

Becky liked one of my posts....im loosing my touch. :)


Becky..I guess trade is one of the issues we agree on, and that is fine.

As far as your concern about the oil crisis, please remember that Al Gore, SUPPORTS higher energy prices, as a deterrent to consumption. Just read his book "Earth in the Balance".

Also, as far as "the poor" not being able to pay energy bills, that is unfortunate, but on America, ONLY they may help themselves.

78% of millionarres are what is called "new money", meaning they did not inherit it. They worked, planned, sacrificed, and saved for it. It is not their fault that others cannot pay their bills.

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<When our power goes out I get scared cause I don't know how to live with out power! Beckyz>>

It would be good if all the "enviroholics" who have obstructed rational development of energy resources and power plants and pipelines and refineries would get scared, as well. But no, they just look forward to the day when there are only a few of us left, huddled in caves, eating berries and bark.

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Opinion Joe Farah of Worldnet.

NO politician can say this, Liberals would tatoo them with the "racist" label, and the media would help.
*********************************

Hey California! I've got news for you. You don't have an energy crisis. You have an illegal-immigration crisis.

Just think about it. Sure, California has refused to build power plants to appease misguided environmentalists. Sure, California approved a phony "deregulation" plan that, in effect, was a centralized, command-and-control, fascistic seizure of the power industry by the state. And, sure, California politicians of both parties are among the most inept, corrupt and statist in the world and wouldn't know how to solve their problems if they recognized them.

But the rolling blackouts, skyrocketing increases in energy costs and other related problems Californians are experiencing today are merely symptoms of another real crisis nobody in this country has yet addressed. So, as usual, let me be the first.

California's population is growing faster than that of Bangladesh. Worse yet, the biggest growth area is of the illegal persuasion.

You think I'm kidding?

Last December, Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Wright asked Bangladeshi President Sheika Hasina how her country could possibly feed, educate, employ and house its burgeoning population in the year 2050.

Her response? "We'll send them to America!"

She was joking, of course. But other countries are sending their huddled, teeming masses into America – mostly California – by the millions. And I'm not joking when I say California's population is growing faster than Bangladesh's. In fact, it is growing at a 50 percent higher rate than Bangladesh's population.

And nobody at the Los Angeles Times seems to give that a second thought.

Since Gov. Gray Davis doesn't give this a second thought, maybe someone should ask President Bush: "With the population of California already at 34 million and expected to reach 60 million by 2050 – overwhelmingly because of mass immigration – how does the U.S. plan to offer energy to all those people?"

Keep in mind, California's population is skyrocketing despite the fact that millions are leaving because of the deteriorating state of the economy, the increasingly repressive nature of its government, the declining quality of life and the taxes, taxes, taxes. The increase in population is coupled with the changing demographics as the most productive, hardest-working people in the state flee for their livelihoods.

What will be left behind for the next generation is a Third-World state called California – if it's not there already.

Now, am I some kind of bigoted, anti-immigration person? Hardly. My grandparents came to this country as immigrants. I think many recent immigrants to this country are among the finest Americans who enrich our culture and our economy.

What I oppose are the millions who sneak into our country in the dark of night, who suck the lifeblood out of us and who never bother to conform to our laws nor seek citizenship. They have got to go. And the open-border policies of Washington have got to stop.

I believe America can easily absorb even more planned legal immigration than current limits allow. What it cannot afford is to allow its porous borders to accept anyone and everyone who wants in to get in. Let's face it. Most of the world's population would come here if it could.

The federal government's constitutional authorities are limited – but among them are protecting our borders from foreign invasion, and that's what the illegal immigration wave has become.

Unless Washington acts soon and decisively to stop this flow of humanity into our country, California and the rest of the country will be forced to build far more power plants and grids than it can even imagine today. There will be thousands more subdivisions, many more strip malls, bigger traffic jams, more polluted water and more dirty air.

Are you worried about the environment? Just take a look at Mexico City. That is our future if we don't take this illegal immigration problem seriously today.

Is conservation the answer? It's only part of the solution. It's a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging major artery. We're simply not recognizing the real problem.

Just remember this when you hear the phony debates about the power crisis on the talking-head shows. Nobody is dealing with the real issue. One of the reasons there is so much more demand on the power supply is because there are so many more people tapping into the grid – illegally, I might add.
**************************** Worldnet

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You and Mr. Farah are right, Jedi. Excellent post. We have a lot of illegal immigration in Texas as well, of course. Everything your source says about the exponential growth and the pressure it brings to bear on infrastructure applies to Texas as well as California. But we seem to be dealing with it somewhat more successfully. Much of the credit belongs to our former governor who now resides at 1600 Pensylvania Ave., Washington, D.C.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who must be reading this board, talks about this in a current column:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/580463.asp

He points out the differences in the basic philosophies between the two areas: "In the Texas view, Californians are risk-adverse [sic] enviro-wimps who designed a laughably bad auction system for the purchase of out-of-state power and should bear the consequences of their own stupidity--at whatever price they have to pay." Mr. Farah said it even better. Yellow Ribbons to both of them--I couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a shame that we have to paint California with such a broad brush, though, Jedi. It is actually mainly a couple of pockets of extremists in the densely populated areas of SoCal and NoCal which control the misguided policies out there. If one looks at the map of the results of the recent presidential election, it is clear that most of the land area of California contains a majority of right-thinking people:

http://www.geocities.com/statechurch/e2000map.jpg

It is unfortunate for California that so much of that pretty blue area on the map is uninhabitable mountains or desert.

They tried to deal with their immigration issues a few years back with the "Proposition 183" referendum--which the liberals turned into a national bleeding-heart, tear-jerk, hand-wringfest. It was so bad that people like Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett had to come out in opposition to Prop. 183. I still wonder if that whole effort wasn't just a Trojan Horse to put the Cal liberals in the position to demand federal aid for illegal immigrants.

There was another famously ill-conceived referendum in California back in the mid-70s, Jedi. "Proposition 13" I believe it was. It was a taxpayers revolt, but it focused on the wrong tax collector. Instead of telling the federal government that income taxes and death taxes were too high, Prop. 13 attacked State and local revenue sources that support roads and sewers and schools and firefighters and police. It was the right sentiment, but aimed at the wrong target. And 25 years later what do we have? That's right, federal politicians like Bill Clinton making hay out of phoney promises to put "100,000 policemen on the street" and Jim Jeffords of Vermont getting his nose out of joint over the level of federal funding for school teachers. Hell, there aren't but a few hundred school teachers in the whole State of Vermont, Jedi. Bill Gates could double all their salaraies out of his loose change. Jeffords is going Hollywood, just like Clinton and Algore, playing to an audience he doesn't even represent. Is this "taxation without representation" or the other way around? Either way it's bad business.

It is our sacred right to dislike taxes, Jedi, but going all the way back to the tree-climber Zaccheus we know that we have to live with them and a civil society has to collect them and make necessary expenditures. But there is an important maxim that I fear has been lost sight of: The least objectionable taxes are those that are collected and spent closest to home. Federal politicians who try to score by playing on the sentiment underlying that maxim are not to be trusted. [e.g. Clinton/Jefford/Algore/Lieberman] And those who pay respect to that maxim and seek to return power and resources to local hands are to be given our strong support. [e.g. "The American people have been overcharged. On their behalf, I'm here to ask for a refund." George W. Bush, January, 2001]

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

It would be good if all the "enviroholics" who have obstructed rational development of energy resources and power plants and
pipelines and refineries would get scared, as well.

------------------
ST,
There are always 'fringe' groups. I don't see the left in general
objecting to energy plants, if needed. They use power too.
They just don't want to go back to coal and nuke. I agree. Those would be last ditch efforts if we ran out of natural gas. What's wrong with that??
Coal is killing thousands of asthmatics every year(4 in my family this generation---zero in all generations before.
And a nuke plant isn't worth the risk when natural gas is available.
Talk about huddled in caves!! I know chances are slim, but that isn't good enough, and we still don't know what to do with the waste except dump it in Nevada. They will be glowing in the dark after everything gets to Yucca! But, heck, it's just one state right? 1/50th of the country with a small population. Let's use the 1% principle and forget about Nevadan's. Sorry, I'm with the 1%, someone has to be.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


One of the reasons there is so much more demand on the power supply is because there are so many
more people tapping into the grid – illegally, I might add.

---------------
Well Jedi,
Once again we agree! Hate to ruin your rep.
But, we now have the Army down there, shooting to kill.(illegal, I might add) What else are we supposed to do? It's US citizens hiring them that keeps them here!
nuf said,
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<There are always 'fringe' groups. I don't see the left in general
objecting to energy plants, if needed. They use power too. They just don't want to go back to coal and nuke. I agree. Those would be last ditch efforts if we ran out of natural gas. What's wrong with that??
>>

If you "don't see" it I'm afraid you're not looking in the right places.

Now, here's a bit of info about natural gas vs. other fuel sources. As you imply, natural gas is the "cleanest" of the available fuel sources. It also has properties that make it useful in many applications besides just burning under boilers to make steam to generate electricity. It is used in industrial applications where precise temperature control is essential for manufacturing processes. It is used as feedstock in chemical manufacturing. It is used for cooking and home heating. It is used for fuel in vehicles.

From the standpoint of rational public policy and efficient allocation of scarce resources, it doesn't make sense to squander natural gas by burning it under boilers when there are other fuels that are useful for that purpose, but have fewer alternative uses. Moreover, natural gas supply tends to be cyclical. There were shortages in the 1970s, after 25 years of irrational federal price regulation had discouraged drilling and replenishment of deliverable reserves. The price regulation problem was addressed by federal legislation in 1978 that spawned a drilling boom, a price spike-up, and upheaval in the transportation and distribution sectors of the industry. Ultimately, market forces and new federal policies under Ronald Reagan's administration caused the transportation and distribution sectors to restructure and the price controls and price ceilings on the commodity were eliminated by legislation enacted in 1985. As a result, we have experienced a relatively stable market and supply situation for natural gas over the past 15 years.

But deliverable reserves of natural gas have to be continually replenished by drilling and development, activities that are driven by price. And sources of potentially significant new reserves tend to lie in offshore and pristine areas where opposition to such activities is increasingly encountered. [Note: The current issues in California have not been attributed to a fuel-supply problem, as I understand it, so much as to a generating plant capacity problem. But fuel supply is always a lurking issue which, if ignored, will bubble up and compound any generating plant problems.]

For a time during the shortage era of the '70s, there were legal restrictions in place on using natural gas as boiler fuel. I'm not sure if any such restrictions still exist, at the federal or any State level. In times of surplus, the natural gas industry will oppose such restrictions, of course, because, like any business, it wants as broad a market as possible for its product. But when supplies get tight, having all that demand tends to push up the price. That's not a bad thing, provided the higher prices stimulate new drilling and production. But when those activities are stifled, as you can easily see, things can get tense. Clearly, though, capping prices and locking in supplier/purchaser relationships by law, as was the ill-conceived federal policy prior to deregulation, is not the solution--not even "short-term" as some are pushing for in California right now.

For a conventional power-plant operator, the ideal situation is to have the capability to switch between available sources of fuel (i.e. coal and natural gas). This provides not only a defense against temporary supply disruptions from one source or the other, but also spawns interfuel price competition. Technology has developed to "scrub" the emissions from coal-burning plants, dramatically reducing emissions. And sources of "clean" coal in places like Montana and Wyoming have been developed. Unfortunately, with the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton red-lined hundreds of thousands of acres of potential clean coal in Utah, putting it off-limits for development.

The nuclear plants are a different issue, of course. They scare people. My experience in that area doesn't extend beyond a bit of uranium mining, so I can't speak with much authority. But the safety record on nuclear power is pretty impressive here in the U.S., isn't it? Even Three-Mile Island, our most notable problem case, has not led to problems on a large scale. If we're going to stop all progress because of challenges encountered along the way, we would have stopped seagoing vessels from sailing ten thousand years ago. But that's pretty much what has happened to nuclear power after TMI and the Chernoble disaster. At some point, unless we suddenly figure out how to make electricity out of seawater or make some other startling breakthrough, we're going to have to get over it.

What is that concept that TMF talks about--"a disruptive technology"--or something like that? It means something that comes along and is going to replace the way things have been done in an entire segment of the economy, like what PCs and laser printers have done to typewriters. Everybody is looking for something like that in the energy field. Exotic power-generating sources like windmills and solar panels have some limited, local usefulness, and where they make economic sense, they have been and will continue to be developed. But they are not, and will not become, a large scale replacement for what is currently in use.

And, as Jedi's post made so clear, with an exploding population the "large-scale" nature of the problem just keeps getting larger in certain areas, continually compounding any potential solution. Think about it--you climb over a mountain and on the other side find a Garden of Eden or a Shangri-La. Everybody wants to live there, but nobody wants it to change. This does present a problem, doesn't it?

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The truth breaks out in unexpected places sometimes. This is good, very good. And encouraging as well--getting this kind of stuff published in Boston may portend a massive breakout of common sense beyond our wildest dreams. Take a look:

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/don06062001.htm

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


If you "don't see" it I'm afraid you're not looking in the right places.

You mean "your" places. Silly me. I just listened to the whole debate on C-Span.
-----------------------------
Exotic power-generating
sources like windmills and solar panels have some limited, local usefulness, and where they make economic sense, they have
been and will continue to be developed. But they are not, and will not become, a large scale replacement for what is currently in
use.


That is probably true. But only because these technologies have been and continue to receive pennies compared to the billions given to oil and gas and anything they they are interested in.

Pennies don't encourage scientists to do research. It's amazing we have solar anything!
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<That is probably true. But only because these technologies have been and continue to receive pennies compared to the billions given to oil and gas . . .>>>---Beckyz

"Given"??? Given to whom, by whom? And "[b]ut only because . . ."--from whence do we derive that cause and effect relationship?

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

"Given"??? Given to whom, by whom? And "[b]ut only because . . ."--from whence do we derive that cause and effect
relationship?

--------------------------
Given by our gov't to whoever gave the most in campaign contributions.
I call it Corporate Welfare, they call it "the Energy Program"----You
never heard of "incentives"? Alternative energy usually gets about 1-3%
of the pot. This year THAT was cut. I heard that debate, too. Oh, cause and effect--like people don't work for nothing. Researchers need $ to research. Even smart guys need to eat. That sort of thing.

Becky

My last word on this Energy Crisis is ---Oil profits went up 55% during this time. One company is making arrangements to repay what it admits was over charging. The day the dems took over the Senate the oil prices dropped a whopping 45%! Gosh. Could that be because the dems choose who to investigate now? Not so!(says Big Oil)---mild spring. HaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<<My last word on this Energy Crisis is * * *>>>Beckyz

It is with sincere gratitude and relief that we acknowledge receipt of your "last word" on this subject.

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Springtex...

IMO, it all comes down to the "victim mentality". In the mind of a Liberal, we are all victims.

*Victims of "Big Oil"

*Victims of racism, extremism, and a bunch of other ism's

By convincing everyone they are a victim, Liberals maintain a constituency.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15123061

USE THE FORCE!!! JEDIKNIGHT
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Gracias to Spriteman for posting this link on another board, entitled "The Democrats' War Against Energy and Freedom" by David Horowitz:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn06-07-01.htm

The truth is right there, folks. Those with their heads in the sand have just got to find a way to drop their resistance to it and let some needed work get done.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here's another editorial for you, Springtex...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=95000613

But looking back at two decades of California policy, isn't that exactly what energy policy makers have always intended, a wise and benevolent bureaucracy dispensing electricity in the name of the common good, rather than the unregulated individualism and economic variability of the marketplace?

Erroneous government policies got Californians into this mess, so it makes perfect sense that a centralized allocation of electrons is going to limit their opportunities until they can build their way out.


Take care,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you, Sprite. It is good to see the DuPont clan lining up on the side of truth on this issue.

Here's an idea for solving California's problems. It could have fantastic consequences. It is a ten-year program which will lead to a pollution-free California Nirvana.

There will be mutual embargos, as follows:

1) All electric power and fossil fuel shipped into California will be reduced by ten percent per year.

2) All political $$contributions to liberal politicians and enviroholic organizations will be embargoed and redirected to fund construction of solar and wind generating facilities and electric cars within California. Californians can tap their abundant brainpower that is now engaged in producing vulgar movies and TV shows and pornography and violent video games to figure out how to harness the Sun and Wind.

At the end of ten years, there will only be a trickle of gasoline in California--just enough to fuel the vans full of illegals coming up I-5 from the Baja Peninsula. But the rest of the State will be blissfully free of the stuff, enjoying life under the Sun and Wind, in accordance with their fondest dreams. The rest of us might have to go without California avacados--but not to worry--they grow them in Spain--big ones (avacados grandes)--and I'm sure they'd like to have our business.

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


The Secretary of Energy speaks:
SPENCER ABRAHAM

-------------------
The guy who wanted to get rid of the Department of Energy.

A guy with NO, ZERO qualifications.

My ex-Senator. Voted out for doing nothing for Michigan and ignoring his constituents.

After being rejected by his home State---he is 'Promoted' by the President!

"Beam me up!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hmmmmm . . . how interesting. I found this story buried among the miscellaneous reports of shark bites and killer bee stings (brace yourselves):

http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/national/ap723.htm

It seems that dear old California now has--are you ready?--a power surplus! And they're selling off the excess at a discount. Why is this not front page news?

Doesn't the public need to know that permitting local distribution companies to enter contracts for purchasing power over a term longer than one day at rational prices [such contracting was prohibited under California's phony "deregulation" scheme prior to the recent hubbub] can actually serve the public interest and meet consumers' requirements? And what about this "cooler than expected" weather? Hmmmmm . . . ?

But keep a sharp eye on tomorrow's news--there will probably be reports of cancellations of permits for new power plant construction in SoCal and NoCal. "Not needed," they'll say.

/s/ S.T.
Print the post Back To Top