Bush Energy Plan

[Todd]

BUSH ENERGY PLAN
The Bush energy plan will be released today. Look for the media and it’s Democratic controllers to give it a frosty reception.

First problem -- no quick fix. The American people are used to quick fixes. In this era when the American people face a problem they start screaming for the government to solve it --- and solve it quickly. We don’t think we’re supposed to have problems any more. We have a “right” to a problem-free lifestyle. So, the absence of a quick fix will be a real talking point for the big-government Democrats.

Second problem – the Democrats and the media will slam the Bush plan because it encourages exploration and production rather than conservation. OK, at first blush you might think that conservation would be the answer. History says otherwise. What is the purpose of conservation? To cajole us into using less energy, right? Well, folks --- it doesn’t work. Experience shows that when new energy-saving technology appears – technology that is supposed to help us “conserve” energy, the real result is that people actually consume more! There’s a link below to a WSJ piece which details the failure of conservation efforts to actually conserve energy resources. In the 1800’s in Scotland a new highly efficient steam engine was introduced. It would cut coal consumption by one-third. The result? The newer machine was so efficient that people started using them more and more and there was a tenfold increase in coal consumption. Ditto for the U.S. Since 1970 our cars have become 50% more fuel efficient. In that time the average number of miles driven has more than doubled.

So … what does cut back on energy consumption. One thing. Market demand will go down when prices increase. When it comes to energy this has happened only twice in 30 years … and both downturns in consumption were attributed to increases in oil prices.

Clinton preached the conservation dogma for his eight years. He vowed that there would be no new exploration or nuclear power. He had no energy policy beyond that. Now we’re paying the price.

Bush’s plan will call for new exploration and development, including more nuclear power. He will also sign an executive order ordering federal agencies to, essentially, get out of the way and let the energy companies do what they do, produce energy.

Democrats hate this. When the American consumers face a problem Democrats cannot stand by and allow capitalism and free enterprise to be the answer. Government must be the answer. Leftists believe America is great because of government, not because of economic freedom and free enterprise.

Democrats are particularly upset because energy experts, who generally work for energy companies, had some input into Bush’s plan. To a Democrat the absolute last people you would want to consult concerning an energy crisis are people who are in the business of providing energy. Instead, the Democrats would have you consult those who are opposed to new energy, the environmentalists.

Meanwhile --- is there still enough out there? Well, today we have twice the oil reserves that we had in 1970 --- and in America alone we have 300 years worth of know coal reserves.

 

[Laurel]

Todd, there's no energy shortage. Unlike the 70's when there was an actual oil shortage, this "energy crisis" is artificial. The CA energy plants are actually shutting down for "maintenance" during peak hours so they can charge rates as high as 50 times as much as last year. The 5 energy providers in our state are in collusion (or they're all making the same decisions on the same day, which I doubt). And Bush, instead of investigating, is looking the other way & using it to further his own (and big oil's) agenda. Those of you outside of California would be positively shocked to see what we have to pay. We in California are paying out the nose for electricity for NO GOOD REASON. The power is THERE. And I am furious about the fact that Bush will do NOTHING to stop this price-fixing because it benefits him. So don't even start on this topic, Todd. This is a real sore spot for me right now.

 

[Todd]

You can't be paying much more than New Brunswickers are right now, we only have one company so its monopolized here. I think my last be wieghed in at 32 cents a kilowatt hour

 

[OUTSIDER]

Todd remember it ain't a game to see how many thread's you can open on the BB in one night.

 

[WriterDom]

Reliant Energy Urges Governor Davis to Trade Political Fingerpointing for Solutions


HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 17, 2001--Reliant Energy strongly disagrees with California Governor Gray Davis' recent characterization of the company as being "obstructionist" and opposing court orders.

Reliant Energy believes that these accusations are politically motivated attempts to demonize Reliant Energy as an outsider responsible for causing the state's energy crisis. The accusations are simply not based on fact. More importantly, the governor's attacks have done nothing to increase the state's supply of electricity or prevent the blackouts expected this summer. If anything, the comments have fostered an atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty that have further destabilized the market.

"Reliant hopes the governor and others will stop these baseless accusations and focus on true solutions to California's energy shortage," said Joe Bob Perkins, president and chief operating officer, Reliant Energy Wholesale Group. "We are now being singled out because we believe in an open market, not government control of power generation, and we have offered solutions that do not jibe with the governor's political agenda. Contrary to the perception Governor Davis is attempting to promote, we have been focused on providing solutions that are fair to all parties in California since the outset of this crisis. In fact, earlier this week we provided the governor's office with an outline of a series of emergency measures that, if pursued quickly, could help mitigate the power crisis this summer. We are still waiting on a response."

Perkins pointed out many of the steps Reliant Energy has taken to keep the lights on in California, disputing the accusation of being "obstructionist":

-- Reliant Energy has run its 30-to-50-year-old plants at the

highest levels since their purchase in 1998. In 2000, Reliant

nearly doubled the output from these plants to meet the needs

of Californians -- running them at levels far exceeding the

prior owner, Southern California Edison.

-- Reliant Energy invested $80 million dollars in 2000 alone to

upgrade plants to make sure the most power possible is

available during peak times. In addition, the company improved

emissions levels to clean up the environment and keep costs

for emission credits to a minimum.

-- For the last two years, Reliant has encouraged the Investor

Owned Utilities and the state to invest in long-term contracts

to stabilize rates instead of relying on the spot market. In

particular, Reliant Energy offered to sell power at two cents

per kilowatt-hour if the buyer would purchase the natural gas

required to generate the power, ensuring a transparent cost of

power.

-- Reliant Energy has never shut down generation despite the

prevalent concerns that continue to exist over credit issues.

In contrast, just last week a major out-of-state supplier

refused to continue to sell to California unless payment was

forthcoming.

-- Reliant Energy has created an aggressive curtailment plan to

encourage businesses to "sell back" power voluntarily to add

more power to the Western power grid. The company has met with

many leaders in Western states to introduce the program, yet

California officials will not even engage in a dialogue on the

program.

"We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues one-on-one with the governor," Perkins said. "Unfortunately, he has repeatedly refused this request over the past year. Last week's meeting with generators was the first time the group was allowed to speak with him directly, and obviously the purpose of that meeting was political grandstanding."

Perkins added that the governor's accusations of opposing court orders are unfounded. "We have always worked within the law and are proud of our commitment to keeping the lights on. We have followed all court orders and worked closely with the FERC and others to cooperate fully with all investigations. When necessary, we have filed court challenges to orders that we believe violate our rights -- hardly an illegal action."

To participate in a telephone press conference tomorrow, Friday May 18 at 11 a.m. PDT, contact Maxine Enciso at 310/444-1303 or Richard Wheatley at 713/207-5881.

 

[Thumper]

Todd....or is it Rush?

Capitalism and free enterprise are alive and well babe.

The oil companies posted record profits last year while the American public (mostly the republicans) cried for government intervention. They whined that we should release the reserves to lower the price. But I'll bet they kept on driving their big cars to the corner market three or four times a day.

The oil companies even raised the price last summer after OPEC increased production and lowered the per barrel price. Why? Testing the waters I'll bet. They wanted to see what the market would bear. They keep saying the price increases are due to low supplies. One question...have any of you seen any "Out of Gas" signs at the local pumps...No? I thought not. So where is the "shortage"?

Why do we need an "Energy Policy" if capitalism and free enterprise are the answers? Power plants are owned privately, it isn't up to the government to build them.

Capitalism and free enterprise also led to things like Love Canal and Bhopal, India. For someone who professes to be a christian you seem to worship at the profit bfore all alter a bit much Todd.

Can't have two masters....

Power(money)corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If you don't like the price....don't pay it. Isn't that free enterprise?

 

[WriterDom]

Man, Thump, do you write fiction here under another name? You'd be great. I don't recall a single republican that called for dipping into the oil reserve last year. I do remember most of them snickering when gore talked bill into tapping it right before the election.

Gas was just as high last year and California had rolling blackouts. Lets see where we stand energy-wise in 2004 and then decide at the ballot box.

 

[p_p_man]

You're energy situation...

...has at least knoocked our very boring General Election off the front pages today. The news on TV, radio and in the papers have been full of Bush's plan to build more generating plants, increase the use of nuclear power and revitalise old plants that are both inefficient and enviromentally dangerous.

News has also come through that he plans to allow increased drilling in Alaska and other conservation areas.

Various commentators from both the States and Europe have expressed the view that this is pay back time for the oil companies who supported him in the Presidential Election and that withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement is all part and parcel of the same game plan.

He has been on our TV dismissing fuel conservation out of hand, without giving any real hard nosed facts, and plumping for an all out increase in fuel exploration and production as the only alternative.

Well what can we say? After all he believes in the profit motive and therefore cannot be blamed if he is only looking after his own interests instead of America's.

Personally I'd be highly suspicious of the whole situation. Even die-hard Republicans must at some time or another admit to themselves that as far as global companies are concerned it is profit, and only profit, that matters and any Government that is behold to these monoliths must dance to their tune.

I can't say with any authority but Laurel has mentioned it in passing, but where astonomical profits and globalised industry are bedfellows (and they usually are) price manipulation is commonplace. Indeed it is essential policy.

Mix in a tame President and you have a recipe for disaster for normal folk.

 

[Guest]

For you Laurel
http://www.latimes.com/business/reports/power/lat_suit010518.htm

PUC Chief Alleges Price Collusion
Power: She cites evidence that plants were shut down to create "artificial shortages." An industry spokesman calls the accusation "idiocy."

By RICH CONNELL and ROBERT LOPEZ, Times Staff Writers

State investigators have uncovered evidence that a "cartel" of power companies shut down plants for unnecessary maintenance to ratchet up prices, the head of the California Public Utilities Commission asserted Thursday.
PUC President Loretta Lynch said her agency, working with the state attorney general's office, is probing patterns of plant outages that have created "artificial shortages," particularly when the state has issued emergency alerts because of seriously low levels of electricity.
"There are instances where plants could have produced, and they chose not to," Lynch said in an interview at The Times.
"And it is clear that there are instances that plants, when called to produce, chose not to produce," even when they were obligated to do so under special contracts with the state and utility companies.
Lynch said the ongoing investigation has already produced enough information for the PUC and attorney general's office to take legal action against the generators next month. The exact nature of that action, she said, is still under review.
Lynch, who is an attorney, did not name specific suppliers or provide documentation of her assertions. She said that information will remain confidential until court proceedings are undertaken.
Generators have long denied any attempt at manipulating the power market in any unlawful way, including orchestrating plant shutdowns. They say the facilities are so old and have been run so hard during the power crisis that breakdowns are a recurring problem.
Lynch and Gov. Gray Davis, who has been particularly critical of out-of-state generators, have not suggested that every plant shutdown has been unwarranted.
In fact, the governor's top advisor on power plants released a statement last week saying inspectors determined that a Bay Area plant shutdown was justified and that the company's officials were "accommodating."
State Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer was not available for comment on his joint investigation with the PUC. A spokesman would only confirm that Lockyer's office is investigating plant shutdowns as part of a wide-ranging probe of possible civil and criminal violations.
So far, the attorney general's office has subpoenaed documents in 91 categories from generators, including records of plant operations, pricing practices and information the merchants may have shared with one another about California's power market.
"We're looking for behavior that would violate antitrust or unfair business practice laws," Lockyer has told The Times.
Although he has not provided details of his office's findings, he recently said the inquiry is "beginning to get interesting."
Lynch said evidence of allegedly unnecessary plant shutdowns was amassed during interviews by investigators and in a review of the voluminous subpoenaed records, obtained after intense legal battles with the power companies.
In addition, investigators have been entering plants where unplanned shutdowns have occurred to examine operations and maintenance records, Lynch said. At times, the investigators have been denied access and have had to exert legal pressure to get in, she said.
The plant shutdowns are a key factor in the soaring power prices, which have gone from $200 a megawatt-hour in December to as high as $1,900 last week.
"I would argue it's no accident," Lynch said of the high prices. "That in fact it's [due to] the coordinated behavior of a cartel."
The power generators have repeatedly said they have acted within the rules of California's flawed deregulation program, which allowed them to buy power plants formerly run by the state's three largest utilities.
Gary Ackerman, a spokesman for a trade association of large power producers, said Lynch's allegations were "the height of idiocy."
The reason many plants have been down in recent months, he said, is that power producers must perform maintenance now in anticipation of heavy summer demand.
He said he doubted that state investigators could prove wrongdoing because there was no conspiracy to turn off supplies.
"My members do not make money by shutting down their plants so their competitors can make money," said Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum.
State analysts have argued, however, that power traders can reap extraordinary profits by withholding power because the prices for the power that is sold are so high.
According to Lynch, investigators have found that some companies were more aggressive than others in allegedly using plant shutdowns to manipulate the state's power market.
She said investigators have also found a suspicious pattern: When operators of the state electricity grid declare a Stage 1 alert--meaning that electricity reserves have dropped below 7%--plants that do not need repairs suddenly are yanked offline. That, she said, aggravates the shortages, and the cost of wholesale electricity soars.
Before December, state analysts alleged that power traders had driven up prices primarily through bidding. At the time, the market was designed to pay all power suppliers the highest amount accepted by the state's grid operator.
That changed in December, when new federal regulations restructured California's wholesale power market to loosen price controls, Lynch said. Since then, a new pattern of plant shutdowns has emerged--"not coincidentally in my view," she said. Now, she added, the state has endured "historically high levels of unplanned plant outages."
The investigation is not focusing on power plants still operated by utility companies because they have not been "going off [line] at record levels," Lynch said.
The California Energy Commission reported last week that the state's electrical grid has been sorely tested by plant shutdowns at a rate several times higher than in the last two years.
A Times analysis of state data found that, throughout the last two months, about 12,000 megawatts of production was offline, more than a third of the peak power used in California on a typical day. That has been about evenly divided between scheduled and sudden plant shutdowns.
By contrast, shutdowns in the same period of 1999 and 2000 took only 3,300 to 5,700 megawatts offline.
Last month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered electricity supplier Williams Energy Marketing and Trading to pay $8 million in connection with allegations that plants were improperly shut down to raise prices. The company agreed to settle the case without admitting any wrongdoing.
However, FERC released a study in February of closures at three other California plants that it concluded were not undertaken to create a scarcity of power.
After talking to plant operators by telephone, reviewing documents and visiting the three plants, federal inspectors concluded that "the companies appeared to have taken whatever steps were necessary to bring the generating facilities back online as soon as possible by accelerating maintenance and incurring additional expenses."

---
Times staff writer Nancy Vogel in Sacramento contributed to this story.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Hmmm...
Why is it always someone else's fault? This is not the first time the finger has been pointed somewhere other than the regulatory system. Why is the only person in recent memory to have stood up and said, "Yeah, I accept the blame, it was my fault," was Louis Freeh?

 

[Thumper]

Your honor

I will rephrase...

The republicans I personally know were the ones I was referring too....

The professionals (on both sides) were just standing around pointing fingers...

While the oil execs were snickering like modern day Snidely Whiplashes

They even tied Janet Reno to the railroad tracks....

The locomotive jumped the tracks to avoid her.

And we all did the gas pump polka...to the tune they played