Dec 29, 8:01 AM EST AP: Dean Had Own Secret Energy Group By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who has criticized the Bush administration for refusing to release the deliberations of its energy policy task force, as governor of Vermont convened a similar panel that met in secret and angered state lawmakers. Dean's group held one public hearing and after the fact volunteered the names of industry executives and liberal advocates it consulted in private, but Dean refused to open the task force's private deliberations. In 1999, he offered the same argument the administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret. "The governor needs to receive advice from time to time in closed session. As every person in government knows, sometimes you get more open discussion when it's not public," Dean was quoted as saying. His own dispute over the secrecy of the task force that devised a policy for restructuring Vermont's nearly bankrupt electric utilities has escaped national attention, even as he has attacked a similar arrangement used by President Bush. In an interview with The Associated Press, Dean defended his recent criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney's task force and his demand that the administration release its private energy deliberations. Dean said his group developed better policy in a bipartisan manner, seeking advice not just from energy executives but environmentalists and advocates for the poor. He said his task force was more open because it held a public hearing and divulged afterward the names of people it consulted even though deliberations were held in secret. The Vermont task force "is not exactly the Cheney thing," Dean said. "We had a much more open process than Cheney's process. We named the people we sought advice from in our final report." Dean said he still believes it was necessary to keep his task force's deliberations secret, especially because the group was reviewing proprietary financial data from Vermont utilities. "Some advice does have to be given in private, but I don't mind letting people know who gave that advice," he said. An expert in political rhetoric said it was risky for Dean to attack Bush and Cheney on an issue where he was vulnerable. "In general, what is good for the vice president should be good for the governor. A candidate who attacks on grounds he is vulnerable is foolish," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor who helps run a Web site that compares presidential candidates' rhetoric with the facts. Dean's campaign said it was "laughable" to equate the two panels. "Governor Dean confronted and averted an energy crisis that would have had disastrous consequences for the citizens of Vermont by bringing together a bipartisan and ideologically diverse working group that solved the problem," spokesman Jay Carson said Sunday. "Dick Cheney put together a group of his corporate cronies and partisan political contributors, and they gave themselves billions and disguised it as a national energy policy." In September, Dean argued that the task force Cheney assembled in 2001 and the Bush energy policy that were unduly influenced by Bush family friend and Enron energy chief Kenneth Lay. He demanded that records of its deliberations be made public. "The administration should also level with the American people about just how much influence Ken Lay and his industry buddies had over the development of the president's energy policy by releasing notes on the deliberations of Vice President Cheney's energy task force," Dean said on Sept. 15. In 1998, Dean's Vermont task force met in secret to write a plan for revamping state electricity markets that would slow rising consumer costs and relieve utilities of a money-losing deal with a Canadian power company, Hydro Quebec. The task force's work resulted in the Dean administration and state utility regulators advocating that Vermont have the first utility in the country to meet energy efficiency standards. It also freed the state's utilities from burdensome costs from a long-term deal with Hydro Quebec that had left them near bankruptcy by passing as much as 90 percent of those costs to consumers. Utility shareholders also suffered some losses. The parallels between the Cheney and Dean task forces are many. Both declined to open their deliberations, even under pressure from legislators. Both received input from the energy industry in private meetings, and released the names of task force members publicly. Dean's group volunteered the names of those it consulted with in its final report. While Cheney has refused to formally give a list to Congress to preserve the White House's right to private advice, known as executive privilege, his aides have divulged to reporters the names of many of those from whom the task force sought advice. The Bush-Cheney campaign and Republican Party received millions in donations from energy interests in the election before its task force was created. Dean's Vermont re-election campaign received only small contributions from energy executives, but a political action committee created as he prepared to run for president collected $19,000, or nearly a fifth of its first $110,000, from donors tied to Vermont's electric utilities. One co-chairman of Dean's task force, William Gilbert, was a Republican lawyer who had done work for state utilities. At the time, Gilbert also served on the board of Vermont Gas Systems, a subsidiary of Hydro Quebec. Many state legislators, including Dean's fellow Democrats, were angered that the task force met secretly. "It taints the whole report," Democratic state Rep. Al Stevens told the AP in 1999. "I'd have more faith in that report if the discussions had been open." Elizabeth Bankowski, a Democrat who co-chaired the task force with Gilbert, told the legislature that the secrecy requirement "was decided in advance by the governor's office and the governor's lawyer." Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Hypocrite? Hardly! The ultimate energy hypocrite is the one currently squatting in the White House. Dontcha remember? 2000 - using an Enron corporate jet as his campaign plane as as Enron becomes the largest corporate contributor to his campaign. Early 2001 - Ken Lay invited to White House to participate in closed-door energy policy meetings Late 2001 - "Kenny-boy" Lay becomes "Ken Who? I hardly knew the guy!" as Enron implodes and thousands of people lose millions in pension. Now, who is the hypocrite again, bigtexxx? Yep, that's what I thought!
Yet another instance of Dean's hypocrisy and flipflopping on issues. Someone must put a stop to the hairy-legged women and dazed n' confused hippies who are fueling this man's candidacy. He has terrible plans for this country. His views on taxes, national security and the Patriot Act are *extremely* left wing and wrong for America. He still doesn't know where he stands on the following issues: 1) Whether or not to punish Osama bin Laden when caught 2) Where he stands on the Confederate Flag 3) Whether Saddam's capture helps our security and effort in the War on Terror 4) Whether his secret, behind-closed-doors meetings with energy industry insiders should be exposed to the public How could this angry, bitter man ever be put in charge of the United States? He is an arrogant man who is unwilling to admit his errors. He is a mental time bomb waiting to EXPLODE. I shudder to think of the damage he would cause.
Look at the liberals counter-attack. Nothing but shallow, empty Enron demagoguery. You know, the same Enron that contributed greatly to *both* parties over the years. Poor liberals -- even their own rebuttals are hypocritical!
Nice attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand, RM. Whenever the topic of energy comes up, all the liberals can yell is ENRON, which is a meritless cry for desperation. Bottom line here is that as this campaign progresses, we'll find out much more about Howie. He's gotten to where he is now by playing the role of the angry Bush hater, let's see where he goes on his own merits...
I love how you can spin the truth into "shallow, empty Enron demagoguery". Then again, if I were a Republican, I would be wearing my blinders 24/7 just like you!
Hmmm. Let's see... Dean met with both industry and environmentalists. Cheney met with industry. Dean released the names of the participants voluntaily. Cheney has yet to release all the names. Dean met with some people who probably did not give him contributions. Cheney probably only met with those that gave him contributions. (But we don't know for sure, because he refuses to name everyone.) Dean's efforts were aimed at lowering consumer costs. Cheney's efforts were aimed at multiplying profits for energy companies. It's not clear from the story, but it does not look like Dean actively participated in the task force. Cheeny chaired his task force. Dean's dealt with Vermont specific issues. Cheney's put the nation on the table. Dean's had nothing to do with Enron and did not create a California crisis and then use it to justify their conclusions. Cheney's was just the opposite.
That's wonderful rimrocker. I have never seen an entire argument based on such wild speculation (notice how many times you use the word 'probably' -- that's pretty dam*ing evidence) and half-truths... and you wonder why the lunatic fringe environmentalists can't get voted into office... Sigh. To speculate that Cheney was directly responsible for the Enron bankruptcy and for the California power crisis is beyond absurd. It does show the embarrassing shallow-ness of the liberals' arguments when it comes to energy policy. You know, Howard Dean could really help your pathetic argument out. All he has to do is unseal those records. It would also go a long way towards making Howard more credible. Right now he looks like a hypocrite for criticizing Cheney, plain and simple.
That is a total falsehood. The California power crisis was caused by the stupid state govt., which insisted on foolish price controls and made it impossible to build any new power plants thanks to their enslavement to the enviro-whacko movement. They don't call former Governor Gray Davis "Gray Out" for nothing.
I use the word "probably" twice to make one point and because it's appropriate. Based on what we know of both groups, it is highly probable Dean's group included those who did not give financial support to the Governor and it is highly probable that all those in Cheney's task force contributed to the Bush campaign. However, because the Dean story is not clear and because Cheney has yet to name all those in his group (though it is hard to make the argument that the names he's concealing were not contributors) one cannot say for certain, thus the word "probably" is used. Many of us are capable of understanding this TJ. I find it pitiable that you are not. You have not only wasted a potentially gifted mind, but a fine education as well. I cannot decide which is the greater sin. As far as hypocrisy goes, who is the greater hypocrite? Dean or those that attack him? All barbs are aimed at Dean and his actions are inflated and infused with malice by his detractors, yet not one word of criticism from that side regarding Cheney's affairs, which can stand alone as an end run around democratic principles. Furthermore, many of the same people attacking Dean and implicitly supporting Cheney were rabid about Hillary's Health Care Task Force, when Cheney's violates even more of those purported principles. No doubt hypocrisy abounds in modern politics, but nowhere is it in greater volume than in your arguments.
This is an oversimplification (as Ahnold is figuring out very quickly), to say the least. The state's attempt at pseudo- deregulation was absolutely foolish, but the systematic and egregious price gouging administered by energy companies was criminal (or so said the courts) and spoke of an odd collaboration of multiple companies, many of whom were, yes, invited to the closed-door, sealed-document Cheney meetings. To say that Cheney himself actively sought to hurt California is speculation. To say it is absurd is a matter of opinion. To say that California's troubles have greatly aided several energy companies and the Republican party is to speak factually.
I find that liberals are so predictable. Govt. is always benelovent, while the corporate sector is the nexus of evil in the modern world. Go figure. All this Cheney energy meetings conspiracy theory b.s. is exactly that. Don't you guys have anything positive to add besides the tired mantra of everything wrong in the world is the fault of Bush/Cheney? The California situation was exclusively the fault of the govt. Did corporations benefit from their stupidity? Yes. I don't blame them there.
Bama, do you deny that there are energy traders right now being prosecuted for over inflating natural gas prices?
One of many articles... _______________ Details of shutdown allegations revealed Energy companies discussed prolonging the idling of plants By Toby Eckert COPLEY NEWS SERVICE November 16, 2002 WASHINGTON – New details emerged yesterday about allegations that two major energy companies colluded to inflate electricity prices as California's power crisis took hold in 2000. A previously confidential report by federal regulators indicates that employees of Williams Cos. and AES Corp. discussed prolonging the shutdown of one California power plant and provided inconsistent reasons for idling another. The shutdowns forced the state power grid manager to pay premium prices to Williams for electricity from other sources. The plants were shut down for periods in April and May 2000, purportedly for repairs and maintenance. Virginia-based AES owned and operated the Los Angeles-area power plants, known as Alamitos 4 and Huntington Beach 2. Oklahoma-based Williams sold the power. In April 2001, Williams agreed to reimburse the California grid manager $8 million to settle the allegations of price manipulation, but admitted no wrongdoing. AES also has denied any improper behavior. It is unclear whether the new revelations will have any impact on a separate, $1.4 billion settlement Williams recently reached with the state on other issues from the 2000-2001 power crisis. Details of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's investigation of the power plant shutdowns were not previously made public, and a judge ordered them to be released this week. In an April 27, 2000, telephone conversation recounted in the FERC report, a Williams official told an AES employee that California's power grid manager was paying "a premium" for electricity while the Alamitos plant was idled for repairs and "that's one reason it wouldn't hurt Williams' feelings if the outage ran long." When the Williams official had a similar conversation with a high-ranking AES employee later the same day, the AES employee said, "I understand. You don't have to talk any more." The plants had been designated by FERC to provide reliable power to the grid manager, the California Independent System Operator, at a cost far below the market price for electricity then. Because they were shut down, the ISO had to pay about $750 per megawatt hour for the power it needed, compared with the $63 per megawatt hour it would have paid otherwise. Williams and AES are among several companies that have been subpoenaed as part of a wide-ranging federal grand jury probe of alleged price manipulation during the power crisis. Both companies yesterday repeated their assertions that the plant shutdowns were justified and that they had done nothing wrong. The new details about the incident came just four days after Williams and California officials announced a deal that will save the state $1.4 billion in power costs. In return, the state agreed to drop civil litigation against Williams. Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the office was aware of the details of the FERC report before the deal was announced. A federal judge had ordered FERC to release it to the state in October. "I think people need to look at the comparative settlements reached by FERC and the state of California. We did pretty well by comparison. We continue to think, all things considered, that this is a good deal for California," he said. Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said: "We were aware of charges of manipulation. We attempted to get more information from FERC, but it was not provided. "This is a serious allegation," Maviglio added. "In the settlement negotiated by the attorney general, the governor's office, and the PUC (California Public Utilities Commission), we retained our rights to pursue criminal and fraud allegations. We certainly will review this information carefully." Doug Heller, senior advocate for the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said the latest revelation requires the state to cancel its recently renegotiated contract and settlement with Williams. "If a state contractor was scamming the state you wouldn't renegotiate their contract, you'd arrest them." said Heller. "The same standard should apply to these corporations which stole billions of dollars from California ratepayers." Williams released a statement saying it provided the FERC report to the state more than a year ago. "The company's settlement with California . . . does not provide an opportunity for termination based on the events described in the document," the company said. The state has until Dec. 15 to void the deal with Williams if it finds evidence of wrongdoing. FERC publicly questioned the plant shutdowns in March 2001, after a complaint by the California Independent System Operator. The commission staff's confidential report on the shutdown of the Alamitos unit cites phone conversations between Williams' outage coordinator, Rhonda Morgan, and AES plant personnel that were routinely recorded by Williams. In a conversation with AES employee Eric Pendergraft, Morgan at one point says, "I don't wanna do something underhanded, but if there's work you can continue to do. . . . " Pendergraft said he understood and added, "We probably oughta have things we'd like to do in preparation for summer, so . . . that might work out." In an interview, Williams spokeswoman Julie Gentz said, "The bottom line is the conversation was inappropriate and didn't result in any improper actions." WASHINGTON – New details emerged yesterday about allegations that two major energy companies colluded to inflate electricity prices as California's power crisis took hold in 2000. A previously confidential report by federal regulators indicates that employees of Williams Cos. and AES Corp. discussed prolonging the shutdown of one California power plant and provided inconsistent reasons for idling another. The shutdowns forced the state power grid manager to pay premium prices to Williams for electricity from other sources. The plants were shut down for periods in April and May of 2000, purportedly for repairs and maintenance. Virginia-based AES owned and operated the Los Angeles-area power plants, known as Alamitos 4 and Huntington Beach 2. Oklahoma-based Williams sold the power. In April 2001, Williams agreed to reimburse the California grid manager $8 million to settle the allegations of price manipulation, but admitted no wrongdoing. AES also has denied any improper behavior. It is unclear whether the new revelations will have any impact on a separate $1.4 billion settlement Williams recently reached with the state on other issues from the 2000-2001 power crisis. Details of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's investigation of the power plant shut downs were not previously made public, and a judge ordered them to be released this week. In an April 27, 2000, telephone conversation recounted in the FERC report, a Williams official told an AES employee that California's power grid manager was paying "a premium" for electricity while the Alamitos plant was idled for repairs and "that's one reason it wouldn't hurt Williams' feelings if the outage ran long." When the Williams official had a similar conversation with a high-ranking AES employee later the same day, the AES employee said, "I understand. You don't have to talk any more." The plants had been designated by FERC to provide reliable power to the grid manager, the California Independent System Operator, at a cost far below the market price for electricity then. Because they were shut down, the ISO had to pay about $750 per megawatt hour for the power it needed, compared to the $63 per megawatt hour it would have paid otherwise. Williams and AES are among several companies that have been subpoenaed as part of a wide-ranging federal grand jury probe of alleged price manipulation during the power crisis. Both companies yesterday repeated their assertions that the plant shutdowns were justified and that they had done nothing wrong. The new details about the incident came just four days after Williams and California officials announced a deal that will save the state $1.4 billion in power costs. In return, the state agreed to drop civil litigation against Williams. Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the office was aware of the details of the FERC report before the deal was announced. A federal judge had ordered FERC to release it to the state in October. "I think people need to look at the comparative settlements reached by FERC and the state of California. We did pretty well by comparison. We continue to think, all things considered, that this is a good deal for California," he said. But Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said, "We were aware of charges of manipulation. We attempted to get more information from FERC, but it was not provided. "This is a serious allegation. In the settlement negotiated by the Attorney General, the governor's office, and the PUC (California Public Utilities Commission), we retained our rights to pursue criminal and fraud allegations. We certainly will review this information carefully," Maviglio added. Doug Heller, senior advocate for the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said the latest revelation requires the state to cancel its recently renegotiated contract and settlement with Williams. "If a state contractor was scamming the state you wouldn't renegotiate their contract, you'd arrest them." said Heller. "The same standard should apply to these corporations which stole billions of dollars from California ratepayers." Williams released a statement saying it provided the FERC report to the state more than a year ago. "The company's settlement with California . . . does not provide an opportunity for termination based on the events described in the document," the company said. The state has until Dec. 15 to void the deal with Williams if it finds evidence of wrongdoing. FERC publicly questioned the plant shutdowns in March 2001, after a complaint by the California Independent System Operator. The commission staff's confidential report on the shutdown of the Alamitos unit cites phone conversations between Williams' outage coordinator, Rhonda Morgan, and AES plant personnel that were routinely recorded by Williams. In a conversation with AES employee Eric Pendergraft, Morgan at one point says, "I don't wanna do something underhanded, but if there's work you can continue to do. . . . " Pendergraft said he understood and added, "We probably oughta have things we'd like to do in preparation for summer, so . . . that might work out." In an interview, Williams spokeswoman Julie Gentz said, "The bottom line is the conversation was inappropriate and didn't result in any improper actions."
California absolutely has nobody but their government to blame for the energy crisis they created. The fact that these courts found the traders guilty holds about as much weight in my opinion as judge Ito finding Orenthal "not guilty". If the state puts regulations in place, and your job as a trader is to make as much money possible for your company, if I'm the trader I take advantage of every hole I can find. That's what they did. This whole court mess is just a cover your a$$ move by politicians to keep from them having to shoulder the blame that is rightfully theirs. Why didn't the other deregulating states have the same problems California did? hmm.....
bama, I know very well that you don't usually reply in a rational manner to many political topics, but I want to reply plainly, just in case you're reading my posts in their entirity. (1) That's what I said. People will have different opinions, including your opinion. But if the people in power (pun not intended) don't let anyone know what went on in those important meetings, all opinions are valid, and speculation is both natural and warranted from citizens who care about energy policy. (2) I'm not one of those blame Bush/Cheney people. In particular, I believe Bush to be very well-intentioned. Cheney is more mysterious to me, and that's *his* choice. If you'll read my last post, I don't ever say that I blame Cheney for anything regarding California's situation. I just said I can see why some people speculate about it. In the end, illegal gouging took place, but Cheney has no direct substantive link to that. (3) The courts disagree with you categorically, and they have blamed certain corporations. That's just a fact. Again, I'll reiterate that California's pseudo-deregulation was incredibly stupid, and if they had not tried it, they would not have encountered the mess. The extent of the mess, however, cannot be *exclusively* blamed on the California government; I think that's obvious to the courts and to most rational people.
Exactly the "hmmm" that a lot of people are asking. Your answer: because the evil pinko hippy tree-hugging California government is dumb as rocks. The courts' answer: we don't know, but it was ****ed up and anomalous. My answer: the truth is never as simple as either party line would have you believe. The articles posted by rimrocker were especially interesting when they first emerged, and they're still interesting. I don't buy the big conspiracy picture in its entirity because I don't believe humans are competant enough to pull of these sorts of plans. At the same time, I'm not so blinded or so leashed to one party that I dismiss the findings of the judicial branch.
Rimrocker, while I appreciate your well-intentioned attempt to bomb out yet another thread with your long pasted-in article (was it really necessary to post it twice, though...), I find it to be in direct conflict with the argument you are supporting. Two plants being shut down for maintenance should not have such a huge impact on the power price. If there had been an ample supply of power to begin with in California (ie new plant construction), the entire system would not be so dependent on two plants. Heaven forbid they build new coal plants in California. Coal plants can produce power for under $20/MWh, in case you were wondering. That's quite a bit cheaper than the $750 they had to spend to get the peakers fired up. California can't have it both ways. If you're going to demand such a large amount of power, you better build plants, don't go complaining and taking people to court when you find the price to be high due to the lack of supply. These two companies still maintain this innocence, and frankly I can completely invision a scenario where they would be correct. The fact that they discussed prolonging the idling is commonplace, as there are other factors to consider as to the effects on the power grid's voltage levels and other technical concerns. The other plants need to be aware of who is online and who is not.
The two plants were two that had "smoking gun" recordings. For others, it was tough to lay blame. The analogy of an employee that calls in sick all the time has been made... it's difficult to absolutely prove he's malingering unless you catch him at the baseball game. Same with the plants... over 25 % of the plants were shut down during the height of the crisis. It doesn't take a mind reader to figure out that some of the rationale for those shut downs was to drive the prices higher. The capacity was ample for the demand if the plants were operational at a reasonably expected number. B-bob is right in that the deregulation was handled shabbily and the system was then ripe for the plunder, but to lay it all on the state government is ridiculous as even a begrudging FERC has shown. Here's a more detailed (and reasonable balanced) article from Forbes... __________ In California Energy Crisis, Some Dogs Still Bark Dan Ackman, 03.27.03, 9:28 AM ET NEW YORK - California Governor Gray Davis has oft-vowed to fight the energy companies that plundered his state "until the last dog dies." Yesterday a dog died, but it was hardly the last dog as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its latest ruling that dozens of companies will likely owe $3.3 billion in refunds due to massive "gaming" of the state's energy markets. For Gov. Davis and the state, blaming the companies--Enron (otc: ENRNQ - news - people ) prominent among them--was worthy of praise. But FERC also soiled the proverbial carpet by blaming the state in part for the crisis that led to economic calamity and rolling blackouts in areas served by its main power supplier. The FERC staff "concluded that an underlying supply-demand imbalance and flawed market design combined to make a fertile environment for market manipulation," according to a statement summarizing the report. The report itself is massive, as FERC reports often are, and is based on a 13-month investigation in which the staff collected "more than two terabytes of material, the equivalent of 1.5 million floppy diskettes or 3,341 compact diskettes." Those materials are on the FERC Web site, though this reporter has not quite finished reading them. Advocates for the state have already digested and have vowed to unleash dogs of litigation. "It took two years for FERC to confirm what we knew all along: there was widespread market manipulation and a massive rip-off of California ratepayers," Davis said. "Talk is cheap. Until California gets its money back, the FERC hasn't done its job. They still have an opportunity to do. If not, we'll see them in court." California has said it believes it is owed $9 billion, and many companies still defend their actions, so a court fight is all but certain. Still the FERC ruling yesterday was an improvement on a ruling by an individual FERC administrative law judge that put the rebate figure at $1.8 billion. The $3.3 billion number is enough to offset the full $3 billion that the FERC judge said the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange still owed their suppliers, but not nearly enough to satisfy Davis, who has said he wants roughly three times as much. California also has lost for the time being another key issue as FERC signaled it was unlikely to overturn any of the more than $40 billion in long-term power contracts that California and other Western states signed at the height of the 2000-2001 crisis. Those high-cost contracts were seen as a way of assuring the state's power supply at reasonable rates, but after the crisis, when prices fell, they appeared much too costly. The state has argued that the rampant price manipulation colored the negotiations so those deals should be canceled. The FERC yesterday concluded that the administrative law judge should have used lower "[natural] gas price proxy values" in calculating the refund. Using revises figures, led to a higher refund. The precise refund figure is yet to be calculated. While FERC said it was planning new enforcement actions against units of Reliant Resources (nyse: RRI - news - people ), BP (nyse: BP - news - people ) and Enron, these companies have been ordered to show why their ability to trade electricity at market rates should not be revoked. FERC cited "numerous" manipulations by Enron and "apparent manipulation" of electricity prices at the Palo Verde hub in Arizona by Reliant and BP. Companies the FERC accuses of gaming include Sempra Energy (nyse: SRE - news - people ), Canadian provincial utility BC Hydro, Avista (nyse: AVA - news - people ), American Electric Power (nyse: AEP - news - people ), Duke Energy (nyse: DUK - news - people ), Mirant (nyse: MIR - news - people ), Dynegy (nyse: DYN - news - people ), Calpine (nyse: CPN - news - people ), Reliant, Williams Cos. (nyse: WMB - news - people ) and Constellation Energy Group (nyse: CEG - news - people ). Those companies should have to prove disgorge profits from withholding power between May 2000 and October 2000, unless they can show they did nothing wrong, FERC staff recommended. It is not clear what, if anything, each of these companies might be ordered to contribute to a final reckoning. But California at least has put more meat on the bones of its charges, once widely derided, that illegal profiteering contributed to energy price spikes in the state. But the commission also emphasized that the state's own method of energy deregulation set the stage for the traders' abuse. That system allowed wholesalers to charge whatever the market would bear but capped the amount retail consumers could be billed. The deregulation plan also forced utilities to sell their power plants to out-of-state companies. This plan left the utilities vulnerable to extremely high prices in times of relative scarcity. FERC Chairman Pat Wood III said yesterday in a statement, "It is time to bring this crisis to a close." But with Davis vowing court action and with dozens of proceedings against companies now on the table, that seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Somewhere in the Golden State, another dog barks. (And apologies for the double paste.)
I agree. Gov. Wilson's deregulation plan that he signed into law was a complete disgrace. Thank god he was recalled..oh, wait....well thank god that at least he's not involved in government anymore at least....oh, wait, he managed Arnie's campaign and is one of his key advisors....ummm Hey...look! up in that tree over there! It's an Accountability Bird! Oh, wait, sorry, that's just a dirty sock...what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, Terminate that Car Tax!!! Woohoo!
