b?Subject: With love from California...

Dear Rest of the USA:

America has engaged in some finger wagging lately because California doesn't have enough electricity to meet its needs. The rest of the country (including George W. Bush's energy secretary Spencer Abraham, who wants Californians to suffer through blackouts as justification for drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) seems to be just fine with letting Californians dangle in the breeze without enough power to meet their needs. They laugh at Californians' frivolity.

Well, everybody. Here's how it really is:

California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person.

http://clinicalfreedom.org/Morse03.htm

http://www.standard.net/stories/nation/02-2001/FTP0077@nation@27calpower@Ogden.asp (PS Note: Funny thing here; Texas ranks 4th in the nation in per-capita energy use. What a surprise.)

California grows more than half the nation's fruit, nuts and vegetables. We're keeping them. We need something to eat when the power goes out. We grow 99 percent or more of the nation's almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins and walnuts.

Hope you won't miss them.

California is the nation's number one dairy state. We're keeping our dairy products. We'll need plenty of fresh ones since our refrigerators can't be relied upon. Got milk?

We Californians are gonna keep all our high-tech software in state. Silicon Valley is ours, after all. Without enough electricity, which you're apparently keeping for yourselves, we just plain don't have enough software to spare.

We're keeping all our airplanes. California builds a good percentage of the commercial airliners available to fly you people to where you want to go. When yours wear out, you'd better hope Boeing's Washington plant can keep you supplied. There isn't enough electricity here to allow us to export any more planes than we need ourselves. And while we're at it, we're keeping all our high-tech aerospace stuff, too, like the sophisticated weapons systems that let you sleep at night, not worried you might wake up under the rule of some foreign kook.

Oh, yeah, and if you want to make a long-distance call, remember where the satellite components and tracking systems come from. Maybe you could get back in the habit of writing letters.

Want to see a blockbuster movie this weekend? Come to California. We make them here. Since we'll now have to make them with our own electricity, we're keeping them. Even if we shot them somewhere else, the labs, printing facilities, editing facilities, and sound facilities are all here.

Want some nice domestic wine? We produce over 17 million gallons per year. We'll need all of it to drown our sorrows when we think about the fact that no matter how many California products we export to make the rest of America's lives better, America can't see its way clear to help us out with a little electricity. You can no longer have any of our wine.

You all complain that we don't build enough power plants. Well, you don't grow enough food, write enough software, make enough movies, build enough airplanes and defense systems or make enough wine.

This is your last warning, America. Lighten (us) up before it's too late.

Love,

The Californians

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

PS Note: Aside from the "wine" (they haven't quite come up to French standards there), there's a lot of seriousness in this letter. Wonder when the administration is going to recognize this?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Answers

California, a nice place to visit, also has a garlic festival every spring. Mmm the stinking rose which goes into almost every dish I make.

Just a few comments: California doesn't have the only tracking station. As a matter of fact, the industry realized that the station was built on a fault and made the system highly vulnerable so they built other sites. Also please spare me the movies. When Julia wins for best actress for a performance that deserved only a yawn, I'd say they have fallen short in recent years. And one last thing, no more software from silicon valley implies more business for Bill?

Just got back from lunch. Over the radio, I heard a report that said that PG&E just filed for bankruptcy, 9 billion (I can't believe that number, maybe I heard it wrong) in debt. Maybe I should go into the candle making business. Just trying to keep it light :)

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Simply amazing how much stuff can be improved with garlic. One of the two reasons I could never be a vampire ("love of the sun" being the other).

Don't much care about the movies myself; most of the better ones I've seen have all been filmed in NYC or similar (and NYC has its OWN studios and editing facilities, etc.). You didn't like her performance? I thought she was pretty good in that, though I thought Albert Finney about stole the show. I don't know why, but for some reason it reminded me a lot of her role in Mystic Pizza.

You heard it right; all the reports I've seen have given a $9 billion figure. Unbelievable.

I admit I haven't much kept up on this but it reminds me of the time back in 1976 when then-President Ford told NYC to "drop dead".

I can still see the headline as if it was yesterday..... Funny how history repeats itself.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

I agree Albert stole the show. I thought she was better in a number of other films (Steel Magnolias? and the one with the abusive husband?).

I can't remember about Ford's stand in NY. Was that with the black outs at that time? Funny, I don't remember much about Ford. After losing in the campaign against Nixon, my political attention span dropped tremendously.

Have a good weekend.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Washington has been sending power to California for several months now. Of course, now that we're having our own shortage problems, California can't return the favor.

I truly believe that Shrub thinks the entire West Coast just doesn't matter; I suppose his wakeup call will come when the economy has further problems due to nonproductivity throughout a West Coast rolling blackouts summer.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

No blackouts (the next big one was July, 1977); the city was about to go bankrupt, I think (hey, I was a teenager; I'm lucky I remember THAT).

Can't remember the film with the abusive husband either.....

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

California gambled on there being "enough power" and lost. end of story.

HERE ARE SOME REASONS WHY:

California's power crisis has generated heated debate over the last 
several
months.  Unfortunately, this debate has generated more heat than 
light.  We
want you to know what the facts are and what we are doing about the 
crisis.
Please spend a few minutes reading the following overview on the 
situation
and our position on California energy issues.
What happened in California
The source of California's current problem is as straightforward as 
supply
and demand.  California's economy grew 29 percent since 1998.  This
increased the demand for electricity by 24 percent.  At the same time,
regulatory restrictions prevented new generation from getting built 
in the
state.  So demand grew but regulations prevented supplies from being 
added.
The result, predictably, is a shortage.  This summer, peak capacity 
will be
about 10 percent shy of peak demand, leading to further blackouts in 
the
state.
In addition to the supply and demand imbalance, there are two other 
related
factors that led to the current crisis.  First, the state's 
regulations
forced all sales and purchases into the spot market.  The spot market 
for
power is extraordinarily volatile.  The way firms behave in a free 
market
when faced with such volatility is to construct a portfolio of 
purchases
long term, medium term and short term, to reduce exposure to this
volatility.  In California, state regulation prevented this 
strategy.  This
would be the equivalent of putting the entire state on an adjustable 
rate
mortgage in the most volatile interest rate environment imaginable.
Everything was fine while the power surplus persisted, but when 
shortages
ensued, every megawatt was purchased at the sky rocketing spot price.
Second, retail markets were not deregulated.  Regulated retail rates
remained in effect, and stranded cost recovery charges were 
structured to
keep competition out.  This meant that utilities were forced to pay 
high
wholesale prices in the spot market but were only able to recover 
costs at
the regulated retail rate.  They are now nearly bankrupt.
In short, California's problems were caused by regulation, not 
deregulation.
Regulations prevented competitors from entering the market, prevented 
new
generation from being built, and prevented prudent hedging against 
volatile
spot prices.
At the time California was developing its restructuring plan, Enron 
warned
the state's policy makers about these risks and proposed alternatives,
which, if adopted, would have averted the current crisis.
Enron's Role
Many political leaders in the state have elected to fix blame rather 
than
fix the problem.  Power sellers, including Enron, have been vilified 
by the
politicians and the media.  Here are the facts:
*	Other than a small amount of wind power, Enron is not a 
generator in
the state of California.  Every megawatt we sold in California we 
bought in
the same market available to other California purchasers.  Because we 
are a
market maker, not a generator, we are not biased toward high prices.  
We are
interested only in having a market that works so that we can package
products for our customers.
*	As a seller to end-use markets in the state, we provided 
protection
from the problems the states' utilities, and their customers, now 
face.  We
protected, and still protect, our customers from price volatility.

	You may have read that EES recently elected to have the 
utilities
supply power directly to its customers in California instead of 
procuring
power on the open market.  Early reports mischaracterized this as a
"turnback" of our customers to the utilities.  Here are the facts:
*	As a result of a variety of factors existing in the current
California market, it made more sense for EES to source power for its
customers directly from the utilities.  This decision reduced EES's 
market
price risk
	by allowing EES to access lower utility rates.
*	EES did not terminate any customer contracts, and our 
customers
continue to receive the financial benefits of their contract prices.
*	EES is continuing to work with its California customers to 
provide
them with other energy-related products and services, including 
assistance
in reducing the demand for power, particularly at peak times.

Enron is currently proposing solutions to help California work out of 
its
crisis; Enron continues to sign up customers in the state; and Enron
continues to actively manage its risks and capture opportunities in 
Western
power markets.  Enron's primary business is managing risk for our 
customers
with solutions customized to meet their needs.  There has never been 
more
demand for our products and services.
The Solution
The solution to California's crisis is also straightforward.  In 
summary,
the state must increase supply, reduce demand, reduce reliance on the 
spot
market and shore up the financial stability of the state's utilities.
Increasing Supply
California's process for siting and permitting new generation is 
nothing
short of Byzantine.  Enron has built plants elsewhere in the country 
in less
than a year.  In California, it often takes 5 to 7 years.  California 
simply
must streamline this process.  Ironically, while many of the 
regulations
generators must overcome are aimed at improving environmental 
quality, the
regulations are preventing new clean technology from coming online and
displacing current plants, which emit 40 times as much NOx.  
California can
have abundant power and cleaner air by expediting the permitting of 
new
facilities.
Reducing Demand
Customers in California today have no incentive to reduce or shift 
demand.
They pay the same rate no matter what the market price is.  An open 
retail
market would trigger demand responses, which would balance supply and 
demand
at lower prices than today.  California should fully open its retail 
market.
Reducing Reliance on the Spot Market
In a truly deregulated market, customers would protect themselves from
volatile spot prices by purchasing some of their requirements on a 
longer
term, fixed-price basis.  The state has instead left procurement in 
the
hands of the utilities, which it has forced to buy exclusively in the 
spot
market.  Opening the market at the retail level will give customers 
control
over their price risk.
Restoring the Financial Integrity of the State's Institutions
The utilities in California are not paying their bills.  This has led 
to
greater uncertainty in the market, higher costs, and reduced 
flexibility to
arrive at lasting solutions.  California must permit its utilities to
recover their costs so they can pay their bills and invest in the
transmission and distribution assets necessary to get power from 
where it is
to where it is needed.
Just as important as doing these things, the state must avoid 
policies that,
while politically attractive, do not fix the problem or even make 
matters
worse.  Price caps have been proposed.  They don't work; have never 
worked;
and they will not work here.  Price caps succeed only in creating 
shortages,
which then have to be allocated among competing users.  Imagine how
ineffectively the government would be in determining, for example, 
whether
it is better to make its limited power supplies available to the 
Imperial
Valley or Silicon Valley.  Price caps are a surefire way to make the 
current
shortage worse.
The state has also proposed to take over generation and transmission 
in
California.  There is no reason to believe, and every reason to 
doubt, that
the state will be more effective than free markets at investing in,
constructing, operating and maintaining assets.  This will also 
result in
California tax revenues being spent on power transmission and power
generation-which the private sector can do-instead of education, 
roads and
other public goods-which the private sector cannot do.
As you are approached by people outside the company or are learning 
about
the crisis from the media, it's important for you to know this:  We 
at Enron
will continue to serve our customers and we will continue to propose 
real
solutions to the state.

------- For information on how to subscribe / change address / delete your name from the Power Globe, see http://www.powerquality.com/powerglobe/ <

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

As you can see, the roots go back into the 1990s during the Clintstone regime. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO BLAME EITHER GWB OR CLINTSTONE FOR THIS.

THE SOLUTION IS OBVIOUS: EVERYONE ON THE W.Coast Grid,,,,,,,cuts down Energy Useage. And I'm sure that Nevada,Wash.St. and Ore. will be the first states to run to help Calif.

The same thing applies in the Dog Days of Summer for the North East. Lets see all the nice people of cool New England help out NYC and Phila.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

They forgot to mention that California probably also has a majority of the extreme-environmentalists who helped cause the problem of them not having enough generation capacity.

Hey California, want some cheese with that whine?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Just butting in here to answer Pat's and Maria's query about the abusive husband movie...'Sleeping With the Enemy'. Saw it again recently and it still gives me the creeps!

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

But what exactly is being asked for here? Sure, we'll grant that California is paradise on earth, that the people are all wonderful, that what they do is indespensible, that they should all receive special treatment at everyone else's expense because of these things. But what *kind* of special treatment? Custom price controls? Tax subsidies? What?

Clearly, there is a test case going on here. Can one state get away with selfishly trying to abolish the law of supply and demand, and then force the rest of us to bail them out so they won't have to drill for oil (bad for the environment) or build power plants (ditto, and expensive), or pay fair rates? Is it wise to *let* them set such an example?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Didn't anyone else catch this nice, little fact:

"California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person."

This makes it rather difficult to state that the real problem is that California's demand is out of control. Also, I seem to recall that California's electricity output is normally much higher than it has been recently, due not to California law, but to an abnormally high number of generating plants placed offline by power generating corporations. These corporations have no real incentive to put their plants online, so long as wholesale prices rise to meet (and exceed!) falling supplies.

Doesn't anyone else here notice that, no matter how ineffeciently or poorly the generating companies perform, they come out smelling like a rose?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

You guys are so predictable. Especially you, Charlie. I could set my damn watch by you.

You're absolutely right, "Think", but don't expect any of these "compassionate conservatives" to actually "get it".

Hey Charlie, I guess all that great Texas Charity you're always blowing about doesn't extend beyond the state line does it? Oh, wait a minute.....you guys are too busy cleaning up the mess Junior left with his Last Great Tax Cut. Oops.

Guess all that "compassionate conservative" bullshit throughout the campaign was just that -- BULLSHIT. I also guess that when Shrub said he'd "leave no child behind" he added a rider that EXCLUDED those in California.

Will you people ever wake up to the snowjob this moron is handing you?

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Think:

I don't think anyone is claiming California is *wasting* their power. I've seen lots of blame placed on California over this, but wasting power has never been part of any of it. This would be a red herring, except that California has been uncongenial to power-hungry heavy industry for some many years now (pollution, don't you know?). This tends to reduce per capita consumption. Are you really claiming that artificially low energy prices have *NO* impact on consumption? Remember supply and demand?

As for reduced output not being "due to" California law, this is correct if you mean California has passed no law requiring that plants be placed off line. However, if you notice that California law effectively forces plants to operate at a considerable *loss*, which private industry doesn't ordinarly prefer to do, then you have a pretty solid case that California law is *strongly* implicated in these offline plants. You sound like the child who says "I'm not pulling the cat's tail, I'm only holding it. The CAT is doing all the pulling!" You may fool yourself, but probably nobody else except Patricia with this claim.

There have also been reports that power plant maintenance has been shortchanged for some years now. I suppose you can attribute this to greed, since there is a known tendency by private corporations to skimp on maintenance when profit margins are high.

But where is your evidence of poor or inefficient power generation? I've yet to see anyone else make this claim either (despite Patricia's predictable cheerleading). California has set up a set of *strong* disincentives to provide power (nearly impossible to build a plant, nearly impossible to raise rates to match costs) and here you are trying desperately to blame the power companies for this. Gee, I'm so sorry it's so hard for you...

Patricia:

Rather than your pathetic SCREAMING about BULLSHIT, why don't you suggest what ought to be done? Frothing at the mouth with ignorant and mindless hatred is clearly your idea of fun, but why not try engaging your mind long enough to suggest what Gore or some other paragon of virtue might do in this situation. Can you explain why *I* should pay for California's mistakes? Do you sincerely feel that "compassion" means everyone else subsidize California because you admire their constant whining? Nobody seems to be snowed but you (though you try to make up for it by being TOTALLY snowed). So how about a useful suggestion? Can you stop copying stupid insults long enough to make one?

Personally, I'd recommend deregulation, meaning *real competition*. A good part of these problems happened because the power companies were looking for a sweetheart deal themselves, back when wholesale prices were low. THEY don't want competition and never did, you can bet on it. Everyone wanted something for nothing, and now everyone involved wants everyone ELSE to pay to clean up the mess.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Legislative & regulatory stupidity aside California could have walked this tightrope for awhile longer but for what has been unmentioned here. Natural gas prices. When California plants (owned by whomever) powered by this most favored fuel had to start paying serious multiples of the going rate elsewhere the dominos started falling. "We need to get after it." or sue the living shit out of somebody if they colluded to restrict supply.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

I wonder if you moaned this loud when WE had to clean up the Neil Bush S&L mess. Or the rest of the messes that have been left.

Keep your sanctimonious lecturing to yourself, Flint. I posted something sent to me. You wrote a PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE response. You never even bothered to notice whether or not I indicated WHAT I agreed with, did you?

No, you didn't.

But you just KNOW, don't you?

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Flint: "California law effectively forces plants to operate at a considerable *loss*"

Mr. Flint, I would very much like to see any citation you have to offer to back up this claim. BTW, I would not consider evidence of an effectively reduced *profit* to be a *loss*.

Perhaps you are mistaking the fact that power distributors>/i>, such as PG&E have been operating at a loss, because they are buying power at a higher rate that they are restricted by law from passing through to customers. However, I was speaking not of distributors, but generators. And judging from your quote, so were you.

I believe you are severely mistaken in your claim. If you can back up this claim that power generators are operating at a loss, then you will assuredly have my apologies and I will reassess what I see to be the case in California. Fair enough?

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Italics OFF! Off, I say!

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Who did Californians vote for, Bush or Gore?

Payback's a bitch. That's how the the game is played. Next time don't vote for the criminal.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Jesus Christ Flint you are a boring old windbag. If that ain't enough, you are clueless on this California Energy mess. What you spew is the deregulation Meme fed you by the Duke Energy and Enron PR departments.

The FERC has COMPLETELY sat on its ass and allowed this thing to spiral into crisis. The Federal Agency mandated by Law has dropped the ball. They have already found corruption, price-fixing and have decided to ignore their mission and follow the orders of Bush and his OIL buddies.

This IS a wholesale issue and the FERC(BUSH), has jurisdiction. Where the FUCK are they? Out-to-lunch like the rest of the "agenda".

Like with China, we have a WUSS for a President. He barely can even splice two sentences together the freaking farmer. Freaking disgrace is what Bush and his Administration are. And to be fair, Clinton didn't do shit either. However I doubt the FERC would be doing nothing if the Prez were a Democrat, especially Albert Gore. Sure it would largely be superficial, but it sure would be better than publically telling California--to go-to-hell like Dumbo has for 3 months. Which in the final analysis is what is needed the most, leadership.

Go read the many articles and links I spent posting to this damn webboard the past few weeks, Mister. This time ACTUALLY suspend your damn judgement you habitually claim others are unable to do and just maybe you will learn some things. Doubtful of course.

Amazing is what I have read on this thread. It as if you morons had not read a damn thing over the past 3 months. And you Flint have the nerve to claim others are not open minded? Apparently you are so stupid you are unable to see your own stupidity.

Yes reply and call me Doc Droolie. Cut and past this and add the stupidity of Flint inbetween. Go ahead knock yourself out. Waste more of your worthless life playing with yourself.

Hey Charlie...texxxass JUMP!

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Texas is more than happy to help out California in their need for more power. Simply tell us how to ship the KWs to the West Coast and I'm sure the Utilities here would be happy to send the PRODUCTS OF OUR EXCESS CAPACITY there. Would you like that UPS or FedEX?

For you see, there is no Grid Connection that enables that IS THERE? But there is a way for TEXAS to help them out. Simply send us your 1,000 largest PROFITABLE Industrial Users who can not do business on a scheduled basis any longer and TEXAS WILL FIND SOME ROOM AND CAPACITY FOR THEM.

and I am certain, TEXAS will be happy to make that offer to the Companies facing interruptions in NY, Long Island, Conn., Pa. and Mass where the NIMBY mentality prevented investment.

IN SHORT.........WE INVESTED IN THE FUTURE WHILE OTHERS GAMBLED AND LOST.

And when we were in a Depression here because of $10 bbl oil and excess speculation on Oil and RE in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Utilities here BORROWED on their EXCELLENT CREDIT and built what they projected would be capacity for the Population growth.

In addition, we encouraged Private Producers like PANDA ENERGY to invest $500Mill to 2 Billion on more plants via private funding of Panda.

People should remember that LUBBOCK bragged in front of the Y2k hearings in summer,1998 that their new Municipal Power Plant would bridge the annual Summer Short fall and give them extra capacity to spare.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

And now you're cleaning up Junior's Last Great Tax Cut.

Whaddaya know, Doc....it worked. I think he jumped pretty high, too.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Gee...I love EVERY movie with Julia Roberts. Are we talking about Erin Brockovich here? I thought she was great in that. I've seen it twice. THAT fat old guy was Albert Finney? Julia has a house in Taos, BTW. An internet friend of mine lives there and Julia was shopping at the same market one day and my friend's husband literally bumped into her. Word has it that he didn't wash his one arm for two weeks.

Regarding Texas, the locals aren't at all thrilled about all this growth. I'm talking about the folks who were born and raised here as opposed to the transplants like Charlie and me. They loved Texas because there was ROOM. All these new people mean new housing developments, more folks on the roads [which will soon turn into parking lots], and (of course) more demand for power, etc. Personally, I'd like to see some investment in mass transportation, but that's "big city" thinking around here.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Moan. Well, today I cut and brought in the second (of five) cords of wood to heat this place next winter. Tomorrow I get to split and stack it. Then only 3 to go. Gotta get this done as early as possible, so that the wood has all summer to bake and dry. There's never any shortage of wood around here to snag, all you need is a pickup and a chain saw. But there is a distinct shortage of physical energy, and lifting a few tons consumes that pretty quickly.

Sure does feel nice in the winter, though.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

One method that should be used immediately in Calif. is to mandate all those advocating "save the Whale" must either go without or use whale oil for illumination. Then we will see how the Wastrels behave.

The analog is in NYC where locals are protesting the installation of small generation stations to make up the expected shortfall. Mr. NIMBY lives in NYC and commutes to Calif. it seems.

As for the numbers about "per capita useage", I would like to see that broken down by Citizens and Industrial useage. Heavy industry tends to use a bit more power than farming. We require X amount of Air Conditioning in our many tall Office Buildings and retail establishments to survive. California hardly has the extremes for heating or cooling that other areas have. And I'm sure that NYC will continue to keep all his skyscrapers well lighted all night long as their "symbolic method" of informing the world they are Big Apple even though brownouts might lead to a certain amount of blinking of those lights.

Not that it matters. Texas prepared by building CAPACITY for its needs. I see no reason why ANYONE SHOULD ADVOCATE THE USE OF OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY because other states did not prepare for their needs. That is called Socialism in other places.

OBVIOUSLY,

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Gawd I hate agreeing with you. Just principle you know. BTW, didn't know NYC was a masculine. Surprised and disappointed.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001

Holy crap, and I thought that there was ranting going on at my "dump"! (just for doc, XOXO)

You can debate till the cows come home whether or not FERC or Bush's "evil" bidness friends have handled this in the best manner, but when a state has not built enough capacity to generate the power to supply it's oun needs the fault, it seems to me, does not lie anywhere but at home.

Hell, why not blame California's mess on Mexico or Canada while you are at it? They bear the same amount of fault as the rest of us non- Californians who y'all think ought to clean up after California's mistakes.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001

Unk you might want to consider the very real fact the original Deregulation Plan had as a central theme, additional supplies without having to build costly and unwanted power plants. The Bonus/Bankruptcy deal yesterday by PG&E should dispel any doubts that in addition to many out of state distributors of power, California's own utilities had their own game plan to rape consumers.

Why is it just assumed a few hundred Power Jokers RIGHT, but millions of citizens thru their elected officials, simply WRONG? Seems logic alone would tell one who is at fault here. Same mentality ruled Y2k. "Nevermind that zillions of insiders are not running for the hills, WE have proof they are hiding things".

I think it also damn critical for some to understand the supplies have been held back for profit motive. Study after study shows electrical use nothing unusual. The only real difference between 1990 and and now is this Dereg Scam deal. Planners knew the growth numbers. They understood the enviromental dynamics and the Dereg Scam played to those concerns. Now what seemed like sound business sense is called a "Lost Bet" by OilPatch apologists like Charles Reuben.

Predictable as this battle is ultimately between two groups of competing Capitalists. Caught in the middle is the average joe who actually believes the world adheres to the will of the marketplace. Doesn't, it follows the ups and downs of the Capitalists battles for the most part.

Here is a link I posted here a week ago which nobody seems willing to discuss....The Hoax that started a war. Why a War in Kosovo? OIL. Methods? anything under the sun to secure supply and access, including creating your own Genocide while pointting your finger at anothers Genocide, which later is shown to be a complete Hoax.

Where is even a mention on CNN about the Kosovo Hoax deal? or FOXNEWS for that matter? Won't hear it because these two Capitalist mouthpeices, while representing different thugs, both see little value in reporting the Truth to the American People. Factor this in, when reading news on California. With the PG&E story of yesterday, it should be clear their was collusion outside and inside Cali. The prize to the Thieves now is Public Opinion. Who do you think will win here? the average Californian?

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2001

Thanks Peg, I just couldn't remember... that old age thing.

Think wrote, "Didn't anyone else catch this nice, little fact:

"California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person."

This makes it rather difficult to state that the real problem is that California's demand is out of control."

48th... per person doesn't imply that the demand is low. California has lots of residents and even if they individually don't demand much power, the sum total demanded by the state is less than the state produces. I don't think we can blame the residents for using power and trying their best to conserve. Erin Brochovich is to blame.

Good point Carlos, if the prices hadn't gone up would we still have this mess.

My SO just came back from CA. The hotel charged a 37% surcharge for power usage. HUH? If the power companies can't receive the additional funds (by regualtion) where does this tax go? Some one is making a profit.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Doc,

It's possible that no one here has responded to your assertion that Kosovo was based on a "hoax" because it's so stunning. To start with, Michael Reagan is about the only guy making this assertion; you jumped on it because it suits your predjudices.

But more than that, before the election, you said that we shouldn't vote for Bush because he wanted to pull out of Kosovo. Now you're saying the opposite!

You wonder why many here think that maybe you're just opposed to Bush in general and won't miss any opportunity to criticize him, no matter how illogical you look?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Maria: "...the sum total demanded by the state is less than the state produces."

Perhaps you have failed to notice that a fairly large percentage of the power-generation capacity of California is shut down. Also, the owners of that generation capacity have been making larger profits than ever before, while simultaneously delivering less power than in the past.

The idea that California hasn't enough power because they stubbornly refused to authorize the building of enough capacity has not been proved in any article I have read. It is one of those things that gets repeated as if it were true, but no one offers any valid data for this claim.

My understanding is that if their plants were producing at their normal output, there would be no shortage.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Think:

My reading is that California has been a net importer of energy for some time now, in large quantities. I agree that if every plant were at capacity and all transmission lines were adequate, we'd have no shortages. The fact remains that California consumes more power than California can produce in state, and has for a while.

Your position sounds awful close to implying that the big, evil energy corporations are secretly conspiring to punish California (and nobody else) by shutting down perfectly good plants to create an artificial shortage. I haven't seen any good indication that this is actually happening, though.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Think, "Perhaps you have failed to notice that a fairly large percentage of the power-generation capacity of California is shut down. Also, the owners of that generation capacity have been making larger profits than ever before, while simultaneously delivering less power than in the past."

Where did you come up with this? Making profits? Right after PG&E just filed with a $9 billion lose. Why are they not producing?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

http://www.iacenter.org/racak .htm

Michael Reagan is NOT the only guy making the assertion. As he suggests in the article, one need only enter "Racak Massacre" into google.com and see that. The article above is at least 2 months older than the Toronto Sun article reprinted by Reagan.

BTW, I have attacked Michael Reagan and the Moonie rag Washington Times which he is a major online sponsor of. Figure few would be more skeptical of MR than me. Again, he is not the only one reporting the truth. I specifically used his material to show even a staunch Global Warming Bush supporter reporting this news. If I had used the International Action Center article above, it would have been completely ignored as prop from Liberals, make sense? Reagan specifically asks readers to do further research because this does not "fit" the normal crud which flows from these sewage outlets of the Right. I salute MR on this reprinting of information. I would however like him to explain his Moonie connection.

As to your other claims it changes zero. I will also reserve the right to change my mind and opinion based on new information. Based on findings over the past couple of weeks I probably would not have even voted at all last November. Although I still feel Al Gore the best of a corrupt bunch(if that makes any sense). Clinton? based on this info, the guy needs to be explaining BIG TIME.

GW Bush has this information, no doubts. Clinton has to explain what his decision to join NATO was based on. GW Bush having this information has chosen to tow-the-line and remain in the Balkans. Instead of a full blown investigation of the Clinton Administration policies there, Bush/Congress/the Big Media has decided to sit. The Repubs felt Marc Rich more a lead to show Clinton a crook, WHY? I would submit the issue is OIL and both parties have vested interests in that part of the world. The Racak issue was how this action was sold to the world. Basic BS we are fed on a daily basis.

GW BUSH fed the American People baloney on what he would do in Kosovo. He NEVER had any doubts what he would do. Unfortunately HIS GOALS and his OIL buddies goals do not translate into a withdrawl as most GW Bush supporters wanted. So in the end he got a bunch of votes for some hot-air. BTW, I never had any doubts he would remain and did not even know of the Racak BS then.

My original exposure to this Racak hoax came as I investigated Human Rights Watch. Knowing of HRW, I doubt Clinton simply "did not know". He KNEW, and as HRW is a front for the guys who put Bill where he is, he had to know Racak was BS. Knowing this, and knowing the Bush response to this "news", hopefully puts things like Marc Rich and Monica into perspective. On the REAL Issues, rarely do these competing Capitalist expose each others true motives. Instead we get Dirty Laundry over stupid stuff when taken in the larger picture. Unfortunately the average American only gets the stupid stuff and has no reference point. We hear Monica and assume the issue is BJs in the WH. When the real issue maybe this is one way the other side is merely trying to tie-up an opponent on some other issue we have no clue about. For 8 years they were after Clinton, a big clue folks to the motives.

For the record, and I think this has been clear all along, this corruption. I feel ALL of the candidates who run for national office compromised. Cynical I know, but the truth as I see it. If this condition is to change, the 20-30 million active Bush type supporters have to get clear on what is afoot. It is not enough to just swallow the WhiteWing Bush Limbaugh crap that it is the "Liberals". Truth is, it is ALL of THEM. This Liberal hard-on is a very clever demonization of an opponent criminal by a fellow criminal.

I would submit it is Bush and Co who are about CHANGING the status quo and are the real LIBERALS. Take the Energy issue. Ain't about "returning" anything. We have had regulation for along time and it worked fine. Why this need to change? Simple, money and power to be gained by the guys who put GW where he is, that simple.

Why a Faith-Based Initiative? Since our nations inception a core value has been seperation of Church and State. Bush is fighting to CHANGE over 200 years of precedent, and he is the CONSERVATIVE? This move is a direct assualt on the First Ammendment, period end of any discussion. Bush is in violation of his oath, period.

Nothing will change until the chunk of Americans who still care get very clear to what is afoot. If you are assuming the stuff from CNN, FOX, AP, Reuters and all the other suspects anything but Propaganda, think again. Ain't news, it is advertising.

Doubt this? Where is the Racak Hoax story? Why is something which makes Monica look like a turd, being ignored by CNN? or even more revealing FOXNEWS?

Time to wake up folks. To understand the core element in this scam is to keep US bickering amongst ourselves while they steal. Old trick of crooks,,,called diversion.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

if I may, more thoughts on this...

Assume for a moment this Racak information becomes well known. What will the PR Machine begin to push? What they always do when exposed. What they will do is label this as a National Interest issue, a National Security issue.

They will(have) convinced many Americans it is in OUR interest to wage war for OIL. Never would it be in OUR interest to promote ALTERNATIVES to OIL. The answer is becoming less dependent on needing the damn oil in the first place. This however is counter to TPTB who are all about oil and power.

Let the damn American marketplace/innovation/conservation end this oil addiction. Think that can't be done? Think it would be too painful? Maybe, but do we really have any other choice? Why spend Trillions over oil when peanuts would stimulate innoivation?

This is never done beyond lip-service because it is not in the interest of TPTB and their bought and paid for reps we know as our pResident and Congresscreature. Would GM go for this? I would submit GM already could build cars less dependent or not at all dependent on gasoline but for other reasons(more profit), choose to play the game. Besides, the whole economic model in America now rewards centralized Capital and rewards waste as a sustainable business model. This flys until the taxpayer says to hell with it someday.

The wind energy link on this very webboard shows an alternative which actually works. Has for hundreds of years.

When this tactic by the TPTB to paint alternatives as wishful thinking fails with facts, they turn to planB. To paint the promoters of such as Greenies. Course we all "know" their deal these communist wackos. So planB usually controls the damage.

Why was the economy pretty good the last 8 years? The internet, period. A thing so anti-powers-that-be, it took them at least 4 years to find a way to stop it,,,control the bandwidth by allowing MaBell to do what they do best, control markets and thus stifle innovation and competition.

Break-up OIL and you will think the last 8 years of internet inspired growth a minor uptick.

Instead of tax breaks to drill for oil. Allow buyers of hybrid autos the break. Instead of fighting wars for pipline RE halfway round the world, open up BLM land for free, to wind generation companies and interests.

Now that truly is wishful thinking.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Flint: "... energy corporations are secretly conspiring to punish California (and nobody else) by shutting down perfectly good plants to create an artificial shortage."

A more accurate portrayal of my position would be:

I have no idea whether the shortage was a result of collusion (I find "conspiracy" to be a rather loaded word and an unnecessary one in this context) or coincidence. However, I observe that the workings of the market in this situation has provided a very strong incentive to the power generation companies to prolong the shortage, rather than to curtail it. To be even more specific, events show that it is clearly in the interest of the power generation companies to prolong this shortage.

When the interest of every participant coincides, then collusion is not necessary to achieve unanimity of action. A similar case would be when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to banks. Affected banks pass on the raise in rates with perfect unanimity, yet no one accuses these banks of collusion, even though some could presumably decline to do so and possibly steal customers from other banks.

As for punishing "California (and nobody else)". Electrical rates in most Western states are regulated, making it much more difficult to "punish" them in quite the same way. However, I think you will find that rates are rising swiftly all across the western US, since the grid makes it a fairly unified market. I don't think the power generating companies are crying crocodile tears over that fact.

A little thought should convince you that it was California's deregulation law that skewed the profit incentives for the power generation companies in favor of continued shortage, by decoupling the generation plants from the distributors and creating a large, captive market with no price regulation.

Your position sounds awful close to implying that I am speaking from ill-informed ignorance. If I am talking nonsense, I can do that on my own without your "help". Why not let nature take its course?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Think:

I think we are approaching the same point from different directions. Certainly it's true that the original "deregulation" scheme let the big distributors make a killing (or at least it looked that way at the time), and of course their goal is to maximize profit. Captive markets are great for that sort of thing. And yes, the changes in California afforded the big power suppliers with the opportunity to manipulate the market, which I agree they have the incentive to do.

That's why I've been advocating real competition, rather than more stringent regulation of all aspects of power. Yes, I think a free power market will lead to more efficiency and lower prices, over the long run and on average. It will *also* lead to naturally unstable power rates in the short run, depending on things like breakdowns, weather, and so on. It also means higher prices for those more difficult to supply power to.

Somehow, I suspect that power has not been regulated because it is a "natural monopoly", but because of misplaced notions of "fairness". Kind of like the USPS, still required by law to charge the same postage for those in major cities as for those in outer slobbovia. We regulate power (IMAO) so that everyone pays the same per kwh whether they're next door to the generating plant or off in the boonies, whether a power (or pipe) line must be replaced in their supply chain or in someone else's.

So I advocate that multiple suppliers be allowed to compete, that prices be allowed to float, that some people end up paying much more than others for the same amount of juice depending on diffulty of supplying it, that rates be permitted to fluctuate according to costs, etc. Attempts to "deregulate" for lower prices while still enforcing "fairness" standards are doomed to this kind of disaster.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

"...power has not been regulated because it is a "natural monopoly", but because of misplaced notions of 'fairness'."

Why is the notion of fairness "misplaced" in this case? If such a notion had not found expression, rural electrification would never have happened in the 1930s and those people who stayed in the "boonies" today would be much more desperately poor (on average) than they are today.

Generally speaking, the deregulation of utilities will inevitably bring with it the impoverishment of rural areas and will further consolidate the longstanding trend to accumulate capital and capital improvements in cities. The historic tendency has always been for rural areas to fall to subsistance levels of income, with any excess being harvested by absentee corporate owners or big city bankers.

Money flows toward capital. Capital accumulates in cities. Fact of life.

Question for you, Flint. The abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage and rationing of necessities during WWII were also a "fairness" issues. Were these also a misplaced notions?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Nipper:

[The abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage and rationing of necessities during WWII were also a "fairness" issues. Were these also a misplaced notions?]

No. The principle is different. What I'm talking about is people who choose to live a more expensive lifestyle (for whatever reason, and in whatever manner), and then wanting to pay rates identical to those who select a less expensive lifestyle. I consider claims that "fair" pricing should favor those people to be misplaced -- indeed, UNfair.

It is more expensive to deliver services (from mail to power) to widely scattered rural areas. Fine. Living there should therefore have penalties attached, just like living in a penthouse. Do you consider it "unfair" that those who drive Mercedes must pay more for transportation than those who drive Saturns?

So for me, subsidizing some people at the expense of other people and claiming this is being done for "fairness" is Orwellian. Subsidies are great if you can get them, and there really is such a thing as a stolen lunch. But claiming subsidies are "fair" is misplaced.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Flint,

I agree in brute principle, but the problem of the Common Weal arises: if you do it that way, people will inevitably concentrate in large cities to an even greater extent than they do know This introduces a host of new disadvantages: greater vulnerability to foreign attack (especially terrorism, because all the "eggs" are in "one basket"), greater sanitation problems, greater risk to public health, etc., etc., etc.

Higher taxation in urban areas helps limit this, but is THAT fair?

I think the current System, for all its flaws, represents at least a workable compromise.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Flint,

I don't feel like editing that one.

Of course, it should be "than they do NOW."

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

"What I'm talking about is people who choose to live a more expensive lifestyle..."

All I can do is shake my head, Flint.

Your vision for rural America, after about 50 years is going to lead to the progressive depopulation of large areas. The unpopulated stretches would be broken up by the occasional company town filled with indentured workers. There would also be a widesrpread breakdown of rural infrastructure (except that which serves those company towns - because their owners will be able to command the subsidies you decry). The choicest remote places will be playgrounds for the wealthy. But of course, this would serve the interests of capital, so it would only be fair.

You realize that Ben ("A penny saved") Franklin was the first Postmaster General and that the founders not only realized a need for universal postal service but raised it to a cabinet level concern. They had some good reasons for this even if you cannot figure out why. It is hard to run a democracy without a certain amount of equality and access to somewhat equal basic services falls under this heading.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Stephen and Nipper:

I think your vision is exaggerated. The differences aren't *that* large, and as you imply, other forces will tend toward a different equilibrium. Transportation is a basic service, yet a wide disparity of costs can be found for those who wish choices. I think you would be surprised at the changes we'd see -- I'd expect to be as well. I don't think you have it right, but I don't know what shape the future would take. I'm not about to claim that I can see the future, so I can't know you're right or wrong about it.

Something tells me that there's a middle ground somewhere, and we are well to the left of it, trying to make everyone equal willy nilly, trending toward Vonnegut's vision in his story "Harrison Bergeron". We attempt to slice the pie ever more evenly, because this can be measured. Meanwhile, as a consequence, the entire pie's growth is seriously stunted, but this can NOT be measured. Bean counter's blindness again.

The invisible hand seems to be something of an Aha! phenomenon -- either you grasp it all at once in all its glory, or it's a mystery forever. "Why, we *can't* let *them* compete, why, the consequences are *sure* to be awful! Let's REGULATE the economy. THEN things are going to be *just right*!" This is mighty appealing on the surface, and has a terrible track record.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001