Datasets:

Dipe00

/

Urgency-tone-topic-on-enron_labeled_emails_with_subjects-llama2-7b_finetuning

like 0

RE: NERC Statements on Impact of Security Threats on RTOs

I agree with Joe. The IOUs will point to NERC as an objective third party on these issues.

energy infrastructure

formal

RE: NERC Meeting Today

There was an all day meeting of the NERC/reliability legislation group today. I will provide a more detailed report but the group completed the process of reviewing the changes that some had suggested to shorten and streamline the NERC electric reliability organization legislation. Sarah and I asked a series of questions and made comments on our key issues and concerns. I want to give you a more complete report once I have gone back over the now final draft version. The timing being imposed by NERC is that they will circulate a clean version of the proposal tomorrow or Monday. They have asked for comments by next Thursday August 16th with an indication of whether each company/organization does or does not sign on to support it. They will then transmit the proposal and the endorsement letter to Congress and the Administration so they have it as Hill and Energy Dept. staff work on electricity drafting issues this month. I pointed out that EPSA is not due to meet internally with its members to discuss these issues until after the NERC deadline. That is not deterring NERC from moving forward with the above time frame.

energy infrastructure

formal

http://www.stanford.edu/~wolak/

other

neutral

Re: Govt School Alumni

FYI -----------------

government & politics

casual

Re: Data responses in SDG&E -- confidential treatment

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Appropos of Agave's phone message. Steve was in this loop. The discount reports are available to anyone who wants them under the Open Records Act. TK you indicated that Agave thinks the rates were published somewhere by FERC -- I don't know whether that's true but the bottom line is that FERC has the information in its files and could publish it any time at wants we have no control over that. Let me know if you want me to talk with Agave's lawyers. -----------------

legal affairs

formal

CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA

In the meeting today no decision was made about what to do with Enron's 16000 residential customers. Each of the contracts gives a basic 30 day out right to Enron. That being said I think that we have a short window to push for DA before any public action impacts us in Sacramento. I realize that the ultimate action (which I think is inevitable) makes it harder for our advocacy on DA but real $ are flowing out of the company. EES will give us notice when a decision is reached. Thanks Jim

other

formal

Thursday Meeting on Winter Gas Prices

calendar -----------------

calendar & scheduling

casual

Re: Privileged and Confidential communication to my attorneys

Felicia This is a merchant asset which we currently own 100% but plan to sell down in the coming months. It absolutely has separate HR functions from Enron -- they do not participate in Enron benefits and we are working hard to prevent any claims that we could be a joint employer with it. Thoughts? Michelle Enron North America Corp. From: Felecia Acevedo @ ENRON 11/02/2000 08:56 AM To: Michelle Cash/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Re: Privileged and Confidential communication to my attorneys Michelle who is GSP? Are they a legal entity? Are they on our payroll? If they are we filed EEO-1's for them. Below is the criteria to file an EEO-1 report: Standard Form 100 must be filed by - A. All private employers who are: (1) subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) with 100 or more employees EXCLUDING State and local governments primary and secondary school systems institutions of higher education Indian tribes and tax-exempt private membership clubs other than labor organizations OR (2) subject to Title VII who have fewer than 100 employees if the company is owned or affiliated with another company or there is centralized ownership control or management (such as central control of personnel policies and labor relations) so that the group legally constitutes a single enterprise and the entire enterprise employs a total of 100 or more employees. B. All federal contractors (private employers) who: (1) are not exempt as provided for by 41 CFR 60-1.5 (2) have 50 or more employees and (a) are prime contractors or first-tier subcontractors and have a contract subcontract or purchase order amounting to $50000 or more or (b) serve as a depository of Government funds in any amount or (c) is a financial institution which is an issuing and paying agent for U.S. Savings Bonds and Notes. All multi-establishment employers i.e. employers doing business at more than one establishment must file: (1) a report covering the principal or headquarters office (2) a separate report for each establishment employing 50 or more persons (3) a consolidated report that MUST include ALL employees by race sex and job category in establishments with 50 or more employees as well as establishments with fewer than 50 employees and (4) a list showing the name address total employment and major activity for each establishment employ-ing fewer than 50 persons must accompany the consolidated report. All forms for a multi-establishment company must be collected by the headquarters office for its establishments or by the parent corporation for its subsidiary holdings and submitted in one package. For the purposes of this report the term parent corporation refers to any corporation which owns all or the majority stock of another corporation so that the latter stands in the relation to it of a subsidiary. The OFCCP has always held that subsidiary companies that do not have direct govt contracts must comply with AAP regulations if the parent company or other subsidiary companies benefit from government contracts. Their line of thought is that the subsidiary without government contracts benefits indirectly from the contract as well. If GSP is completely free standing and they do not participate in Enron's benefits abide by our policies or procedures participate in our bonus process that may partially or wholly be funded by Enron Corp. etc. they may have some type of argement not to comply but I doubt it. If we own them over 51% I don't see a way they could not file EEO-1's and have an AAP. We do all the AAP's in Corporate so if this is a freestanding Business Unit I need to know. Thanks! Felecia Michelle Cash@ECT 11/01/2000 07:49 PM To: Felecia Acevedo/Corp/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Privileged and Confidential communication to my attorneys Felicia Does this sound right to you? Just wanted to confirm. Thanks. Michelle -----------------

employment

formal

Rice Letter

Anita Very minor changes. Thanks. Vince

other

casual

Enron Wind Policy Meeting

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

other

formal

RE: Enron Support of a Standards Setting Organization

I have reviewed the SSO principles -- look good to me. Thanks for sending them to look at.

other

formal

RE: Dinner next week with Piotr

Czwartek mi odpowiada. Zadzwonie do Ciebie do pracy we wtorek. Wicek

personal & social

casual

Senate passes Alper/Davis Bill 30-0

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

government & politics

excited

Re: Mtg w/Bob Gee

I think this is a great initiative but it is critically important that any announcement of the panel makes it crystal clear that the objective of the group is to come up with standards to facilitiate competition. We will do nothing but waste time if it becomes a negotiation over competition. the best and politically easiest time to make that objective clear is in the original announcement not after the group gets underway. Can we get in touch with DOE to make sure they pick this up? Cynthia Sandherr@ENRON 07/18/2000 05:03 PM To: Jeff Brown/HOU/EES@EES cc: Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron@Enron Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES Subject: Re: Mtg w/Bob Gee Jeff: I have followed up with other DOE politicals who advised they will meet this Thursday with Bob Gee to finalize and approve his speech to NARUC on Monday July 24th. It is looking positive that he may be positioned to make the announcement Monday. However DOE will likely need to revisit some folks on the current Blue Ribbon Reliability Panel in order to replace some of the utility transmission-only focused members with others who focus on business practices plus add additional people to represent the internet like APX Altra and HoustonStreet.Com. (these are Steve Kean's suggestions.) Too I have been cautioned about referring to the Blue Ribbon Reliability Panel as a model since their timeline was slow but rather suggest the TVA Blue Ribbon Panel model since they were able to issue a report after only four meetings. I have asked for this issue to be brought to Secretary Richardson's attention and advised this will be done this week. I have also discussed this with John Anderson of ELCON who is supportive. Jeff Brown@EES 07/18/2000 12:45 PM To: Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron@Enron Shelley Corman/ET&S/Enron@ENRON Joe Hartsoe/Corp/Enron@ENRON Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES James D Steffes/HOU/EES@EES cc: Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON Janine Migden/DUB/EES@EES Jeff Dasovich/SFO/EES@EES Subject: Mtg w/Bob Gee Cynthia and I met with Bob Gee regarding a potential role for DOE in creating a national standards board. Bob appeared comfortable with establishing a Blue Ribbon panel similar to the reliability panel to address this issue. In fact Bob suggested that the reliability panel which includes a balance of key stakeholders could be re-tasked with this issue. We recommended that the focus of any panel should be on the structure (governance segments executive committees) and scope of the organization (retail wholesale gas electric). Bob plans to follow-up with us next week. Jeff

other

formal

Shift May Empower California.htm

Thanks for taking time to call yesterday. Good luck with the Lockyer situ= ation. I truly do believe that direct and prompt interaction with Lockyer= will prove more effective for Enron than delayed or intermediated action.= As we discussed if I can be of any help with reconnaissance or as sou= nding board just let me know. =20 I have attached an article from this morning's LA Times. It provides an C= alifornia view on how the shakeup in the Senate might impact the state's e= nergy situation. Certainly by the time that President Bush visits the C= alifornia in a few days the state's two Democratic US Senators will be a = good bit more empowered. =20 Kevin 213-926-2626 =20 [IMAGE] [IMAGE][IMAGE] =09Click here to learn more! [IMAGE]=09 [IMAGE] =09Home | Discussions | Print Edition | Archives | Site Map = | Home Delivery | Advertise | Feedback | Help [IMAGE]=09 =09[IMAGE]=09 [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] News Politics Entertainment music = movies art TV restaurants [IMAGE] Business Travel Marketplace jo= bs homes cars rentals classifieds [IMAGE] Sports Commentary Shop= ping [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] A Section= [IMAGE] [IMAGE] TOP STORIES * State's Standardized Test Spurs Scatte= red Backlash * GOP Braces for Jeffords to Bolt Today * Moderates on = Outside of GOP Big Tent MORE [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] STORIES BY DA= TE FOR THIS SECTION 5/24 | 5/23 | 5/22 | 5/21 | 5/20 | 5/19 | 5/18 = [IMAGE] DAILY SECTIONS Front Page A Section California [= IMAGE] Business Sports Calendar [IMAGE] So. Cal. Living EditorialsLett= ers Op/Ed WEEKLY SECTIONS Health Food [IMAGE] Tech Times [IMAG= E] Highway 1 SUNDAY SECTIONS Book Review Opinion Real Estate [IMA= GE] Calendar Magazine Travel [IMAGE] TV Times Work Place [IMAGE] [= IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Marketplace Find a home car = rental job pet merchandise boat plane or RV classifieds Pl= ace an Ad [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] L.A. Times = Subscription Services Subscribe Change of Address Vacation Stops = Suspend Delivery College Discount Gift Subscriptions Mail Subscriptio= ns FAQ [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Print Ads = from the Newspaper See this week's ads [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Pri= nt Edition Orange County Valley Ventura County National Communi= ty Papers [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Books Columnists Cross= word Education Food Health Highway Horoscope Lottery Magazine = Obituaries Reading by Real Estate Religion Science So.Cal. Living = Special Reports Sunday Opinion Tech Times Times Poll Traffic Weath= er Workplace SITE MAP [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] SHOP 'TIL YOUR = LAPTOP DROPS [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Shopping [IMAGE= ] Search Products Stores [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] = [IMAGE] [IMAGE] =09[IMAGE]=09[IMAGE] Thursday May 24 2001 | [IMAGE]Print= this story [IMAGE] [IMAGE] Shift May Empower California By RICHARD SI= MON ELIZABETH SHOGREN Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON--James M. J= effords has never mattered much to Californians. Until now. The Verm= ont senator's widely anticipated decision to abandon his fellow Republican= s and put Democrats in control of the Senate could have big implications f= or California particularly on energy and environmental policy lawmakers = and lobbyists said Wednesday. The change which Jeffords is expected= to announce today could increase political pressure on the Bush adminis= tration to respond more aggressively to California's electricity crisis t= hese insiders said. And it might force the White House to compromise= on key elements of the national energy policy it unveiled last week. In f= act the administration's proposed budget cuts for programs to promote ren= ewable energy were said to be a factor in Jeffords' decision. At th= e very least Senate observers said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is l= ikely to get the floor vote she has sought on price controls for wholesale= electricity. That doesn't necessarily mean that the administration'= s critics will be able to have everything their way. Even if the Senate ap= proves electricity price caps for example the measure would face stiff o= pposition in the GOP-dominated House--and a likely veto if it made it to t= he president's desk. Still a Democratic majority in the Senate wou= ld give Feinstein and other party members a platform to turn up the politi= cal heat on the administration and congressional Republicans on energy pol= icy. It kicks up the dust groaned one energy industry lobbyist wh= o requested anonymity. Observed Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.): If P= resident Bush's hard-edged conservative approach has in fact caused the ba= lance to shift towards Democrats in the Senate it will have profound impl= ications not just for California but for the environment and our nation's= energy policy. Environmentalists seemed almost giddy as they cont= emplated the possible impact of Jeffords' decision on the policies they ca= re about. All of a sudden they said it seems less likely that oil = exploration will take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that r= ecreational snowmobiles will have free access to Yellowstone National Park= or that the administration's desire to promote nuclear power will be emb= raced by Congress. On the other hand it seems more probable that C= ongress would approve a new plan for managing a vast swath of the Sierra N= evada to protect the region's oldest trees consider legislation to restri= ct emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants and protect California fr= om a resurgence of offshore oil drilling. It's stunning how broad t= he repercussions are particularly on the environment said Gregory Wetst= one of the Natural Resources Defense Council. We're trying not to count o= ur chickens before they hatch. But it will be easier for us in our battles= at least to keep from moving backwards. For instance Jeffords is= a chief advocate of a bill that would regulate carbon dioxide from power = plants. And if events play out as expected he'll become the new chairman = of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the issue. Another i= ssue under his purview would be the two-decade dispute over a proposed rep= ository for the nation's spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. = Yucca Mountain is a dead turkey declared Michael Francis of the W= ilderness Society. Environmentalists had been worried that a number= of pro-development provisions would be packed into appropriation bills. B= ut with Democratic senators in charge that would become less of a threat= they said. Every wacko idea Republicans have will get a higher lev= el of scrutiny Francis said. The biggest change would be the power= of Senate Democrats to decide which bills will be considered in committee= s and which ones will make it to the floor of the Senate for votes. = As part of a new Democratic majority Feinstein and fellow California De= mocrat Barbara Boxer are likely to gain leverage with the administration o= n a number of issues considered important to the state. That transl= ates into more federal assistance for California across the board predic= ted Steve Maviglio spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis. I think it mean= s more attention to our state for sure Boxer said. Right now the pres= ident doesn't seem to give a darn. They're all looking at California as a = Democratic state. They're not interested. Feinstein who has been = unable to arrange a meeting with Bush to discuss the energy crisis may ge= t better treatment if winning Democratic support becomes more important to= the administration. She has been regarded as a bridge-builder who worked = effectively with Republicans in the past. This has not been a warm = and friendly administration she complained Wednesday. They've got peopl= e who know all the answers and don't want to listen. The White Hou= se disputed that. In fact Bush agreed Wednesday to meet with Davis during= the president's first visit to California next week. Under a Democ= ratic majority Feinstein would be in line to chair two subcommittees: the= military construction panel of the Senate Appropriations Committee and t= he technology terrorism and government information subcommittee of the Se= nate Judiciary Committee. Boxer would be in line to chair the subco= mmittee on Superfund waste control and risk assessment and the Foreign R= elations subcommittee on international operations and terrorism. Mav= iglio predicted that the effects of Jeffords' expected party defection wou= ld be felt immediately. The chairmanship of the Senate Energy and N= atural Resources Committee would be taken away from Frank H. Murkowski (R-= Alaska) who has been openly hostile to California's plight and handed = to Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) who supports Davis' request for electricity pri= ce controls according to Maviglio. Democrats have assailed Bush's e= nergy plan for tilting heavily toward the supply side. With Democrats in c= harge of the Senate the administration would be more likely to compromise= perhaps beefing up funding for Democrat-supported causes such as increas= ed energy assistance to low-income households and more aggressive promotio= n of conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar powe= r. Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories ab= out: United States - Politics Republican Party James M Jeffords P= olitical Party Defections California - Politics Senate (U.s.) . You = will not be charged to look for stories only to retrieve one. =09 News Politics Entertainment music movies art TV restaurants = [IMAGE] Business Travel Marketplace jobs homes cars rentals cla= ssifieds [IMAGE] Sports Commentary Shopping [IMAGE] =09[IMAGE]=09 G= et Copyright Clearance Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times Click for permi= ssion to reprint (PRC# 1.528.2001_000043610) =09 [IMAGE] =09

government & politics

formal

Presentation to faculty and students at Berkeley

Maureen -- please send Vince my California testimony and the talking point presentation for Jeff Skilling at the National Press Club. Eliz-- keep Vince on the distribution list for the documents we are generating now to repond to the California situation.

other

formal

RE: Confidential Contact data and RFI

Any nuclear specific info? Kevin Presto UBS Warburg Energy kevin.presto@ubswenergy.com Phone: 713-853-5035 Fax: 713-646-8272

other

formal

Minutes from last Thurs CAISO Board Meeting (Sorry for the delay)

CAISO BOG 10/25/01 Notes taken by G. Alan Comnes Meeting went from about 10:30 to 1 p.m. Written materials discussed at this meeting are available at www.caiso.com/bog. 1. Budget. Board approved budget which contains a significant increase in GMCs and for the first time applies GMC fees on the self provision of A/S. The motion to adopt was modified to say the Board would revisit budget if in response to Gov. Davis requests to par budgets the CAISO budget is cut. 2. Retirement plan Audit 3. Allocation of Above-MCP 487 charges. This mechanism will improve the allocation of OOM costs so that the per-MWh charges match up with actual OOM costs. Stated that penalty revenues used to lower OOM costs could come from imbalance penalties. Action. approved (?) to allow staff to make a tariff amendment on this change. 4. Winter Assessment. Presentation by staff Kahn took issue (i.e. did not even want staff report presented) that CAISO does an assessment without consulting the Power Authority CPUC and the CEC. Worried about conflicting with the other resource assessments out there and giving media ways to take shots at DWR buying practices. In the end the full presentation was not given but questions were asked about whether the assessment spells trouble or provides assurance. The answer: things are tight in some months but are expected to be ok given the level of conservative assumptions used in the analysis. Action: staff was tasked to compare this assessment with CEC's and others and come back in another month. 5. Generator maintenance program. Will use GADS data. This program is mandatory for PGA generator units. CAISO staffer represented that no other ISO has a prescriptive program like the one CAISO is proposing. Current schedule: brief FERC staff next week return to Board in November for approval make FERC filing implement in early '02. Benchmarks are based on each unit's historical performance i.e. dogs will be benchmarked against their past doggy behavior. There is no component to raise the bar on performance but a unit that falls relative to past performance would trigger further review. 6. MSC Selection Committee. MSC provides independent review of the CAISO markets for CAISO the state and FERC. Wolak is the only member left at the moment. Selection committee will be Sheffrin Wolak and Borenstein. Candidates will go to Exec. Director and the final candidates to the Board in February 2002 (!). Kahn questioned how the MSC can survive with only one member and take until February 02 to select a final members. Nonetheless the glacially paced schedule was adopted. 7. FERC RTO Seams Issues. Steve Greenleaf presented. Updated BOG on RTO week and said that the 4 RTO model took a step backward (off the table in the words of Chair Wood) in response to criticism from state PUCs on Thursday. (Is this an accurate recounting of Day 4?). ISO is engaged in interregional coordination. Mentioned CSIC group Mentions SSGWY's (?)sponsorship of a market monitoring workshop on November 16. 8. Update of CERS Settlement BEEP/AS Payment Procedure. Edison and PG&E are making progress but no agreement with CERS have been reached. SDG&E signed and the procedure was implemented at least in part with SDG&E. 9. Monthly reports: financial. 10. Monthly reports: DMA. Sheffrin. Mostly followed the briefing charts. Emphasized the following: CERS OOM purchases are generally down and are reasonably priced once purchases and sales are disaggregated. Said that suppliers are still bidding above costs. DMA files confidential reports that include info on bidding data weekly to FERC. Bids are not coming down. Intrazonal congestion is up due to new generation coming on line. That allows generators to play the dec game.

energy infrastructure

formal

Energy Issues

Please see the following articles: Bay City News Wed 3/21: Blackouts Not Expected=20 Today Dow Jones Newswire Wed 3/21: Calif State Controller:General Fund Surplus = Dn=20 To $3.2B CBS.MarketWatch.com Wed 3/21: Davis says regulators will act to pay QFs Electricity providers insist they need to be paid Long Beach Press Wed 3/21: Rash power bill may need fix SF Chron Wed 3/21: PUC considers rewarding producers that sign long-term= =20 contracts Sac Bee Thurs 3/22: State claims $5.5 billion overcharge: Refunds by=20 wholesale generators sought Sac Bee Thurs 3/22: Power solution eludes Davis: Lawmakers grow edgy as= =20 crisis drags on Sac Bee Thurs. 3/22: Legislators learn some details of power contracts= San Diego Union Thurs 3/22: Federal judge orders major power wholesaler= =20 to sell to California San Diego Union Thurs. 3/22: Controller: State's power spending imperil= s=20 its financial health San Diego Union Wed 3/21: Governor says utilities must pay in advance f= or=20 some power LA Times Thurs 3/22: Energy Overcharge of $5.5 Billion Is Alleged LA Times Thurs 3/22: Power Strain Eases but Concerns Mount LA Times Thurs 3/22: Graphics: Overcharges Alleged=20 San Fran Chron Thurs 3/22: Net Complex A Dilemma For San Jose=20 SERVER FARM: Plant would tax grid San Fran Chron Thurs 3/22: Contracts Won't Meet Summer Demands=20 DETAILS: 2004 before full impact felt Mercury News Thurs 3/22: California overcharged $5.5 bln for wholesale= =20 power Orange Cty Register Thurs 3/22: Commentary: If the Power Goes Off =20 Orange Cty Register Thurs 3/22: Commentary: Socialized Electricity San Fran Chron Thurs 3/22: Bush's Energy Policy Will Backfire=20 Feinstein Warns / She wants federal price controls now Dow Jones Newswires Thurs 3/22: Reliant Still In Power Pact Talks With= =20 Calif. DWR Dow Jones Newswires Thurs 3/22: CPUC Must Address Rates In QF Repayment= =20 Order - SoCal Ed Dow Jones Newswires Thurs 3/22: Calif Small Pwr Producers To Shut Plant= s=20 If Rates Capped --- --- Blackouts Not Expected=20 Today Bay City News=20 Following two consecutive days of rolling blackouts California's power=20 picture looks much brighter today but conservation is still needed.=20 The California Independent System Operator is urging consumers to continue= =20 conservation measures during today's Stage One Electrical Emergency.=20 The conservation efforts of Californians particularly Tuesday evening we= re=20 significant and helped to reduce the duration and impact of yesterday's=20 blackouts'' according to officials. The California ISO asks customers to= =20 continue their voluntary reductions during this time of tight supply.=20 More than 11500 megawatts of in-state generation remain unavailable with= =20 power plants completing repairs and needed maintenance. However several=20 generating units returned to service today and the level of imported power= =20 has increased boosting the supply.=20 The ISO is cautiously optimistic that customer outages will be avoided=20 today'' according to officials.=20 Today's Stage One alert is in effect through midnight tonight.=20 Stage One Emergencies are declared when power reserves fall below 7 percent= .=20 Stage Two kicks in when reserves fall below 5 percent. Stage Three is=20 initiated when reserves drop to below 1.5 percent. --- Calif State Controller:General Fund Surplus Dn To $3.2B 03/21/2001 Dow Jones Energy Service (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.) LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- California State Controller Kathleen Connell=20 Wednesday said the state's general fund surplus has dropped to $3.2 billion= =20 from $8.5 billion in January mostly because of electricity purchases made = by=20 the state's Department of Water Resources a press release said.=20 Connell also denied Gov. Gray Davis' request to transfer an additional $5.6= =20 billion from the general fund to the Special Fund for Economic Uncertaintie= s=20 the release said. Connell noted that given the rapid depletion of the general fund on power= =20 purchases the state would need to borrow $2.4 billion in order to tranfer= =20 the $5.6 billion from the general fund to the special fund.=20 We started this year with a generous budget surplus. The energy crisis has= =20 taken much of that away and this transfer on top of the electricity=20 purchases would put the fund at risk Connell said.=20 Connell called on Davis to ensure that the CDWR completes by the end of May= =20 2001 the revenue bond sales that will be used to buy power and repay the=20 general fund.=20 She also asked that the CDWR notify her of all power purchases made and=20 contracts negotiated thus far and requested that she be told within 7 days = of=20 any purchases and contracts negotiated in the future.=20 Connell also said she wanted to be told within 24 hours of any power buys= =20 that exceed $55 million and asked that the Department of Finance be directe= d=20 to prepare new general fund cash flow estimates for the next 30 and 60 days= =20 and for the end of the fiscal year.=20 The state's Department of Water Resources has been buying power since Janua= ry=20 in lieu of Edison International (EIX) utility Southern California Edison an= d=20 PG&E Corp (PCG) utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co because suppliers=20 refused to sell to the nearly-bankrupt utilities.=20 -By Jessica Berthold Dow Jones Newswires 323-658-3872=20 Gov. Davis' office said in response to Connell's comments that the state= =20 budget was solid and the economy remained strong.=20 We will be getting the money back we've paid for energy and it should have= =20 no significant effect on the state's finances from the Wall Street=20 perspective said Davis press secretary Steve Maviglio.=20 -By Jessica Berthold Dow Jones Newswires 323-658-3872=20 jessicaberthold@dowjones.com --- -------- Davis says regulators will act to pay QFs Electricity providers insist they need to be paid By Russ Britt CBS.MarketWatch.com=20 Last Update: 9:45 PM ET Mar 20 2001 LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) - California Gov. Gray Davis said regulators will act= =20 Tuesday on a plan to guarantee that independent power generators are paid. Independent power producers provide about 30 percent of California's=20 electricity from a variety of sources including wind solar and other=20 sources. Because many of the companies known as Qualifying Facilities or= =20 QFs haven't been paid they've begun to withhold power contributing to=20 blackouts in the state Monday and Tuesday.=20 We are anxious to pay the QFs because they're falling like flies Davis= =20 said at a news conference late Tuesday. If they don't get paid the lights= =20 will go out. Davis said the state's PUC order will require the state's nearly bankrupt= =20 utilities to enter five-year contracts with the QFs at rates of 7.9 cents p= er=20 kilowatt hour or 10-year contracts for lower rates. The structure is simil= ar=20 to rates Davis claims he was able to negotiate for long-term power contract= s=20 from out-of-state generators. --- Rash power bill may need fix By Will Shuck From our Sacramento Bureau SACRAMENTO Even as lawmakers lament the slow pace of solving California's= =20 energy crisis the cost of haste has cropped up in their first major act a= =20 multibillion dollar measure that put the state in the power-buying business= .=20 AB1X the highly touted bill that put California in the power-buying=20 business may have been so rashly crafted that it will take another piece o= f=20 legislation to fix it an influential senator said Tuesday.=20 At issue is vague wording that makes it unclear when and to what extent=20 Southern California Edison and other utilities have to repay the state for= =20 buying power.=20 State Sen. Debra Bowen chairwoman of the Senate Energy Utilities and=20 Communications Committee said the bill apparently has left room for utilit= y=20 lawyers to argue that their companies needn't repay the state until they ha= ve=20 covered other costs.=20 But Bowen a Redondo Beach Democrat who represents downtown and western Lon= g=20 Beach said the legislative intent is crystal clear that the state wanted= =20 to be repaid directly for supplying about a third of the power utility=20 companies deliver to their customers.=20 We need a cleanup bill to set the matter straight she said.=20 Although AB1X illustrates the flaws that come with speed Bowen said the= =20 Legislature can't afford to delay.=20 I think we are much too slow in our response she said. But that has to = be=20 balanced against things we've done in a tearing hurry and then have had to= =20 fix later.=20 No matter what the Legislature does in the coming weeks she said Californ= ia=20 is in for a tough summer and only determined conservation efforts will put= =20 much of a dent in a precarious supply-demand equation. --- PUC considers rewarding producers that sign long-term contracts=20 Greg Lucas Lynda Gledhill Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Wednesday March 21 2001=20 2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20 Sacramento -- Some cash-strapped producers of wind solar and other=20 alternative forms of energy will get long-delayed financial relief under a= =20 proposed order by state regulators Gov. Gray Davis said yesterday evening.= =20 A proposed order by the Public Utilities Commission is designed to reward= =20 energy producers who sign long-term contracts with utilities at lower rates= .=20 Alternative energy producers that voluntarily enter such contracts which= =20 would start on April 1 would be paid within 15 days said Davis who=20 requested the order. Those that do not would have to wait until the utiliti= es=20 that buy their power return to solvency.=20 Davis blasted Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison for= =20 not paying the alternative generators -- know as qualified facilities or= =20 QFs -- even though the companies have been collecting money through rates= .=20 It is wrong and irresponsible of the utilities to pocket and withhold the= =20 money designed to compensate the QFs Davis said. It's immoral and has to= =20 stop.=20 Alternative producers -- ranging from massive co-generation facilities at o= il=20 refineries to tiny biomass plants -- produce about a third of the state's= =20 supply of electricity. But many are shutting down because utilities have no= t=20 paid them since November.=20 The loss of some 3000 megawatts from tapped-out alternative energy produce= rs=20 contributed to the blackouts that snarled California yesterday and Monday= =20 according to the Independent System Operator which manages the state's pow= er=20 grid.=20 The PUC's proposed order -- which will be considered at the board's Tuesday= =20 meeting -- offers the generators a choice of agreeing to a five-year contra= ct=20 at $79 per megawatt or a 10-year deal at $69 per megawatt Davis said.=20 The order does not address the more than $1 billion already owed to the mor= e=20 than 600 alternative energy producers around the state. Davis said to favor= =20 one creditor over another in past debt could bring on bankruptcy proceeding= s=20 from other creditors.=20 The Legislature would also need to act to make the order work.=20 It is critical to keep these facilities up and online said Sen. Debra=20 Bowen D-Marina del Ray who estimates that Edison has $1.5 billion in cash= =20 on hand and PG&E $2.5 billion. The utilities owe it to the people of the= =20 state to pay them.=20 Edison said yesterday that it opposed any attempt to place alternative=20 producers ahead of their other creditors.=20 But Tom Higgins a senior vice president for Edison International which ow= es=20 alternative producers some $835 million said his company was talking to th= e=20 governor's office about possible payment structures.=20 Alternative energy producers particularly those that use high-priced natur= al=20 gas to fire their generators say that without an immediate infusion of cas= h=20 they must close their plants.=20 We've been obsessed with the health of the utilities and (have) forgotten= =20 the health of everyone else said V. John White legislative director of t= he=20 Clean Power Campaign which lobbies for alternative energy producers.=20 CalEnergy Operating Corp. which operates eight geothermal plants in the=20 Imperial Valley producing 268 megawatt hours for Edison has sued the utilit= y=20 asking to be paid and to be temporarily released from their contract with= =20 Edison which has paid them nothing since November.=20 CalEnergy has a court hearing tomorrow on its Edison contract. Edison owes= =20 the company $75 million and the debt increases by $1 million a day.=20 We've lived up to our end of the bargain but Edison hasn't. We're now not = in=20 a position to make a property tax payment on April 10 and we're the largest= =20 employer in the county said Vince Signorotti CalEnergy's property manage= r.=20 Unlike Edison PG&E is paying its creditors 15 cents on the dollar.=20 We have offered over the past five days to prepay for future power not yet= =20 delivered to keep as many of them operating as possible but the state need= s=20 to decide how its going to divvy up the limited money under the frozen=20 rates said John Nelson a PG&E spokesman.=20 The PUC's sudden attempt to recast the rates paid to alternative generators= =20 comes after several months of inaction partly a result of waiting for=20 legislative negotiations on the issue to conclude. Those negotiations=20 eventually failed to move forward.=20 --- State claims $5.5 billion overcharge: Refunds by wholesale generators sough= t By Dale Kasler Bee Staff Writer (Published March 22 2001)=20 In its boldest attempt yet to extract refunds from wholesale power=20 generators the state's grid operator accused the generators Wednesday of= =20 overcharging Californians by $5.5 billion for electricity since last May.= =20 The state's Independent System Operator which manages the state's=20 transmission grid plans to tell a federal regulatory agency today that pow= er=20 generators consistently took advantage of their stranglehold on the=20 California market to ratchet up prices.=20 The federal agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently=20 threatened to order generators to refund $134.8 million for overcharges=20 mostly covering January and February. But those refunds amounted to just a= =20 fraction of what the grid operator was seeking. The ISO which has been=20 complaining about market abuses for several months says FERC must do more.= =20 We're happy that (FERC) took this first step but we think there's a long= =20 way to go said Anjali Sheffrin the ISO's director of market analysis. A= s=20 far as I'm concerned it's been too little too late. ... The refunds they= =20 have acted on (so far) have been minimal.=20 She said the report covers five major power suppliers and 16 other power=20 importers.=20 FERC Commissioner William L. Massey said it would be improper for him to=20 comment on a report that has not yet been filed. But when told of the $5.5= =20 billion total Massey told the Los Angeles Times: That doesn't shock me in= =20 any way.=20 Prices over the past 10 months in California have greatly exceeded the=20 federal standards of just and reasonable prices and I think they have=20 exceeded the standards by possibly billions of dollars he said.=20 However most FERC critics are skeptical that the federal agency which is = a=20 strong believer in letting free markets run their course would order a=20 refund anywhere near as large as $5.5 billion -- even though it has found= =20 that California prices at times have been unjust and unreasonable.=20 The big power generators saying their charges were reasonable are disputi= ng=20 the $134.8 million refunds proposed so far and have vowed to fight the ISO'= s=20 latest effort.=20 If the ISO were to prevail the $5.5 billion in refunds could go a long way= =20 toward remedying California's energy mess.=20 They could help restore the financial health of Pacific Gas and Electric Co= .=20 and Southern California Edison which have nearly been bankrupted by the=20 prices charged by the power generators. They also could ease the strain on= =20 the state treasury which is spending billions to purchase electricity for= =20 Californians because PG&E and Edison can't.=20 Sheffrin said her department studied sales made by the power generators to= =20 ISO which makes last-minute power purchases to balance supply with demand= =20 and the California Power Exchange the now-bankrupt entity where most of=20 California's wholesale electricity was bought and sold until December.=20 She said the study made very generous allowances for natural gas expenses= =20 costly air-pollution credits and other factors including the scarcity of= =20 electricity. The result was $5.5 billion worth of charges in excess of=20 competitive costs she said.=20 In many cases the companies used their market clout to submit bids that we= re=20 way beyond their costs she said.=20 It was insufficient competition Sheffrin said. They got away with a lot= .=20 She said the refund request isn't just a shot in the dark. FERC she noted= =20 has already found that prices in the California wholesale energy market ha= ve=20 been unreasonable. We took it upon ourselves ... to show FERC how they got = to=20 be so high.=20 FERC proposed refunds totaling $124 million for January and February sales= =20 declaring that generators' prices were too high.=20 In a separate case the federal agency for the first time accused two=20 generators last week of taking plants offline to force prices up.=20 --- Power solution eludes Davis: Lawmakers grow edgy as crisis drags on=20 By Emily Bazar and Amy Chance Bee Capitol Bureau (Published March 22 2001)=20 Gov. Gray Davis likes to compare the state's energy crisis to a complicated= =20 three-cornered billiard shot.=20 But as California plunged into another round of power blackouts this week= =20 Davis has yet to line up the angle on an ultimate solution.=20 The state's short-term power bill is nearing $4.2 billion and legislators= =20 are balking at the administration's requests for additional money.=20 Getting even the least controversial pieces of the puzzle through the=20 Legislature is taking weeks longer than expected.=20 While the Democratic governor has insisted secrecy about details of his pow= er=20 purchases is necessary to protect the state's bargaining position other=20 state officials are complaining vigorously about the lack of information.= =20 And critical deals the governor hoped to reach with energy suppliers and=20 utility companies are proving difficult to close.=20 I think we all got lulled into a little complacency a few weeks ago. All= =20 these things seemed to be going along and the governor was making all thes= e=20 warm and fuzzy comments said Assemblyman John Campbell R-Irvine.=20 But it only takes one deal to go sideways and we're all blacked out he= =20 added. The governor is running around basically saying 'Trust me.' I'm no= t=20 sure he's deserving of the trust at this point.=20 Davis and his aides insist they are working around the clock on plans to=20 boost power generation encourage conservation and reach an agreement with= =20 utilities that will keep them out of bankruptcy.=20 The utility plan they say is the equivalent of a large corporate merger= =20 that simply can't be accomplished overnight. Davis notes that earlier=20 deregulation efforts might have benefitted from a little more time.=20 Although the state has reached a broad agreement in principle with Southe= rn=20 California Edison to obtain its power transmission lines in exchange for he= lp=20 paying off its debts a final detailed deal has not been reached. The=20 initial agreement with Edison was announced Feb. 23.=20 And the governor has yet to achieve a tentative agreement with Pacific Gas= =20 and Electric Co. which is driving a harder bargain over price and other=20 elements of a potential rescue plan.=20 Joseph Fichera one of several consultants receiving more than $11 million= =20 from the administration for advice on the energy crisis said many people= =20 don't realize the complexity of the deal they're brokering.=20 In their bid to achieve a public takeover of the investor-owned utilities'= =20 transmission lines he said negotiators have to pore over thousands of=20 documents related to the transmission lines alone.=20 We are doing what is normal in a transaction of this magnitude which is= =20 investigate document circulate redocument agree move forward said=20 Fichera an investment banker with Saber Partners in New York City. The=20 governor has put a 'I want this yesterday' fire under his negotiating team= .=20 The negotiator however declined to say when he expects final agreements t= o=20 be reached with the companies.=20 It could be days it could be weeks he said.=20 There were signs meanwhile of trouble brewing on another front: the giant= =20 bond sale the state must make to repay the money it has spent so far on=20 electricity and to finance future long-term contracts for energy.=20 State Treasurer Phil Angelides said Wednesday the utilities are appealing a= =20 ruling by the state Public Utilities Commission that essentially ensures th= e=20 state will be repaid a move that he said threatens to delay the sale=20 indefinitely.=20 If the utilities have decided to adopt a scorched earth policy until they= =20 get what they need and want then it will be a significant problem=20 Angelides said.=20 PG&E spokesman Ron Low said the governor is simply placing too many demands= =20 on a rate structure that doesn't compensate the utilities for their current= =20 costs.=20 Political rhetoric is not going to change the math he said.=20 In the Legislature lawmakers are growing grumpier. Most were taken by=20 surprise Monday when blackouts were ordered across the state weeks before= =20 summer temperatures were expected to set in and strain the power system.=20 I'm more worried than ever said Assemblyman Bill Leonard R-San=20 Bernardino. A lot of the elements we thought we had a handle on in January= =20 are unraveling.=20 A deal the governor said had been worked out weeks ago between the state an= d=20 more than 600 small alternative energy suppliers collapsed last week.=20 The alternative generators have not been paid by the utilities for months= =20 and state leaders attempted to bargain down the price utilities pay those= =20 generators for power.=20 But administration officials complained privately that lawmakers instead=20 sweetened the pot for the suppliers to the point that the measure no longer= =20 helped solve the overall financial situation pushing the utilities toward= =20 bankruptcy. Under a proposal announced Tuesday by Davis the Legislature=20 would authorize the PUC to require the utilities to pay the alternative=20 suppliers at prices more closely resembling the original deal.=20 But the governor ran into immediate opposition as some suppliers said said= =20 he would not pay them enough to cover their fuel costs.=20 We would go from not being paid to losing money said Hal Dittmer of=20 Wellhead Electric a Sacramento-based supplier that has been shut down for= =20 more than a month. Almost everybody who burns natural gas is going to shut= =20 down. (Davis) got it wrong.=20 Democrats outside the Davis administration meanwhile are complaining abou= t=20 the amount of money the state Department of Water Resources is spending on= =20 expensive last-minute power purchases. Within a week $4.2 billion will ha= ve=20 been committed.=20 State Sen. Steve Peace D-El Cajon chairman of the joint Legislative Budge= t=20 Committee is warning the Davis administration that he will block additiona= l=20 funds for last-minute purchases of power until the PUC makes progress=20 recovering money that already has been spent. He intends to hold a hearing = on=20 the issue this morning.=20 On Wednesday state Controller Kathleen Connell told Davis she will refuse = to=20 make a routine budget transfer he had requested saying she is concerned th= at=20 there is no outside check and balance on the money the administration is= =20 spending to buy electricity on the spot market.=20 As the statewide elected official who pays the state's bills Connell said= =20 she has yet to receive information from the Department of Water Resources= =20 about how much it is spending.=20 We really need an accounting as to the total amount of liability they have= =20 accumulated she said. I understand they're in an emergency situation ...= =20 but it begins to imperil the state's ability to manage its cash flow.=20 Meanwhile a bill to provide $1 billion for conservation programs aimed at= =20 reducing power needs this summer also has languished for several weeks in= =20 the state Senate. While Davis has focused his attention elsewhere Republic= an=20 lawmakers have opposed the measure as too expensive. Democrats argue that= =20 each two-week delay prevents the state from saving as much energy as one=20 peaker plant will produce this summer. Peaker plants are designed to help= =20 meet the peaks of electricity demand.=20 I'm the eternal optimist but we have to keep working on all fronts said= =20 Sen. Byron Sher D-Palo Alto who hopes to take his energy conservation bil= l=20 up for a vote in the Senate again today. It's a formidable challenge.=20 Bee staff writer Dale Kasler contributed to this report.=20 --- Legislators learn some details of power contracts By John Hill Bee Capitol Bureau (Published March 22 2001)=20 The veil of secrecy surrounding the state's electricity contracts lifted=20 Wednesday -- a little.=20 Gov. Gray Davis gave state legislators a report laying out some of the=20 details of long-term contracts designed to help the state pull out of its= =20 energy crisis. But the report left legislators and others clamoring for mor= e.=20 The information raises more questions said Assemblyman George Runner=20 R-Lancaster. I liken it to watching a parade through a knothole in a fence= .=20 You get to look at one float but you're not sure about what's coming up an= d=20 what you've missed.=20 Davis had previously disclosed that the state had signed or was close to=20 signing 40 long-term contracts at an average price over 10 years of $69 pe= r=20 megawatt-hour.=20 The contracts are part of the state's strategy for trying to avoid a fiscal= =20 shellacking in the energy spot market while making sure there's enough=20 electricity to avoid more blackouts.=20 Davis also previously disclosed that the contracts were for an average of= =20 about 9000 megawatts a year and that the total cost exceeded $40 billion.= =20 But Davis has resisted telling more saying the state would jeopardize its= =20 ability to get the best prices if electricity generators knew what their=20 counterparts were getting.=20 On Wednesday the governor's office released a March 15 report from S. Davi= d=20 Freeman general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power = to=20 the state Department of Water Resources. The state agency has been given th= e=20 responsibility of making power purchases and Freeman was brought in to lea= d=20 the negotiations.=20 As of March 15 the state had signed 19 contracts with seven suppliers for= =20 periods ranging from 14 months to 20 years with many for three or five=20 years the report says. Some of the contracts are for electricity to meet t= he=20 state's everyday power demand while others are only for times of peak use= =20 such as hot summer days.=20 The state had agreements in principle for an additional 25 contracts.=20 Runner said he has been told that two of these contracts have since been=20 finalized.=20 The amount of power provided reaches a peak in 2004 of more than 10000=20 megawatts. As the long-term contracts start to expire around then the stat= e=20 is hoping that demand can be met with new contracts or spot purchases at=20 prices expected to be much cheaper.=20 The report says nine more long-term contracts were under discussion.=20 Some of the contracts are with power generators while others are with=20 marketers who may get the power from a number of sources.=20 In some cases the state may supply the natural gas used to generate the=20 electricity or power costs may be pegged to the going rate for the fuel.= =20 Some suppliers can cancel if the state fails to sell bonds by a certain dat= e=20 to cover power costs or fails to maintain an investment grade credit rating= .=20 Some depend on the construction of power plants but Freeman said they were= =20 firm commitments.=20 We were pretty careful not to put a hope and a dream in the portfolio he= =20 said.=20 More contracts will have to be signed to meet summer demand and these=20 agreements will probably be more expensive the report says.=20 One item not in Freeman's report was a secret deal to relieve several major= =20 generators from having to pay for polluting the air beyond allowable limits= .=20 The long-term power contracts include language that would have the state pa= y=20 the costs of pollution credits that allow power plants to exceed their=20 permitted levels of smog-forming pollutants the governor's office confirme= d=20 Wednesday. Spokesman Steve Maviglio said that several generators are being= =20 relieved from having to pay those costs.=20 V. John White a Sierra Club lobbyist close to the negotiations said Dyneg= y=20 Inc. which has power plants in El Segundo Encina and Long Beach is one o= f=20 them. Dynegy officials did not return calls to The Bee on Wednesday.=20 Freeman said that generators were demanding hefty premiums for having to de= al=20 with air quality regulators in the summer and he figured it would be cheape= r=20 just to pay for the pollution credits.=20 In other energy-related developments:=20 With more power plants back online grid operators dropped down to a Stage = 1=20 electricity alert. The state Independent System Operator was expecting=20 supplies to gradually increase over the next few days.=20 The state Public Utilities Commission issued a revised draft decision that= =20 would impose the prices outlined Tuesday by Davis for power produced by=20 alternative energy companies -- $79 a megawatt-hour for five-year contracts= =20 or $69 a megawatt-hour for 10 years. The proposal is scheduled for a PUC vo= te=20 March 27.=20 A federal judge ruled that one of the nation's major electricity generators= =20 must continue supplying California with emergency power.=20 In imposing an injunction on Reliant Energy Services Inc. U.S. District=20 Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. noted the rolling blackouts (that have) darkene= d=20 the California landscape and said the loss of Reliant's production poses = an=20 imminent threat.=20 Bee staff writers Carrie Peyton Chris Bowman and Denny Walsh contributed t= o=20 this report.=20 --- Federal judge orders major power wholesaler to sell to California=20 By Don Thompson ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 March 21 2001=20 SACRAMENTO =01) A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday= =20 ordering a major electricity wholesaler to continue selling to California= =20 despite its fear that it will not get paid.=20 U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said Californians were at risk of= =20 irreparable harm if Reliant Energy Services stopped selling power to the=20 Independent System Operator which oversees the state's power grid. The ISO= =20 buys last-minute power on behalf of utilities to fill gaps in supply to try= =20 to fend off blackouts.=20 Damrell dismissed Reliant's attempt to force the state Department of Water= =20 Resources to back the ISO's purchases for the state's two biggest utilities= .=20 The state has been spending about $50 million a day on power for Pacific Ga= s=20 and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison both denied credit by=20 suppliers after amassing billions of dollars in debts.=20 Controller: State's power spending imperils its financial health=20 Governor says utilities must pay in advance for some power=20 ?=20 The judge said he had no authority to force the DWR to pay for that power.= =20 Gov. Gray Davis has said the state isn't responsible for purchasing the=20 costly last-minute power ISO buys for Edison and PG&E despite a law=20 authorizing state power purchases on the utilities' behalf.=20 ISO attorney Charles Robinson said the ruling gives ISO operators a tool t= o=20 assist them in keeping the lights on in California.=20 Had the decision gone the other way one could expect other generators to= =20 simply ignore emergency orders Robinson said.=20 Damrell's preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the Federal=20 Energy Regulatory Commission rules on the matter.=20 Damrell denied the ISO's request for preliminary injunctions against three= =20 other wholesalers Dynegy AES and Williams who agreed to continue selling= =20 to the ISO pending the FERC ruling.=20 The ISO went to court in February after a federal emergency order requiring= =20 the power sales expired. The judge then issued a temporary restraining orde= r=20 requiring the sales but dropped it after the suppliers agreed to continue= =20 sales to California pending his Wednesday ruling.=20 The ISO said it would lose about 3600 megawatts if the suppliers pulled ou= t=20 enough power for about 2.7 million households. One megawatt is enough for= =20 roughly 750 homes.=20 Grid officials said Reliant's share alone is about 3000 megawatts. Reliant= =20 said the amount at issue actually is less than a fourth of that because mo= st=20 of the power is committed under long-term contracts.=20 Reliant which provides about 9 percent of the state's power worries it=20 won't get paid due to the financial troubles of PG&E and Edison.=20 PG&E and Edison say that together they have lost about $13 billion since Ju= ne=20 due to soaring wholesale electricity costs that California's 1996=20 deregulation law bars them from passing onto customers.=20 At the same time the state has faced a tight electricity supply due in pa= rt=20 to California power plant shutdowns for maintenance and to a tight=20 hydroelectric supply in the Pacific Northwest.=20 Managers of the state power grid imposed rolling blackouts across the state= =20 Monday and Tuesday as supply fell short of demand. Wednesday cooling=20 temperatures and the completion of repairs at several power plants allowed= =20 the state to avoid blackouts.=20 State Controller Kathleen Connell said Wednesday that the energy crunch als= o=20 imperils California's financial health.=20 Connell said the state's power-buying on behalf of Edison and PG&E is is=20 gutting its budget surplus. Since the state started making emergency power= =20 buys in January the surplus has fallen from $8.5 billion to about $3.2=20 billion she said.=20 Connell ordered an audit of the state's power-buying saying Davis is=20 withholding key financial information from her office and the Legislature.= =20 She is refusing a request by Davis and the Legislature to transfer $5.6=20 billion into a rainy day fund she said was set up to impress Wall Street = as=20 the state prepares to issue $10 billion in revenue bonds to cover its=20 power-buying.=20 Transferring the money would leave the state general fund $2.4 billion in= =20 debt Connell said.=20 Sandy Harrison spokesman for the state Department of Finance and Keely=20 Bosler of the Legislative Analyst's Office said such transfers are routine= =20 and required by law.=20 They put the state's budget surplus at $5.6 billion.=20 The law says she has to do it. The law does not give her the power to dema= nd=20 that kind of audit information Harrison said.=20 He said the state's budget isn't in danger because it will be repaid with t= he=20 $10 billion in long-term debt.=20 Wells Fargo & Co. chief economist Sung Won Sohn said he sees little progres= s=20 in efforts to fix the state's power problems and end state electricity=20 purchases.=20 If we're going to pour money into a bottomless pit I would worry about th= e=20 state's finances he said. At some point we're going to run out of money.= =20 The controller's criticism of fellow Democrat Davis won support from Assemb= ly=20 Republicans and Secretary of State Bill Jones a Republican considering=20 challenging Davis next year.=20 Jones said he wants to announce his own plan to solve the state's energy=20 woes but can't unless Davis releases more financial details.=20 Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio dismissed the criticism.=20 Political grandstanding doesn't generate one more kilowatt of energy for= =20 California in this time of emergency he said.=20 Maviglio said the administration has released the financial information it= =20 can without jeopardizing negotiations for long-term power contracts with=20 wholesalers.=20 --- Controller: State's power spending imperils its financial health=20 By Don Thompson ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 March 21 2001=20 SACRAMENTO =01) California's power-buying on behalf of two strapped utiliti= es is=20 gutting its budget surplus and putting the state at financial risk the sta= te=20 controller said Wednesday.=20 The surplus dropped from $8.5 billion in January when the state began buyi= ng=20 electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison= =20 to $3.2 billion now Kathleen Connell estimates.=20 Connell ordered an audit of the state's power-buying saying Gov. Gray Davi= s=20 is withholding key financial information from her office and the Legislatur= e.=20 Wednesday marked the first time in three days the state avoided rolling=20 blackouts. Power grid officials credited cooling temperatures and the=20 completion of repairs at several power plants.=20 Connell said the energy crunch now imperils the state's budget as well as i= ts=20 electric grid.=20 California has been spending about $45 million a day =01) $4.2 billion so f= ar =01)=20 to buy power for Edison and PG&E both denied credit by electricity=20 wholesalers.=20 The two utilities California's largest say they are nearly $14 billion in= =20 debt due to soaring wholesale power costs the state's deregulation law bloc= ks=20 them from recovering from customers.=20 Meanwhile the state has faced high natural gas costs and a tight power=20 supply driven in part by power plant repairs in California and scarce=20 hydroelectric power in the Pacific Northwest.=20 Standard & Poor's has put the state on a credit watch due to its power=20 purchases and chastised Davis the Legislature and state regulators for not= =20 taking more aggressive steps to assure the utilities can pay their bills.= =20 On Wednesday Connell said she is refusing a request by Davis and the=20 Legislature to transfer $5.6 billion into a rainy day fund she said was s= et=20 up to impress Wall Street as the state prepares to issue $10 billion in=20 revenue bonds to cover its power-buying.=20 Transferring the money would leave the state general fund $2.4 billion in= =20 debt Connell said.=20 Sandy Harrison spokesman for the state Department of Finance and Keely=20 Bosler of the Legislative Analyst's Office said such transfers are routine= =20 and required by law.=20 They put the state's budget surplus at $5.6 billion.=20 The law says she has to do it. The law does not give her the power to dema= nd=20 that kind of audit information Harrison said.=20 He said the state's budget isn't in danger because it will be repaid with t= he=20 $10 billion in long-term debt.=20 Connell said the scope of the proposed transfer is unprecedented and amount= s=20 to a shell game that disguises the power purchases' impact on the state= =20 budget.=20 Wells Fargo & Co. chief economist Sung Won Sohn said he sees little progres= s=20 in efforts to fix the state's power problems and end state electricity=20 purchases.=20 If we're going to pour money into a bottomless pit I would worry about th= e=20 state's finances he said. At some point we're going to run out of money.= =20 The controller's criticism of fellow Democrat Davis won support from Assemb= ly=20 Republicans and Secretary of State Bill Jones a Republican considering=20 challenging Davis next year.=20 Jones said he wants to announce his own plan to solve the state's energy=20 woes but can't unless Davis releases more financial details. He said his= =20 plan may involve giving the utilities low-interest loans with their=20 transmission lines held as collateral.=20 Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio dismissed the criticism.=20 Political grandstanding doesn't generate one more kilowatt of energy for= =20 California in this time of emergency he said.=20 Maviglio said the administration has released the financial information it= =20 can without jeopardizing negotiations for long-term power contracts with=20 wholesalers.=20 --- Governor says utilities must pay in advance for some power=20 By Jennifer Coleman ASSOCIATED PRESS=20 March 21 2001=20 SACRAMENTO =01) The state's two largest utilities will be ordered to pay=20 environmentally friendly power generators in advance a move Gov. Gray Davi= s=20 hopes will bring a quick end to the power blackouts that darkened Californi= a=20 this week.=20 The statewide blackouts that stretched from San Diego to Oregon on Monday a= nd=20 Tuesday were caused in part by the failure of Southern California Edison an= d=20 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to pay millions of dollars they owe qualifyin= g=20 facilities or QFs Davis said.=20 Such suppliers use cogeneration =01) steam from manufacturing plus natural = gas =01)=20 or solar wind and other renewable energy to generate electricity. This wee= k=20 California lost about half the power those generators normally provide.=20 Controller: State's power spending imperils its financial health=20 ?=20 Several of them said they hadn't been paid by Edison and PG&E in weeks and= =20 can't afford to keep operating their plants.=20 Davis accused the utilities of taking in money from customers while failing= =20 to pay the QFs. The state has been spending about $45 million a day since= =20 January to buy power for customers of Edison and PG&E which are so=20 credit-poor that suppliers refuse to sell to them.=20 It's wrong and irresponsible of the utilities to pocket this money and not= =20 pay the generators the governor said at a Capitol news conference Tuesday= =20 evening. They've acted irresponsibly and immorally and it has to stop.=20 PG&E called the governor's statements inappropriate and unjustified addi= ng=20 that it was negotiating a payment plan with the QFs. Edison said it is inte= nt=20 on paying creditors and working with the California Public Utilities=20 Commission to pay QFs for future power sales.=20 Controller Kathleen Connell warned Wednesday that the state's $2=20 billion-a-month power purchases are jeopardizing California's budget.=20 The state's budget surplus dropped from $8.5 billion in January when the= =20 power purchases began to $3.2 billion now Connell estimates. She blamed= =20 Davis for withholding key financial information and ordered an audit of th= e=20 state's power spending starting next week.=20 She blocked a request by the Legislature and Davis administration to transf= er=20 $5.6 billion from the state's general fund into a special rainy day fund= =20 saying that would have left the general fund $2.4 billion in debt.=20 The Legislative Analyst's Office said such transfers are routine Connell= =20 agreed but said the size of the transfer is unprecedented.=20 We started this year with a generous budget surplus Connell said. The= =20 energy crisis has taken much of that away and this transfer on top of the= =20 electricity purchases would put the fund at risk.=20 Meanwhile keepers of the state's power grid were optimistic California wou= ld=20 get through Wednesday without another day of rolling blackouts. Two plants= =20 down for repairs returned to service.=20 Several power plants that were taken down for repairs are also expected com= e=20 online by the end of the week reducing the likelihood of blackouts said J= im=20 Detmers ISO vice president.=20 Power may flow to homes and businesses but it could soon cost consumers=20 more said Assemblyman Fred Keeley one of the Legislature's leaders on=20 energy issues.=20 I think it's intellectually appropriate and honest to tell people as soon = as=20 it's apparent that a rate increase is warranted the Boulder Creek Democra= t=20 said Tuesday indicating that time had come.=20 He estimated that the state Public Utilities Commission may soon have to=20 raise rates by about 15 percent to cover the state's costs and its utilitie= s'=20 bills.=20 My sense is that people will appreciate having some certainty and being ab= le=20 to plan for it he said. They don't have to like it but I think they'll= =20 appreciate it.=20 Davis said he is confident the utilities and the state can pay their bills= =20 without further rate increases for Edison and PG&E customers.=20 In the meantime the Independent System Operator keeper of the grid is=20 counting on continued conservation by residents and businesses to avoid mor= e=20 blackouts. Conservation accounted for about 300 megawatts in savings during= =20 Tuesday's peak usage enough to power 300000 homes.=20 Roughly a half-million homes and businesses were affected by Tuesday's=20 blackouts which snarled traffic and plunged schools and businesses into=20 darkness across the state.=20 The outages began at 9:30 a.m. and continued in 90-minute waves until about= 2=20 p.m. when the ISO lifted its blackout order. They were blamed for at least= =20 one serious traffic accident.=20 Two cars collided at an intersection in the Los Angeles suburb of South El= =20 Monte where the traffic lights were out. Two people were seriously hurt sa= id=20 California Highway Patrol Officer Nick Vite.=20 In San Francisco's Chinatown souvenir shops normally bustling with visitor= s=20 were forced to shut down. Nearby irritated customers waited for a bank to= =20 reopen.=20 The blackouts like Monday's were caused by a combination of problems=20 including unseasonably warm weather reduced electricity imports from the= =20 Pacific Northwest and numerous power plants being shut down for repairs.=20 Adding to those troubles the state lost about 3100 megawatts from the QF= =20 plants.=20 Senate Energy Committee Chairwoman Debra Bowen D-Marina del Rey estimated= =20 Tuesday that Edison has amassed more than $1 billion and PG&E more than $2= =20 billion that they have not paid to generators.=20 Davis said the PUC planned to issue an order next week directing the=20 utilities to pre-pay their future QF bills.=20 PG&E said its prepayments hinge on an upcoming PUC decision on whether the= =20 utility's rates are sufficient to pay its bills and cover the state's power= =20 purchases on its behalf which amount to $4.2 billion since early January.= =20 Edison and PG&E say they have lost more than $13 billion since last June to= =20 climbing wholesale electricity prices which the state's 1996 deregulation= =20 law prevents them from passing on to ratepayers.=20 --- Energy Overcharge of $5.5 Billion Is Alleged=20 Power: Money should be refunded to taxpayers and utilities the state grid= =20 operator says citing evidence of market manipulation. Suppliers deny the= =20 accusation.=20 By TIM REITERMAN and NANCY RIVERA BROOKS Times Staff Writers=20 ?????Wholesale electricity suppliers overcharged California by about $5.5= =20 billion between May and last month and that money should be refunded to th= e=20 state's taxpayers and financially strapped utilities the state power grid= =20 operator said Wednesday. ?????Generators engaged in market manipulation and consistent patterns of= =20 bidding far above costs in the deregulated energy market the California=20 Independent System Operator found in a study of pricing data. The findings= =20 support the widespread belief that these suppliers reaped massive additiona= l=20 revenue by manipulating the market. ?????Spokesmen for the companies denied the accusation. ?????The study prepared for a filing with federal regulators today is=20 central to Cal-ISO's efforts to seek reimbursement for what it considers=20 excessive charges by electricity suppliers during the state's energy crisis= . ?????This might be the first time we told them the total impact and=20 magnitude [of the overcharging] said Anjali Sheffrin Cal-ISO's director = of=20 market analysis. We think the entire amount deserves consideration for=20 refunds. ?????Using confidential bidding data on tens of thousands of electricity=20 sales Cal-ISO found that five companies that together supply about 30% of= =20 the power delivered to customers of the state's investor-owned utilities=20 engaged in two types of behavior that tended to push up prices: ?????* They effectively withheld supplies by bidding at excessive prices= =20 even though they could have made some money selling more electricity. ?????* Less frequently they had power generation available but did not bid= =20 at all. ?????The study concluded that energy suppliers commonly offered their=20 electricity at twice their cost. For example Sheffrin said the average=20 markup in August was 100% during peak hours. ?????A spokeswoman at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which=20 oversees wholesale electricity pricing across the country declined to=20 comment Wednesday saying This is part of an ongoing proceeding. ?????FERC member William L. Massey who has considered previous commission= =20 actions on refunds to be inadequate said it would be improper for him to= =20 comment on a report that has not yet been filed. But when told of the=20 $5.5-billion total Massey said: That doesn't shock me in any way. ?????Prices over the past 10 months in California have greatly exceeded th= e=20 federal standards of just and reasonable prices and I think they have=20 exceeded the standards by possibly billions of dollars he said. ?????Cal-ISO which oversees grid operations and an emergency energy market= =20 previously detailed $550 million in alleged overcharges for December and=20 January and asked FERC for refunds. But the commission has proposed refunds= =20 of only a tiny fraction of that amount. ?????The study covered five major in-state power suppliers--Reliant Energy= =20 Dynegy Williams/AES Duke Energy and Mirant formerly Southern Energy--plu= s=20 16 power importers all of which deliver power to customers of Pacific Gas = &=20 Electric Co. Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. ?????All [21] overcharged but some excessively and some by moderate=20 amounts Sheffrin said. ?????Cal-ISO's public filing will quantify the alleged overcharging by each= =20 company but the companies will be identified only by a number. The code wi= ll=20 be provided to FERC Sheffrin said and Cal-ISO lawyers will determine how= =20 much information about the companies will be made public. ?????State U.S. Investigations ?????California electricity markets and the companies that buy and sell pow= er=20 in the state have been the subject of several investigations by state and= =20 federal authorities since wholesale electricity prices first skyrocketed in= =20 May. ?????Electricity suppliers have repeatedly denied manipulating the Californ= ia=20 market in any way whether through above-cost bidding in spot markets or=20 through physical withholding of electricity to drive up prices. ?????Reliant Energy is cooperating with FERC's requests for more data and i= s=20 confident the commission will conclude that prices charged by Reliant were= =20 justified said Joe Bob Perkins president of the Houston-based company. ?????Perkins also bitterly disputed charges that Reliant has shut down unit= s=20 so that it can earn bigger profits on the power sold by the remaining plant= s.=20 These charges have been leveled against all of the power-plant owners in th= e=20 state. ?????Reliant Vice President John Stout said Cal-ISO's calculations typicall= y=20 don't include such fixed costs as salaries taxes and the interest on bonds= =20 they sold to finance their power plants which they acquired under terms of= =20 the state's landmark 1996 deregulation law. ?????In addition he said many high-priced power days have resulted from= =20 buyers bidding against each other for scarce supplies rather than sellers= =20 charging excessive amounts--like a house price being driven far above the= =20 listing price in a hot real estate market. ?????Williams Energy Services a trading company that markets most of the= =20 power produced by plants owned by AES also says it will be exonerated by= =20 FERC once the commission examines documentation being submitted said Paula= =20 Hill-Collins spokeswoman for the Tulsa Okla. company. ?????FERC has the obligation to investigate when these accusations are=20 made Hill-Collins said. This is just a process of justification not=20 necessarily proof of guilt. ?????Williams/AES was recently ordered by FERC to prove that it did not tak= e=20 generating units out of service last year to drive up electricity prices o= r=20 refund $10.8 million to California utilities. ?????During the period studied suppliers sold electricity in the Californi= a=20 Power Exchange to Southern California Edison PG&E and San Diego Gas &=20 Electric Co. and in a backup market for last-minute electricity operated by= =20 Cal-ISO. But sky-high prices plunged Edison and PG&E deeply into debt and= =20 most suppliers stopped selling to them in January forcing the state=20 Department of Water Resources to step in as the primary electricity buyer f= or=20 the three big utilities' 27 million customers. ?????The Cal-ISO study first summarized at an energy conference last week = at=20 UC Berkeley but not otherwise publicized concluded that the companies=20 exercised so-called market power to pump up electricity prices. ?????Severin Borenstein director of the Energy Institute at Berkeley said= =20 Cal-ISO's study is consistent with his research examining pricing practices= =20 in 2000. ?????We found several billion dollars . . . in departures from competitive= =20 pricing he said. When the market was tight this summer they were able t= o=20 push up prices and they did. ?????The early warning signs of electricity price spikes the study found= =20 appeared in May after two years of relatively stable prices of $30 to $40 p= er=20 megawatt-hour under deregulation. Prices went up during the summer dipped = in=20 September and October with lower demand then took off in November and=20 December as weather turned cold and the price of natural gas which is used= =20 to generate much of the state's electricity reached record levels. ?????There were plant outages and demand and supply became close Sheffr= in=20 said. Whatever price they bid had to be taken and market power asserted= =20 itself. ?????Cal-ISO found that $3 billion of the alleged overcharges occurred=20 between May and November. ?????On Friday federal regulators ordered six wholesale power suppliers to= =20 refund $55 million to California if they cannot justify prices charged in= =20 February. The refund was limited to power sold that month in excess of $430= =20 per megawatt-hour during Stage 3 power alerts when supplies are so tight= =20 that rolling blackouts are threatened. (One megawatt-hour is enough=20 electricity to supply 750 typical homes for an hour.) ?????The previous week FERC ordered 13 suppliers to justify or refund $69= =20 million for power sold in January at prices above $273 per megawatt-hour. ?????Massey opposed the potential refunds as too low because they were=20 limited to hours in which a Stage 3 power emergency was in place and becaus= e=20 the benchmark price set for each month was too high--combining to exempt mo= re=20 than 70000 transactions from scrutiny. ?????We're still looking for our lost wallet under the lamppost which is= =20 Stage 3 alerts said Massey one of three commissioners on the five-member= =20 board (two seats are vacant). ?????Generators have been given the free and clear he said. ?????These tinkling little refunds they have come out with recently are=20 almost a joke said Cal-ISO board member Mike Florio senior attorney at t= he=20 Utility Reform Network. ?????Resisting Price Caps ?????Cal-ISO contends that the last 10 months have proved that generators c= an=20 no longer be allowed to receive electricity prices that are dictated by wha= t=20 the market will bear. ?????FERC granted market-based rate authority on each of these suppliers'= =20 own showing that they could not manipulate prices yet their actions have= =20 shown the contrary Sheffrin said. We feel FERC needs to look at the=20 premise of allowing these generators to continue selling at market-based=20 rates. ?????The commission is responsible for ensuring just and reasonable=20 electricity rates. Although it has called California's power market=20 dysfunctional and vulnerable to manipulation the agency has resisted setti= ng=20 firm price caps sought by California's congressional delegation. ?????Chairman Curt L. Hebert Jr. strongly opposes caps while Massey wants = to=20 use caps across the West as a temporary timeout. ?????Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a New York news conference=20 Wednesday reiterated his opposition to electricity price caps as a way to= =20 cope with California's energy crisis. ?????If we put price caps in place there will be more blackouts and=20 they'll be worse Abraham said. ?????Cal-ISO is filing its market study as part of its comments on FERC sta= ff=20 recommendations on ways to thwart market manipulation. FERC's proposal=20 includes strict coordination of power plant outages by Cal-ISO with reporti= ng=20 of suspicious closures to FERC and generator-by-generator bid caps tied to= =20 costs. ---=20 ?????Reiterman reported from San Francisco Rivera Brooks from Los Angeles.= =20 Times staff writer Thomas S. Mulligan in New York contributed to this story= . --- --- Power Strain Eases but Concerns Mount=20 Energy: Officials say summer prices will be high and a state report shows= =20 that contracts with generators are far short of goals.=20 By DAN MORAIN and JENIFER WARREN Times Staff Writers=20 ?????SACRAMENTO--California's fragile electricity system stabilized=20 Wednesday but a Davis administration report suggested troubles ahead becau= se=20 the state could be forced to buy most of its power for the coming summer on= =20 the costly and volatile spot market. ?????After two days of statewide blackouts power plants that had been shut= =20 down were cranked up. Unseasonable heat tapered off. The operators of the= =20 statewide power grid relaxed their state of emergency. ?????But plenty of ominous signs remained. Many small producers remained sh= ut=20 down skeptical about Gov. Gray Davis' plan for utilities to pay them. ?????State Controller Kathleen Connell issued a sharp warning about the hig= h=20 cost of the state's foray into the power business and announced that she wi= ll=20 block an administration request that she transfer $5.6 billion into an=20 account that could be tapped to pay for state purchases of electricity. ?????And a report from the administration summarizing contracts between Dav= is=20 and independent power generators showed that the state has signed contracts= =20 for only 2247 megawatts of electricity significantly less than the 6000 = to=20 7000 megawatts previously claimed. ?????While there are agreements in principle for the full amount the repor= t=20 notes that generators can back out of the contracts for a variety of reason= s=20 including the state's failure to sell bonds to finance power purchased by= =20 July 1. The Legislature has approved plans to sell $10 billion in bonds bu= t=20 none have yet been issued. ?????We are exposed enormously this summer Senate Energy Committee=20 chairwoman Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) said after looking at the report.= =20 We owe the people the truth about how difficult this summer is going to be= .=20 We don't have a power fairy. ?????Perhaps most significant the report suggests that the contracts fall= =20 significantly short of Davis' stated goal of buying no more than 5% of the= =20 state's summer needs on the spot electricity market where prices can be ma= ny=20 times those of long-term contracts. ?????After reading the report Frank Wolak a Stanford University economist= =20 who studies the California electricity market said the numbers suggested= =20 that the state's long-term contracts will cover less than half of what the= =20 state will need this summer. ?????We're definitely short this summer next summer and the summer of=20 2003 he said. ?????California was forced to start buying electricity in December--at a co= st=20 of $50 million a day--because producers refused to sell to Southern=20 California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric. The two utilities amassed=20 billions of dollars in debt when prices for wholesale power soared on the= =20 spot market. ?????Vikram Budhraja a consultant retained by Davis to negotiate deals wit= h=20 generators said the report represents a work in progress. He said the=20 state may yet sign new contracts. ?????However Wolak said the contract figures confirm what he and others ha= ve=20 been dreading: that summer is going to be rife with rolling blackouts unles= s=20 serious steps to cut demand are taken immediately. ?????Wolak and other experts say large industrial customers must be switche= d=20 to real-time meters and pricing to persuade them to use the bulk of their= =20 energy at times of low demand. ?????The head of the Energy Foundation a San Francisco-based nonprofit tha= t=20 promotes sustainable sources of power made the same proposal to Davis on= =20 Wednesday. ?????The government need not ask customers to swelter in the dark this=20 summer foundation President Hal Harvey argued in a letter. ?????He also proposed a crash campaign to boost sales of efficient applianc= es=20 and lightbulbs. He said the state needs to take over the utilities' contrac= ts=20 with alternative energy providers to ensure they stay in business and sign= =20 new contracts for 1500 megawatts of new wind power--the cheapest fastest= =20 and cleanest source of new supply. ?????Davis had proposed a formula Tuesday to force private utilities to pay= =20 the alternative producers some of which have not been paid since November.= =20 But some of them warned Wednesday that Davis' plan offers them little=20 incentive to turn on their generators. ?????Alternative energy producers supply more than a quarter of the=20 electricity consumed in California. ?????Many producers generate electricity from wind sun and geothermal=20 sources. But most of them generate power using natural gas--and the cost of= =20 natural gas has been soaring. Several natural gas users said Davis' plan= =20 which caps rates won't cover their fuel costs. ?????Davis assumes that the price of natural gas will fall. But small=20 generators say they don't have sufficient purchasing power or sophisticatio= n=20 to gamble on future prices. ?????The Public Utilities Commission is expected to approve Davis' proposal= =20 next week. It offers producers two choices: 7.9 cents a kilowatt-hour if th= ey=20 agree to supply power for five years or 6.9 cents a kilowatt-hour over 10= =20 years. ?????The price of natural gas is higher than that said Marty Quinn=20 executive vice president and chief operating officer of Ridgewood Power LLC= =20 which owns three natural gas-fired co-generation plants. If we operate=20 we'll lose money. ?????Ridgewood is not operating having been cut off by gas suppliers. The= =20 company sued PG&E last month seeking overdue payments and release from its= =20 contracts with the utility. ?????A hearing is scheduled in El Centro today in another lawsuit filed by = a=20 small energy producer an Imperial Valley geothermal producer that sued=20 Edison for refusing to let it break its contract and sell on the open marke= t.=20 CalEnergy says Edison owes it about $140 million for energy sold since=20 November. ?????A company spokesman Jay Lawrence said CalEnergy was going ahead with= =20 its suit despite Davis' proposal. We've had promises before he said. ?????In other developments: ?????* A federal judge in Sacramento on Wednesday ordered Reliant Energy of= =20 Houston a major producer to continue selling power to California during= =20 emergencies despite the company's argument that it may not be fully=20 reimbursed. The order will remain in effect for 60 days or until the U.S.= =20 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decides a related case. ?????* Connell said the state budget surplus has shrunk to $3.2 billion=20 because the state has spent roughly $2.8 billion on electricity. She=20 criticized the administration for withholding basic information about state= =20 finances and said she will begin an audit on Monday of the Department of= =20 Water Resources which is responsible for purchasing power. ?????Davis' aides said Connell took her action because the Democratic=20 governor endorsed one of Connell's foes this week in the race for Los Angel= es=20 mayor former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. A Connell aide scoffed= =20 at the notion. ?????* Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she never has had a response= =20 from President Bush after writing him last month for an appointment to=20 discuss the California energy crisis. ?????In a wide-ranging lunch talk with reporters in Washington she deplore= d=20 the fact that huge huge profits are being made in the California crisis= =20 and said an appropriate federal role would be to guarantee a reliable=20 source of power until the state can get nine new generators online. ---=20 ?????Times staff writers Mitchell Landsberg in Los Angeles and Robert L.=20 Jackson in Washington contributed to this report. --- --- ------------------------ --- --- ------------------------ Net Complex A Dilemma For San Jose=20 SERVER FARM: Plant would tax grid=20 David Lazarus Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday March 22 2001=20 2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20 URL:=20 /22/M N236772.DTL=20 San Jose while trying to block construction of a new power plant is set t= o=20 approve a vast computer complex that could overwhelm California's already= =20 strained power grid.=20 City officials gave preliminary approval last week to what would be the=20 world's largest server farm. The sprawling facility to handle Internet=20 traffic would drain about 150 megawatts of power from the state electricity= =20 grid.=20 If granted final authorization on April 3 the $1.2 billion project would a= dd=20 the equivalent of about 150000 homes to California's power system which w= as=20 hit this week by rolling blackouts as demand for juice outstripped availabl= e=20 supply.=20 The server-farm issue highlights a vexing dilemma for the state.=20 On the one hand Gov. Gray Davis is calling for widespread conservation to= =20 help California overcome its current troubles. On the other no one wants t= o=20 curtail growth of the high-tech industry which is an engine for economic= =20 vitality.=20 San Jose will make a lot of money from this project said Craig Breon=20 executive director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. But to not= =20 help the state out of its energy situation there's a fair amount of=20 hypocrisy going on.=20 The server farm would be owned by U.S. DataPort a San Jose data-management= =20 firm. As planned it would occupy 10 buildings on more than 170 acres in th= e=20 city's Alviso area.=20 Total projected energy use would be 180 megawatts. About 30 megawatts would= =20 be generated by a small on-site facility and the rest would have to be=20 provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Co.=20 We're confident that the DataPort project will be approved because it's ve= ry=20 important to San Jose and to the local economy said San Jose Mayor Ron=20 Gonzales.=20 But PG&E already is saying that its power cupboard is bare. The utility do= es=20 not have sufficient existing electric infrastructure to meet U.S. DataPort= 's=20 needs it said in a recent letter to San Jose officials.=20 John Mogannam U.S. DataPort's senior vice president of operations counter= ed=20 that it could take as long as five years for the server farm to grow big=20 enough to require the full 150 megawatts from the state grid.=20 Hopefully by then the whole energy crisis will pass by and we won't have= a=20 problem he said.=20 Mogannam stressed the positive aspects of the project such as its ability = to=20 handle about 15 percent of global Internet traffic the 700 jobs it would= =20 create and the $70 million over 10 years it would generate for San Jose in= =20 property and utility taxes.=20 That's why the city likes it he said.=20 Indeed San Jose officials are so enamored with such developments that they= =20 have all but turned a deaf ear to warnings that the server farm will=20 exacerbate California's already dire power shortage.=20 Andrew Crabtree the city's senior planner said the planning commission ha= d=20 barely touched the question of energy supply when it approved the server fa= rm=20 last week.=20 It wasn't incumbent on the commission to solve the state's energy-supply= =20 problems he said.=20 Rather San Jose city planners focused on the environmental ramifications o= f=20 the proposed facility including air pollution from diesel generators and t= he=20 impact on nearby wildlife.=20 How it would affect dozens of burrowing owls in the area was a key topic of= =20 discussion.=20 We all recognized that there's a power shortage Crabtree said. But we= =20 couldn't do anything about that with this project.=20 Except to make things tougher of course.=20 Server farms run 24 hours a day seven days a week. They are an aspect of t= he=20 high-tech boom that was never foreseen by energy experts and which are now= a=20 major contributor to California's surging electricity demand.=20 A server farm essentially is a large building filled with computers. Each= =20 computer handles the Web site or Internet traffic for hundreds of corporate= =20 clients that do not have the technical resources to look after such things= =20 in- house.=20 Most server farms consume between 10 and 60 megawatts of power. At 180=20 megawatts the U.S. DataPort facility is billed as the most extensive data= =20 center on the planet.=20 There won't be another this size anywhere in the world said Mogannam th= e=20 company's senior vice president. This will be the biggest.=20 With such a vast scale however comes additional concerns. For example al= l=20 that hardware will generate huge amounts of heat requiring powerful air=20 conditioners running around the clock to keep things cool.=20 Patrick Dorinson a spokesman for the Independent System Operator which=20 oversees California's electricity network said server farms had a big=20 impact on the state's tight energy supply.=20 We have an economy that's increasingly based on delivery of information = he=20 observed. We certainly need to make sure we're building adequate generatio= n=20 and transmission to get it there.=20 As it stands no major power plants have been built in California for the= =20 past 12 years while dozens of server farms have sprung up throughout the= =20 state.=20 The Yankee Group a Boston consulting firm estimates that the amount of=20 space taken up by server farms nationwide rose to 9 million square feet fro= m=20 1999 to 2000.=20 By 2003 it expects that figure to increase to 25 million square feet or= =20 enough room for more than a hundred 10-story office buildings.=20 San Francisco may be the exception. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell proposed=20 interim zoning controls last week that would require server farms to receiv= e=20 special permission from City Hall to operate.=20 San Jose for its part has no such reservations. It does however draw th= e=20 line at big fat power plants in the backyard of the city's leading corpora= te=20 citizen.=20 Gonzales is spearheading opposition to a proposed 600-megawatt generating= =20 facility in Coyote Valley because of its proximity to a residential area at= =20 the site of a planned Cisco Systems office complex.=20 There's plenty of opportunities to generate power in the city he said.= =20 This project is just in the wrong site.=20 The matter is now in the hands of the California Energy Commission which i= s=20 expected to issue a ruling by May.=20 Cisco critics say twisted the mayor's arm to fight the plant because it d= id=20 not want a generating facility in its neighborhood. The area will be home t= o=20 thousands of well-heeled tech workers.=20 It's politics said Breon at the Audubon Society. City officials are=20 making political decisions rather than good planning decisions.=20 Ted Smith executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition a=20 grassroots organization is calling for a moratorium on construction of all= =20 new server farms in the South Bay until sufficient power can be found to ke= ep=20 them running.=20 Until they figure out how to build these things without draining the=20 electricity grid even dryer it is they shouldn't build them he said.=20 The Internet industry is creating unintended consequences that will really= =20 screw up our future Smith added. They are so busy focusing on next=20 quarter's profits that they don't stop and think about the consequences. .= =20 .=20 SOME FAST FACTS ABOUT 'SERVER FARMS' .=20 -- What are they? Server farms are facilities dedicated exclusively to=20 housing powerful computers for Internet use.=20 -- Who uses them? Companies and individuals pay server farms to maintain=20 their Web sites handle Net traffic and store vast amounts of data --=20 functions that otherwise would require extensive hardware and technical=20 support.=20 -- Why do they use them? As Internet use explodes server farms play an=20 increasingly vital role in managing data and keeping information moving.=20 -- What's the problem? Server farms drain considerable amounts of electrici= ty=20 to keep running.=20 E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.=20 2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 1=20 --- Contracts Won't Meet Summer Demands=20 DETAILS: 2004 before full impact felt=20 Lynda Gledhill Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Thursday March 22 2001=20 2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20 URL:=20 /22/M N230640.DTL=20 Sacramento -- Long-term power contracts negotiated by the state won't cover= =20 California's entire demand for electricity until 2004 according to newly= =20 released details about the agreements.=20 The information suggests that California might have to scrounge for=20 electricity on the high-priced spot market for a couple more years even as = it=20 continues to push conservation efforts and construction of more generating= =20 plants.=20 Details of the agreements released by Gov. Gray Davis' administration show= =20 that the contracts will provide for just over a third of the state's demand= =20 for power this year. Energy secured by the contracts will grow to meet the= =20 expected demand in three years.=20 Short-term purchases of power have at least temporarily depleted the state'= s=20 budget surplus and have raised the possibility of sharp rate increases=20 sometime in the future for electricity customers.=20 Davis administration officials are banking on the hope that conservation=20 efforts and increased generating capacity will cover the shortfall along wi= th=20 purchases of electricity on the spot market.=20 We're facing an extreme challenge still this summer said Severin=20 Borenstein head of the University of California at Berkeley Energy=20 Institute. Signing contracts doesn't create more electricity.=20 The information released did not include the names of companies that the=20 state has signed contracts with or the purchase prices.=20 The sketchy details did not satisfy frustrated lawmakers who said many=20 questions remain especially how much the state will end up paying under th= e=20 terms of the contracts.=20 The fundamental question is how much is it costing the state of California= =20 to keep the lights on said Assemblyman Tony Strickland R-Thousand Oaks.= =20 What we really need is total disclosure.=20 The state started buying power in January after generators began refusing = to=20 provide electricity to the state's investor-owned utilities. Pacific Gas an= d=20 Electric Co. and Southern California Edison say they have more than $13=20 billion in past debt.=20 The state has been spending $49 million a day on power purchases since Jan.= =20 17 according to documents obtained by The Chronicle last week.=20 Those documents said the average price of the contracts across 10 years is= =20 $69 per megawatt hour including summer peak. The five-year average price i= s=20 $79 per megawatt hour.=20 According to one chart provided by the governor's office yesterday the=20 long-term contracts will fall about 35 million megawatt hours short in 2002= .=20 Based on the average price per megawatt hour the state has been paying sinc= e=20 January that could end up costing between $6.6 billion and $13 billion.=20 The law creating the state purchasing authority allowed purchases up to $10= =20 billion and extends until 2003.=20 The governor's office said 21 contracts have been signed and another 23=20 agreements that have been reached but not yet signed.=20 Several generators have said that they will not sign contracts with the sta= te=20 until the back debt by the utilities has been taken care of.=20 We have some real potential problems said Senate President Pro Tem John= =20 Burton D-San Francisco.=20 Strickland and several media outlets including The Chronicle have filed= =20 public information requests to get more information about the prices of the= =20 contracts from the administration.=20 Releasing the information would jeopardize the negotiations for future=20 contracts said Steve Maviglio Davis' spokesman.=20 Lawmakers also frustrated by the lack of information given out by the Davi= s=20 administration were not given notice that the information was coming and= =20 many said it was lost in their mail pile.=20 The cover letter was on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power letterhea= d=20 not that of the administration. The letter was written by S. David Freeman= =20 head of the Los Angeles system who was on leave for the month of February t= o=20 help the state negotiate the contracts.=20 Assemblyman George Runner R-Lancaster said the ambiguity of the=20 information raises more questions than it answers.=20 It's like watching a parade through a peephole he said. He's showing us= =20 another float but I don't know what the parade looks like.=20 Blaming the state's purchases of electricity Controller Kathleen Connell= =20 said yesterday that the state's cash on hand had fallen from $8.5 billion i= n=20 January to $3.2 billion. Connell ordered an audit of the state's power=20 buying.=20 Connell said she would block a transfer sought by the Davis administration = of=20 $5.6 billion from the general fund to the state's emergency reserve account= =20 claiming it would lead to a ''serious cash flow crisis.=20 The transfer however is not related to the energy crisis. The sum=20 represents a routine rollover of unspent money from the previous fiscal yea= r.=20 State law requires that money to be sent to a special reserve account for= =20 emergencies.=20 Davis officials acknowledged that $3.7 billion in energy purchases have had= =20 an impact on state coffers but they say the state will be repaid once bond= s=20 are issued in the coming weeks. They also said the state typically has its= =20 lowest cash reserves at this time of year. That changes in mid-April when a= =20 flood of income tax revenue pours in.=20 The transfer has nothing to do with energy purchases said Sandy Harrison= =20 a spokesman for the Department of Finance.=20 It's not helpful to ratepayers taxpayers and people who want their lights= =20 to stay on to have the issue muddied with this sort of inaccurate innuendo= =20 Harrison said.=20 In other developments yesterday:=20 -- After two days of statewide rolling blackouts power grid managers avoid= ed=20 outages. Demand was lower because of cooler temperatures around the state a= nd=20 supply increased as several power plants completed repairs.=20 -- A federal judge in Sacramento ordered a major power generator to continu= e=20 supplying power to California. Reliant Energy Services Inc. had insisted th= at=20 it should not be forced to sell to debt-heavy utilities unless the state=20 guaranteed the bills.=20 Chronicle staff writer Greg Lucas contributed to this story. / E-mail Lynda= =20 Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.=20 2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 1=20 --- --- ----------------- California overcharged $5.5 bln for wholesale power=20 SACRAMENTO Calif. (AP) -- Electricity wholesalers overcharged California= =20 $5.5 billion over the past 10 months according to a report by managers of= =20 the state's power grid.=20 The five companies among other things frequently offered electricity at= =20 prices double what it cost them to produce concludes the California=20 Independent System Operator study which was published Thursday in the Los= =20 Angeles Times.=20 ``All overcharged but some excessively and some by moderate amounts'' sai= d=20 Anjali Sheffrin the ISO's director of market analysis.=20 The Times said the ISO planned to file the study with federal regulators=20 Thursday and are demanding that the money be paid back.=20 The companies denied the allegations adding they expect the Federal Energy= =20 Regulatory Commission will determine their prices were justified.=20 The commission has recently stepped up its scrutiny of power companies'=20 behavior during California's power crisis asking suppliers to justify $124= =20 million in sales during the first two months of the year or refund the mone= y.=20 Critics claim thousands of additional questionable sales are not being=20 challenged.=20 The ISO study alleges the wholesalers manipulated the market by bidding at= =20 excessive prices effectively withholding supplies or by not bidding at al= l=20 when they had generation capability available.=20 California has been spending about $45 million a day -- $4.2 billion since= =20 January -- to purchase power for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern= =20 California Edison. Both utilities the state's largest have been cut off b= y=20 electricity wholesalers because their credit is almost worthless.=20 State Controller Kathleen Connell said Wednesday that the state's=20 power-buying is gutting its budget surplus. Since the state started making= =20 emergency power buys the surplus has fallen from $8.5 billion to about $3.= 2=20 billion she said.=20 A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday ordering a major= =20 electricity wholesaler Reliant Energy Services to continue selling to=20 California despite its fear that it will not be paid.=20 U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said Californians were at risk of= =20 irreparable harm if Reliant stopped selling power to the ISO which buys it= =20 at the last minute on behalf of utilities to bolster supplies and try to fe= nd=20 off rolling blackouts.=20 Such blackouts hit the state twice this week. On Wednesday cooling=20 temperatures and the completion of repairs at several power plants allowed= =20 the state to avoid blackouts.=20 Standard & Poor's has put the state on a credit watch due to its power=20 purchases and chastised Gov. Gray Davis the Legislature and state regulato= rs=20 for not taking more aggressive steps to make sure the utilities can pay the= ir=20 bills.=20 Edison and PG&E say they are nearly $14 billion in debt due to soaring=20 wholesale power costs. The state's deregulation law blocks them from=20 recovering the costs from customers.=20 Connell ordered an audit of the state's power-buying saying Davis is=20 withholding key financial information from her office and the Legislature.= =20 She said she would refuse to transfer $5.6 billion into a ``rainy day fund'= '=20 she said was set up to impress Wall Street as the state prepares to issue $= 10=20 billion in revenue bonds to cover its power buys. Transferring the money=20 would leave the state general fund $2.4 billion in debt Connell said.=20 She called the scope of the proposed transfer unprecedented and said it=20 amounted to a ``shell game'' that disguises the power purchases' effect on= =20 the state budget.=20 Sandy Harrison spokesman for the state Department of Finance and Keely=20 Bosler of the Legislative Analyst's Office said such transfers are routin= e=20 and required by law. They put the state's budget surplus at $5.6 billion.= =20 ``The law says she has to do it. The law does not give her the power to=20 demand that kind of audit information'' Harrison said.=20 Harrison said the state's budget isn't in danger because it will be repaid= =20 with the revenue bonds.=20 Connell's criticism of Davis a fellow Democrat won support from Assembly= =20 Republicans and Secretary of State Bill Jones a Republican who may challen= ge=20 Davis next year.=20 Jones said he wants to announce his own plan to solve the state's energy=20 woes but can't unless Davis releases more financial details.=20 Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio dismissed the criticism.=20 ``Political grandstanding doesn't generate one more kilowatt of energy for= =20 California in this time of emergency'' he said.=20 Maviglio said the administration has released the financial information it= =20 can without jeopardizing negotiations for long-term power contracts with=20 wholesalers. --- --- ---------------------------- If the power goes off=20 Thursday March 22 2001=20 For most of us rolling power blackouts are a nuisance. For some people it= =20 could mean life or death.=20 In Laguna Hills cancer patient Ruben Marquez said the blackout interrupte= d=20 and prolonged his dialysis treatment. He was unharmed the Register report= ed=20 on Monday's blackouts which hit about 1.2 million Californians including= =20 100000 Orange County homes and businesses.=20 What can people do to prevent disaster?=20 They and their families should have a backup plan Rebecca Long=20 spokesperson for the Orange County Red Cross told us.=20 The Red Cross recommends in general that you plan for this as you would fo= r=20 any disaster making sure you have battery-operated radios and flashlights.= =20 We do not recommend candles for an emergency because of the fire hazard.= =20 She recommended a Web site: www.prepare.org People with special health needs such as electric-powered respirators and= =20 oxygen machines also should register with the power company. There's a whole classification for such persons with health needs Southe= rn=20 California Edison spokesperson Clara Potes-Fellow told us. The list is for us to alert them that the power could be discontinued. The= y=20 arrange to have power through other means batteries or generators. We=20 recommend that they have a battery backup of eight hours. Therefore if the= =20 rotating outages are one hour they will have plenty. Even though the power company has such people's names she said we don't= =20 inform them in advance because we have just minutes from when the Independe= nt=20 System Operator which directs where the electrons go orders Edison to=20 implement a power outage on the grid Edison owns. By the time it took to= =20 call people the outage would be over. What's the problem at the ISO? We notify as best we can Pat Dorinson IS= O=20 director of communications told us.=20 The object is to keep the lights on. Sometimes it's just a moment's notice= =20 before a blackout. It makes [giving more notice] pretty difficult. We're= =20 looking into ways to make the system better.=20 In the meantime citizens will have to keep taking precautions. We can't help noting that free market pricing instead of politically-drive= n=20 prices would much more likely make electricity available albeit at higher= =20 prices.=20 We would expect too there would be hardship allowances donations and=20 level-pay plans to accommodate various types of needs. --- Socialized electricity=20 Thursday March 22 2001=20 Government control of state power won't add one watt for consumers' use TOM MCCLINTOCK Sen. McClintock R-Thousand Oaks represents the 19th state Senate District= =20 in the state Legislature.=20 In a city where bad ideas never die Sacramento is once again host to a=20 variety of plans for the government takeover of California's power system.= =20 The private sector it is said has done such a terrible job of providing= =20 electricity that government must now step in to save the day. Thus the=20 Legislature is awash in proposals to spend billions of dollars of public=20 money to acquire existing power facilities. Fifteen billion dollars has=20 already been authorized for this purpose and an additional $10 billion is= =20 pending in the Senate.=20 Meanwhile Gov. Davis is losing about a $1.5 billion a month day-trading in= =20 the electricity market. The irony is that after the expenditure of as much = as=20 $25 billion for public power'' not a single inch will have been added to= =20 the transmission lines nor a single watt to the generating capacity of=20 California. The root of California's crisis is a catastrophic shortage of electricity. = In=20 a shortage prices rise or blackouts occur. To reduce prices and avoid=20 blackouts the only permanent solution is to increase the supply. Merely=20 changing the ownership of existing facilities leaves Californians with=20 exactly the same shortage only billions of dollars the poorer for it.=20 Government takeover advocates argue that at least a government power=20 authority will protect consumers against price gouging and poor management.= =20 Unfortunately government power authorities don't insulate against price=20 gouging. The biggest price gouger in this entire crisis has been the Los=20 Angeles Department of Water and Power which was generating electricity for= =20 $51 per megawatt hour and selling it back to California ratepayers for as= =20 much as $1400.=20 Nor does a government takeover assure better management. Just a few years= =20 ago the LADWP was buried in $7 billion in debt. The Sacramento Municipal= =20 Utilities District was a managerial laughing stock having squandered=20 hundreds of millions of dollars for a nuclear plant it barely used. Say what you will'' the government takeover advocates reply when push= =20 came to shove the municipal utility districts of California are in great= =20 shape while the private utilities are a basket case.'' But one needs to lo= ok=20 at the reason. Ever since the state reorganized the electricity market in= =20 1996 the municipal utility districts were allowed to trade in a free marke= t=20 while the private utilities were forced to buy power exclusively in a=20 Soviet-style power exchange where the highest bid during an hour set all=20 prices. The municipal utilities were able to retain their generators. Government=20 forced the private utilities to sell theirs. The municipal utilities were= =20 able to enter into long-term contracts. Government prevented the private=20 utilities from doing the same thing. The municipal utilities were able to= =20 negotiate the lowest prices available for power. Government forced the=20 private utilities to pay the outlandish prices on the government's power=20 exchange. The municipal utilities were allowed to adjust their rates to=20 reflect the actual cost of power to consumers. Government forced the privat= e=20 utilities to sell at astronomical losses. The final argument is simply an ideological one: that power is just too=20 important to be left in private hands. Really? Food is a great deal more=20 important and private hands have kept this nation well fed for centuries.= =20 Picturing the Department of Motor Vehicles running the local supermarket=20 should sober even the most euphoric of the government takeover advocates. California's Independent System Operator is predicting a 6000-megawatt=20 shortfall this summer. When there is no electricity on the transmission=20 lines it really won't matter who owns them. During the hottest hours of th= e=20 hottest days of the year when as many as 6 million homes are without=20 electricity it may begin to dawn on most people that socialism doesn't wor= k=20 any better in California than it did in the Soviet Union. --- --- ------- NEWS=20 Bush's Energy Policy Will Backfire Feinstein Warns / She wants federal pri= ce=20 controls now Carolyn Lochhead 03/22/2001=20 The San Francisco Chronicle=20 FINAL=20 Page A.3=20 (Copyright 2001)=20 Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif. warned yesterday that when blackouts=20 intensify in California this summer the pressure will intensify on the Bus= h=20 administration to explain why it rejected price controls on wholesale=20 electricity.=20 If by this summer California is as anticipated facing these blackouts a= nd=20 the federal government won't help I don't think the American people are=20 going to be very pleased Feinstein told California reporters.=20 Asked if help means the cost-based price controls Feinstein is pushing she= =20 said Right now yes.=20 Feinstein said California Democrats will begin to escalate their criticism = of=20 the administration predicting that support will build among Western senato= rs=20 for her legislation to impose price caps on wholesale electricity in exchan= ge=20 for lifting the rate cap on California consumers.=20 If it passes she said the administration is really going to have to face= =20 whether they're going to help or not help.=20 Feinstein said House Democrats from the West Coast also told her they expec= t=20 that White House inaction on price caps would help them gain seats in 2002.= =20 But she refused to speculate on the political fallout from the energy crisi= s=20 against Democrats in California .=20 Feinstein characterized Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's adamant argument= s=20 against price controls as recalcitrant saying his statement to a Senate= =20 committee last week essentially said California 's on its own.=20 She speculated that because California is dominantly Democratic even=20 somebody like me that works across party lines is beginning to wonder if th= is=20 isn't an unnecessarily barbed stick at California .=20 White House spokesman Ken Lisaius disputed the charge saying the Bush=20 administration is doing all it can but can't control that demand is=20 outstripping supply.=20 The federal government cannot prevent blackouts but can only help at the= =20 margins in situations like this Lisaius said. The only thing that can=20 prevent blackouts is reduced demand increased supply and good weather.=20 Abraham has twice in the last week argued strongly against price controls= =20 including the cost-based ones Feinstein advocates saying they could increa= se=20 blackouts by discouraging power sales into the Western electricity grid.=20 He also said many power providers including the federal Bonneville Power= =20 Administration in the home district of Sen. Gordon Smith the Oregon=20 Republican co-sponsoring Feinstein's bill would be exempt from federal pri= ce=20 caps. Feinstein disputed that but Smith's office agreed.=20 Abraham argued that price controls would not work in part because roughly= =20 half the Western electricity market would be exempt including federal powe= r=20 marketing authorities such as Bonneville rural electric cooperatives and= =20 municipal utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.= =20 On another front House Republicans omitted from their budget projected=20 revenues from opening part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil an= d=20 gas exploration.=20 A Budget Committee spokeswoman said Chairman Jim Nussle R-Iowa determined= =20 that the $1 billion in revenues from the wildlife refuge the Bush=20 administration included in its budget were not needed and that there was n= o=20 reason to put in something that controversial that some of our members don= 't=20 even like when you don't have to.=20 But Rep. Gary Miller R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County) said House=20 Republicans are not backing off at all from opening the wildlife refuge t= o=20 drilling. Our goal is to get it passed in the House he said saying the= =20 Budget Committee omitted the revenue projections because the drilling has n= ot=20 yet been approved.=20 PHOTO Caption: Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants to cap wholesale electricity=20 costs and end caps on con- sumer rates.=20 --- ------ Reliant Still In Power Pact Talks With Calif. DWR=20 By Christina Cheddar 03/22/2001=20 Dow Jones News Service=20 (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.)=20 Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES=20 =20 (This report was originally published late Wednesday.)=20 =20 NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Reliant Energy Inc. (REI) remains in discussions wit= h=20 the California Department of Water Resources to sign long-term power=20 contracts.=20 However issues regarding the creditworthiness of the agency remain said J= oe=20 Bob Perkins president of Reliant's Wholesale Division.=20 We want to be part of the solution Perkins said. At the same time Relia= nt=20 is trying to protect itself from incurring additional unpaid accounts=20 receivable he said.=20 The DWR has been buying power on behalf of California 's financially troubl= ed=20 utilities. However Reliant has yet to sign a formal agreement with the=20 agency because Reliant is concerned it won't be paid.=20 During a conference call Wednesday Perkins said he couldn't comment on a= =20 lawsuit between Reliant and the California Independent System Operator=20 because he didn't know how it was progressing.=20 Further court action on the case is expected Wednesday.=20 The lawsuit stems from Reliant's desire not to be required to sell power to= =20 California if the state won't guarantee payment. The Houston energy company= =20 is concerned that it won't be paid for power being bought by the ISO on=20 behalf of Edison International's (EIX) Southern California Edison unit and= =20 PG&E Corp.'s (PCG) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit.=20 To date Reliant is owed some $370 million from unpaid power sales to the= =20 utilities.=20 Much of Perkins' presentation centered on how the power crisis in Californi= a=20 emerged.=20 Using data from research firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates the=20 company discussed the imbalance between California 's power demand and its= =20 power supply.=20 Looking ahead to the summer it isn't a question of whether rolling blackou= ts=20 will occur but how many and how severe Perkins said.=20 Low hydroelectric availability loss of imported power warm weather deman= d=20 growth and plant outages could lead to a worst-case scenario in California = =20 he said adding that some estimates predict California could experience 11= 00=20 hours of power outages this summer.=20 The skyrocketing power prices in the region are a reflection of the power= =20 market's imbalance he said.=20 Reliant submitted only economically sound bids for power Perkins said. H= e=20 expects the company can document why it charged the prices it did as requir= ed=20 by regulators.=20 We have been very rigorous and very disciplined in what we have submitted= =20 Perkins said.=20 He added that retail customer price increases are one way of sending a sign= al=20 to consumers to lower consumption. He cited studies that show a 20% retail= =20 price increase could reduce consumption by 2000 megawatts. A megawatt is= =20 enough power to serve roughly 1000 homes.=20 -By Christina Cheddar Dow Jones Newswires 201-938-5166=20 --- ------ CPUC Must Address Rates In QF Repayment Order - SoCal Ed 03/22/2001=20 Dow Jones Energy Service=20 (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.)=20 (This article was originally published Wednesday)=20 =20 LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Any order from the California Public Utilities=20 Commission requiring utilities to pay small independent generators going= =20 forward must determine how that could be done within the existing rate=20 structure a spokesman for Edison International (EIX) utility Southern=20 California Edison said Wednesday.=20 The utility was responding to a PUC proposed decision that would require=20 utilities to pay small generators called qualifying facilities $79 a=20 megawatt hour within 15 days of electricity delivery. The decision will be= =20 voted March 27 by the CPUC.=20 We're still reviewing (the decision) and should have more to say in a day = or=20 two. To the extent that the commission orders us to pay going forward of=20 course we will. But it needs to address how we will pay the QFs a SoCal= =20 Edison spokesman said.=20 SoCal Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are=20 struggling under nearly $13 billion in uncollected power costs due to an=20 inability to pass high wholesale power costs to customers under a rate=20 freeze.=20 Gov. Gray Davis Tuesday blasted the utilities for not having paid their QF= =20 bills in full since December. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has made some=20 partial payments to QFs but SoCal Edison has paid nothing. Together they= =20 owe the QFs about $1 billion but the order doesn't address that debt.=20 An Edison executive said in reaction to the governor's sharp comments tha= t=20 the company simply doesn't have the money to pay creditors.=20 The root problem here is there just isn't enough money in the current rate= =20 base to pay our bills said Edison Senior Vice President of Public Affairs= =20 Bob Foster. We understand the financial distress (the QFs) face we are=20 facing financial distress ourselves.=20 The proposed PUC order would also require the state's investor-owned=20 utilities to offer the small generators five- and 10-year contracts for pow= er=20 for $79/MWh and $69/MWh respectively.=20 The QFs may be able to live with the PUC proposal but the five- and=20 10-year contract prices may be inadequate if natural gas prices at one of t= he=20 California borders are high said Jan Smutny-Jones president of the=20 Independent Energy Producers Association. Natural gas prices into Californi= a=20 are currently higher than anywhere in the country.=20 But some say the proposed decision may not be enough to prevent the QFs fro= m=20 filing involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the utilities for the mon= ey=20 they are still owed.=20 There's still a lot of skepticism. To say our position has changed based o= n=20 the CPUC decision or the governor's announcement is not accurate. A lot sti= ll=20 has to happen said Jay Lawrence a spokesman for a renewable creditors=20 committee.=20 -By Jessica Berthold Dow Jones Newswires 323-658-3872=20 --- ------ Calif Small Pwr Producers To Shut Plants If Rates Capped By Jason Leopold 03/22/2001=20 Dow Jones Energy Service=20 (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.)=20 Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES=20 =20 (This article was originally published earlier Thursday.)=20 =20 LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Many of California 's independent power producers= =20 late Wednesday threatened to take their small power plants offline this wee= k=20 if state lawmakers pass legislation that would cap the rates the generators= =20 charge for electricity they sell directly to the state's three investor-own= ed=20 utilities.=20 At issue is a bill that would repeal a section of the state's Public=20 Utilities Code which links the 688 so-called qualifying facilities'=20 electricity rates to the monthly border price of natural gas.=20 Lawmakers however are poised to pass the legislation.=20 State regulators are then expected to approve a measure that would=20 restructure the fluctuating rates the QFs charge PG&E Corp. (PCG) unit=20 Pacific Gas & Electric Edison International (EIX) unit Southern Californi= a=20 Edison and Sempra Energy (SRE) unit San Diego Gas & Electric from $170 a= =20 megawatt-hour to $69-$79/MWh regardless of the price of natural gas.=20 Whereas each of the 688 QF contracts differed largely because natural gas= =20 prices are higher in Southern California than Northern California the sta= te=20 wants the QFs to sign a general contract with the utilities.=20 The cogeneration facilities which produce about 5400 megawatts of=20 electricity in the state said the rates are too low and they won't sign ne= w=20 supply contracts with the utilities.=20 For $79/MWh natural gas would have to be $6 per million British thermal= =20 unit at the Southern California border said Tom Lu executive director of= =20 Carson-based Watson Cogeneration Company the state's largest QF generatin= g=20 340 MW. Our current gas price at the border is $12.50.=20 Other gas-fired QFs said the state could face another round of rolling=20 blackouts if lawmakers and state regulators pass the legislation which is= =20 expected to be heard on the Senate floor Thursday and allow it to be=20 implemented by Public Utilities Commission next week.=20 Lu whose company is half-owned by BP Amoco PLC (BP) and is owed $100 milli= on=20 by SoCal Ed said the proposals by the PUC and the Legislature will only= =20 make things worse.=20 David Fogarty spokesman for Western States Petroleum Association whose=20 members supply California with more than 2000 MW said the utilities need = to=20 pay the QFs more than $1 billion for electricity that was already produced.= =20 =20 State Loses 3000 MW QF Output Due Of Financial Reasons=20 =20 The QFs represent about one-third or 9700 MW of the state's total power= =20 supply. Roughly 5400 MW are produced by natural gas-fired facilities. The= =20 rest is generated by wind solar power and biomass.=20 About 3000 MW of gas-fired and renewable QF generation is offline in=20 California because the power plant owners haven't been paid hundreds of=20 millions of dollars from cash-strapped utilities SoCal Ed and PG&E for near= ly=20 four months.=20 Several small power plant owners owed money by SoCal Ed have threatened to= =20 drag the utility into involuntary bankruptcy if the utility continues to=20 default on payments and fails to agree to supply contracts at higher rates.= =20 The defaults have left many of the renewable and gas-fired QFs unable to=20 operate their power plants because they can't afford to pay for the natural= =20 gas to run their units. Others continue to produce electricity under their= =20 contracts with the state's utilities but aren't being paid even on a forwar= d=20 basis.=20 The California Independent System Operator keeper of the state's electrici= ty=20 grid said the loss of the QF generation was the primary reason rolling=20 blackouts swept through the state Monday and Tuesday.=20 Gov. Gray Davis recognizing the potential disaster if additional QFs took= =20 their units offline held marathon meetings with key lawmakers Monday and= =20 Tuesday to try and hammer out an agreement that would get the QFs paid on a= =20 forward basis and set rates of $79/MWh and $69/MWh for five and 10 year=20 contracts. He also said he would direct the PUC to order the utilities to p= ay=20 the QFs for power they sell going forward.=20 After next week the QF problem will be behind us Davis said Tuesday. We= =20 want to get the QFs paid...the QFs are dropping like flies...and when that= =20 happens the lights go out.=20 But this just makes the problem worse said Assemblyman Dean Florez=20 D-Shafter a member of the Assembly energy committee.=20 I don't know how we are going to keep the lights on Florez said in an=20 interview. Many of these congenerators are in my district. They said if th= e=20 legislation doesn't change they are going offline. This compounds the issue= =20 of rolling blackouts especially now when we need every megawatt.=20 Davis who didn't meet with people representing the QFs said he was handin= g=20 the QF issue to the PUC because lawmakers failed to pass legislation that= =20 would have set a five-year price for natural gas and allow the QFs to sign= =20 individual contracts with the utilities. In addition SOCal Ed opposed the= =20 legislation saying the rates should be below $50/MWh.=20 Some renewable power producers said they aren't vehemently opposed to the n= ew=20 rate structure because it guarantees them a higher rate than what was=20 originally proposed.=20 =20 QFs Want Third Party Supply Contracts=20 =20 John Wood who represents the SoCal Ed Gas Fired Creditors Committee one o= f=20 a handful of groups that have formed since January to explore options on=20 getting paid by the utilities said his group of gas-fired QF creditors wan= t=20 to be released from their supply contracts and sell to third parties.=20 Under our plan we would be permitted to sell electricity to third parties= =20 (including the state Department of Water Resources) until a resolution to t= he=20 crisis can be accomplished wood said.=20 Hal Dittmer president of Sacramento-based Wellhead Electric in Sacramento= =20 which is owed $8 million by PG&E has 85 MW of gas-fired generation units= =20 offline.=20 Under the state's plan Dittmer said he risks going out of business.=20 I can't buy natural gas for what I would be paid under this decision he= =20 said. The state needs to quit kidding themselves that they don't need to= =20 raise electricity rates. All of this is being driven by an artificial=20 construct that California can avoid raising rates.=20 =20 -By Jason Leopold Dow Jones Newswires 323-658-3874=20 jason.leopold@dowjones.com=20

other

informative

California Update

Please detach the attachment combine it with the articles Gavin Dillingham sent me and attach to an e-mail to Robert Zoellick and Irwin Stelzer with this message from me: Attached is some background information on the reregulation crisis in California. -----------------

other

formal

Joe Hirko farewell reception

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

other

casual

California Power Issue

See attached WSJ article particularly the last paragraph. The message is: there has not been enough deregulation the government is still very much in the way. California is a perfect example: the market has responded to demand increases with thousands of megawatts of new generation but state and local officials have not sited them and companies like Enron are offering price protection but utilities are not allowed to take advantage. -----------------

other

critical

Re: Purported Ken Lay Promise to Haley Barbour

Ken hasn't mentioned it. I'll ask next time I talk to him. Linda Robertson 07/03/2001 01:58 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron Richard Shapiro/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Pat Shortridge/Corp/Enron@Enron John Shelk/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Purported Ken Lay Promise to Haley Barbour Pat Shortridge heard from the Executive Director of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee that Haley Barbour the new finance chair for the Committee had called Ken to request that he serve as a Finance Co-Chairman. Pat was told that Ken agreed. Have you heard of this call and did Ken agree?Thanks

government & politics

formal

RE: Boston

Bill Thanks. I am forwarding the message to my son. Vince

personal & social

casual

Energy Issues

Please see the following articles: Oakland Trib Wed 3/7: Breakthrough made in rescue of PG&E Bakersfield Californian Wed 3/7: El Paso Energy closes six valley power plants Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: Still undecided: Who'll pay DWR for electricity SF Chron Wed 3/7: State Taxpayers In Dark on Details Of Energy Deal Sac Bee Wed 3/7: Lawmakers pitch fixes for region's energy woes Orange Co. Register Wed 3/7: Power plan called wrong LA Times - Wed 3/7: Bill to Cut Some Power Prices Stalls Sac Bee Wed 3/7: PG&E could face mutiny on outages: SMUD others may balk if utility orders summer blackouts SF Chron Wed 3/7: PUC to Decide Fate Of Utility Workers PG&E Edison want to trim costs by laying off thousands cutting service San Jose Mercury Wed 3/7: Power prices could soar during the summer SF Chron Wed 3/7: Power Plant Plans Cause Conflicts East county residents blast supervisors Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: Supervisors set search for power plant sites Sac Bee Wed 3/7: Peter Schrag: California's $90 billion infrastructure gap Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: PG&E power plan debated at hearing SF Chron Thurs. 3/8: State OKs 'Peaker' Power Plant at SFO / Temporary generator could be sending electricity to 50000 homes by August WSJ Thurs. 3/8: Crossed Wires: Major Kinks Emerge In Gov. Davis's Plan To Power California --- State's Outlays for Electricity May Be Hard to Recover Without Rate Increases --- Betting on Long-Term Deals ------------------------ Breakthrough made in rescue of PG&E State ready to pay $7 billion for lines By Steve Geissinger SACRAMENTO BUREAU SACRAMENTO -- Signaling a breakthrough in secret energy crisis talks the Davis administration disclosed Tuesday it may announce the framework of a pact to rescue the teetering Pacific Gas and Electric Co. next week. Things are going very well said Steve Maviglio a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis. The state appears to be poised to pay at least $7 billion -- and possibly billions more -- for PG&E's high-voltage transmission lines as part of a deal to financially renovate the north-state utility according to sources familiar with the negotiations. But consumer advocates insisted that even the $7 billion price is too much to pay. And experts warned that a deal with PG&E will be more complex than with other utilities. PG&E representatives declined comment in keeping with their policy on the talks even though the Davis administration said an announcement could come as early as next week or the following week. The new timetable for an announcement was substantially sooner than in Davis' original forecast. Until late last week PG&E was still resisting the sale of its power grid despite the fact that Davis had announced the framework of an agreement with Southern California Edison. Davis expects to soon announce a similar deal with the San Diego Gas and Electric Co. However any such deal still would need federal approval. The investor-owned utilities trapped between high wholesale costs and lower regulated retail rates amassed nearly $13 billion in debts and were unable to buy electricity this winter. With the onset of rolling blackouts the state began brokering billions of dollars in emergency short- and long-term power purchases. Davis' strategy to ease the energy price and supply crisis includes bolstering both conservation and generation while fiscally refurbishing the nearly bankrupt utilities. As part of the rescue deal the utilities would have to drop legal actions seeking dramatically higher electricity bills environmentally shield wildlands they own sell power from their generators to Californians for the next decade and secure help with their debts from their parent companies. Together with the cash infusion from the sale of their power 26000-mile power grids the utilities would be allowed to sell bonds to raise funds and use customer money to pay them off. The state would upgrade the high-voltage lines and lease them back to the utilities for operation. In a reflection of the negotiations with the three utilities a Davis administration official said the deal with PG&E is proving to be more complex than with the other firms. Though PG&E finally agreed late last week to sell its transmission grid the utility apparently wants more than the $7 billion that Davis has offered according to sources. The figure is more than twice the book amount or the value placed on the system for purposes of accounting. And that's the markup that lured Edison into an agreement to sell its smaller portion of the transmission grid for $2.8 billion. But PG&E which fears an erosion of its economic base may be asking as much as $10 billion. Due to complexities in the state's 1996 deregulation of the industry PG&E is more likely to lose revenue than Edison as a result of selling its transmission lines according to experts. Big customers might be able to bypass the utility's remaining local distribution lines thereby eroding its customer base. Therefore the utility may view bankruptcy and sale of its transmission lines to the highest bidder as a potentially attractive alternative to selling its share of the grid to the state at too low a price. ---- El Paso Energy closes six valley power plants Filed: 03/07/2001 By CHIP POWER Californian staff writer e-mail: ppower@bakersfield.com El Paso Energy citing non-payment from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said it has shut down six cogeneration plants this week. The smaller plants produced about 175 megawatts of electricity and are located primarily in the San Joaquin Valley said company spokesman Mel Scott. A megawatt can supply power to 1000 homes. At least 10 plants have closed in the past two weeks as a result of non-payment according to the state Independent System Operator which manages most of the state's electrical distribution. The El Paso Energy plants are operated with various partners and had not been compensated for December January and February deliveries said Scott. He said he did not know the total amount due but said the plants would be closed until PG&E's credit worthiness is improved. A cogeneration plant common in oil fields simultaneously produces heat energy and electrical or mechanical power from the same fuel in the same facility. Typically it produces electricity and steam which can be deployed to enhance oil recovery. Kern County is the state's leading oil-producing county. El Paso owns or has interests in more than 40000 miles of interstate and intrastate pipeline connecting the nation's principal natural gas supply regions to the five largest consuming regions in the United States namely the Gulf Coast California the Northeast the Midwest and the Southeast. El Paso closed up 99 cents on Tuesday or 1.4 percent at $71.49. The Houston-based company's stock price has ranged between $36.31 and $75.30 in the last 52 weeks. ---- Still undecided: Who'll pay DWR for electricity By Karen Gaudette ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO -- The price tag is $3.2 billion and counting for electricity bought by the state Department of Water Resources for the customers of two nearly bankrupt utilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Southern California Edison and the state disagree over how the DWR eventually will be reimbursed for its purchases on the expensive last-minute power market. So do the state power regulators who have the final call over who gets the money when. Under a recent law the DWR went into the electricity-buying business to help keep the two utilities from sinking further into their $13 billion debt. The state plans to retrieve the money by selling $10 billion in revenue bonds. The utilities continue to collect ratepayer dollars on that electricity which the bill's author Assemblyman Fred Keeley D-Boulder Creek says is meant to help them begin paying down their debt. In a recent letter however DWR officials requested that the state Public Utilities Commission order that a portion of that money be diverted to the state. But after the utilities subtract the costs of generating electricity payments to environmentally friendly power plants and other expenses there is no money left from ratepayer dollars to give to the DWR without sinking further into debt PG&E spokesman Ron Low said Tuesday. If it passed along money to the DWR our undercollection would grow by about $2.4 billion by the end of the year Low said. The commission unable to agree on the best course of action left the issue untouched at its last meeting but expects to revisit the issue when it meets this morning. Commissioner Richard Bilas is proposing an alternate plan that would have the DWR set its own revenue requirements that would be passed on to ratepayers. The PUC also is expected to respond to complaints from laid-off workers and customers that layoffs by utilities to cut costs have been hurting service. Commissioner Carl Wood warned at the last meeting that failure to provide safe and reliable service could mean fines for the utilities. Representatives from electrical workers unions the PUC and the utilities were to discuss the issue Tuesday afternoon. I don't think we believe that utilities can find a way out of their problems by laying off workers said Mindy Spatt a spokeswoman with the Utility Reform Network. We think consumers deserve safe and reliable service and we think they deserve it at a reasonable price. ---- State Taxpayers In Dark on Details Of Energy Deal David Lazarus Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Few people would purchase a car simply because the dealer said ''Trust me it's a great deal.'' Yet Gov. Gray Davis essentially is telling Californians just that about dozens of long-term power contracts. Because of confidentiality agreements with power companies the governor has revealed only scant details about the state's multibillion-dollar contracts for electricity over the next 10 years. Gov. Davis has our money and we can't see how he's spending it said Doug Heller a spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. We've been locked out of the room. Neither Davis nor power companies would divulge specific details about the price duration or scope of individual contracts. Each cited secrecy clauses that the governor's office said had been desired by both sides. What consumers do know is this: -- California has signed 40 contracts and tentative accords valued at about $40 billion to secure enough power to light 9 million homes over the next decade. -- The average purchase price of each deal is $69 per megawatt hour -- well above the $30 to $40 charged by power generators before California's energy market went haywire last summer. -- If as is widely expected wholesale power prices fall in years ahead the state nevertheless will be locked into paying above-market rates for electricity. But it is not known which generator agreed to part with the most power at the cheapest level or the full range of the prices in concocting the $69 average. Moreover it is unclear how shrewdly the state negotiated with taxpayer money in securing power on behalf of cash-strapped utilities. These agreements are the bedrock of our long-term energy policy Davis said Monday in announcing the deals. The governor's office defended the murky nature of the contracts yesterday. It's a business transaction in which private corporate information is included said Steve Maviglio a spokesman for Davis. That's the kind of information that never gets revealed. While additional elements of the contracts will be publicized in coming months he said the contracts themselves will remain a secret. You'll never see all the details Maviglio said. This did not sit well with many observers. It's a breach of public trust said Daniel Bacon a San Francisco attorney specializing in business law. A public servant spending public money shouldn't be able to keep the spending secret. But Gary Ackerman executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum an energy-industry association in Menlo Park called confidentiality agreements a necessary evil in transactions like this. He explained that no power company would agree to a long-term contract if rival firms could learn the terms of the accord. The company would be losing too much of its competitive edge in the marketplace Ackerman said. At the same time he noted that secrecy allowed the buyer -- in this case California taxpayers -- to secure more favorable terms with individual sellers. A high price with one generator would not necessarily be sought by all power providers. Still the fact that public funds are being used makes confidentiality in this case a different matter than say Cisco Systems' quietly negotiating to take over yet another tech rival. The public is in a very awkward position said Michael Shames executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego. It has to rely on the good word and expertise of the governor and he has yet to demonstrate that he has expertise or good word in this field. Shames likened consumers to passengers in a plane being flown by a pilot without a license to fly. But what choice do we have? he asked. I don't see many other options available right now. There's the rub. No matter how bad a deal California may have cut to help meet its energy demands the alternative -- blackouts disruptions economic catastrophe -- is far far worse. On the other hand it already appears that the new contracts will not shield Californians from the threat of daily outages this summer when demand surges. Davis said only about 60 percent of the state's summertime electricity needs so far had been met. Part of the reason is that many power companies already have contracted for their output this year. Duke Energy said this was why it would not begin its nine-year contract with California until 2002 while Williams Cos. said it would only gradually increase the amount of available wattage in its 10-year contract. Both companies meanwhile will continue to profit this summer by selling into the volatile spot market where wholesale power went for as much as $1 500 per megawatt hour last year. You can't sell all your power into long-term contracts said Paula Hall- Collins a Williams spokeswoman. You save some for the spot market. Consumer groups worry that consumers will be hammered again this summer with sky-high power prices and then get nailed down the road by contracts for above-market rates. If we could look at the terms of the deals we'd see that California is being gouged for 10 years said Heller of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. But the governor doesn't want us to see that. Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum said the state had gotten the best rates it could under current market conditions. California went for long-term contracts when everyone else moved in as well he said. Californians are paying a price for not acting sooner. ---- Lawmakers pitch fixes for region's energy woes By David Whitney Bee Washington Bureau (Published March 7 2001) WASHINGTON -- California members of Congress pleaded for everything from wholesale price caps to extending daylight-saving time an extra hour to help the region cope this summer with its persistent electricity shortage but none of the ideas seemed to catch fire at a House hearing Tuesday. People will die in California because of this crisis Rep. Brad Sherman a Los Angeles-area Republican warned the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Sherman testified that his idea for saving lives is to extend daylight-saving time by an extra hour so that there would be more daylight at the end of the day when power consumption surges. One of the peak demand periods for electricity occurs between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. when the sun sets and people come home from work Sherman testified. If people come home and it is light out there is less of an inclination to turn a light on. Sherman said the state Legislature has called for congressional approval for states to be given authority to extend daylight-saving time and he cited analyses by the California Energy Commission and other agencies suggesting that it could cut power consumption by 1 percent to 2 percent. Sherman who was one of about a dozen California lawmakers presenting their views on the energy squeeze drew no questions from committee leaders about what his legislation might do to everything from airline schedules to television programming if West Coast states didn't agree on the same time standard. Most of the committee's questioning was on the more popular idea proposed by several California and Western lawmakers primarily Democrats to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose caps on wholesale electricity prices that have gone wild because of a regional power shortage. Rep. Bob Filner D-San Diego charged that the price spiral has little to do with power shortages but a lot to do with a small cartel of generators bilking ratepayers. Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash. said he brought up the idea of regional price caps with President Bush who was initially skeptical. But Inslee said that Bush warmed to the idea after being told that protections could be built into the caps so as not to discourage construction of new power plants. Upon hearing that Inslee said Bush invited him to meet with the president's Cabinet-level task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney on a national energy strategy. But Inslee said he can't get the group to meet with him. It's very disappointing Inslee said. Tuesday's hearing was part of a series the panel is holding on the California crisis so far without any emerging consensus on what if anything Congress should do. ---- Power plan called wrong Wall Street analysts say the governor's approach to the problem avoids the issue that caused the imbalance. March 7 2001 By DON THOMPSON The Associated Press SACRAMENTO California's scramble to insulate consumers from the soaring price of electricity may add to the state's power problems this summer Wall Street analysts said Tuesday. Gov. Gray Davis' emphasis on buying utilities' transmission lines and negotiating long-term power contracts to help ease their debts skirts the deep imbalance between wholesale and market rates that led to the state's power problems in the first place they said. In the long run it doesn't solve anything said Michael Worms an industry analyst for Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. In the long run you need to send the right price signals to consumers which will create its own conservation signals. Unfortunately customers were shielded from that in California. Davis said Monday that the state's first contracts to buy electricity for two financially struggling utilities will provide only about two-thirds of the power needed on a typical summer day forcing Californians to cut power use at least 10 percent to avoid blackouts. Since early January the state has been buying one- third of the power Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers need. The two utilities denied credit by suppliers say they have lost nearly $14 billion due to soaring wholesale electricity prices that the state's industry-deregulation law says they cannot pass on to consumers. The keepers of the state power grid had enough electricity Tuesday to avoid declaring an electricity alert but have faced an almost-daily scramble for weeks due to a tight supply and high wholesale prices. Several wholesale and retail rate proposals are circulating. Among them: Free-market advocates such as Worms want an immediate end to the deregulation-imposed retail rate freeze on Edison and PG&E that will expire next year. Davis wants a Western price cap of $100 per megawatt hour on power generators he says have been prof iteering from California's short energy supply. The Bush administration and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are cool to that idea. In December FERC imposed a soft cap of $150 per megawatt hour on wholesale rates in the state and required suppliers to justify any higher prices they charge. Consumer groups such as The Utility Reform Network or TURN want regulated rates for residential and small-business customers but free-market rates for large industrial customers which sought deregulation in the first place. TURN also advocates a tiered rate structure with higher rates for consumers who use more than a reasonable amount of electricity each month. Assembly Republicans say electricity and natural-gas prices will fall naturally if the state increases supply mainly by making it easier to build plants and pipelines. Right now you're sort of sitting partially with regulation and part with the free market said Paul Fremont an analyst with Jefferies & Co. Both these systems work. It's sort of that in-between system that you have in Califor nia that doesn't appear to be working. The system discourages generators from building new power plants because they aren't guaranteed a profit and it doesn't do enough to discourage power use by consumers because the price they pay doesn't reflect the true cost of power Fremont said. I don't think people here have much faith in the market and why should they? countered TURN's Mindy Spatt. I think there are probably better ways of encouraging consumers to conserve than by gouging them. Davis insists the crisis can be resolved without raising rates for Edison and PG&E customers beyond the existing rate structure. In January state regulators imposed temporary rate hikes of 7 to 15 percent on Edison and PG&E customers. The Legislature and Davis extended the increases for up to a decade to help pay back the estimated $10 billion in power buying the state expects to do for Edison and PG&E over the next several years and finance its purchase of the power lines owned by the two companies and San Diego Gas & Electric. Rates were already scheduled to increase next year for Edison and PG&E customers. Under the 1996 deregulation law the pair's ratepayers saw a 10 percent rate reduction but only until early 2002. That rate cut will likely expire as planned Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio has said. Davis wants those rates to cover not only the traditional cost of generating transporting and distributing power but the added cost of paying off the two utilities' massive debt and buying their transmission lines said Assemblyman Fred Keeley D-Boulder Creek the Assembly's chief power negotiator. Yet Davis has indirectly addressed the rate imbalance by signing legislation that will let regulators raise consumer rates if necessary Keeley said. The governor and lawmakers are in effect spreading out rate increases over a decade by using long-term revenue bonds to buy power for the nearly bankrupt utilities said Severin Borenstein director of the University of California Energy Institute. At some point we have to deal with the reality that all of the power that we buy has to be paid for by somebody - it's either going to come from taxpayers or it's going to come from ratepayers Bor enstein said. Raising rates now would get us a lot of conservation. Davis also wants financial incentives for conservation and power-plant construction in time to make a difference this summer. Our mouths were agape at the rapid timetable Keeley said. Legislators are rushing to pass those incentives by month's end he said allowing three months for consumers and suppliers to act before the heat of summer. Among bills considered Tuesday the Senate Energy Committee approved legislation to accelerate the siting of power plants. It also was considering a proposal to restructure rates for generators that use renewable energy to provide about 30 percent of the state's electricity. ---- Bill to Cut Some Power Prices Stalls Energy: Democrats balk at varying payment levels for alternative generators. By DAN MORAIN JULIE TAMAKI Times Staff Writers SACRAMENTO--Legislation aimed at cutting prices for more than a fourth of the power consumed in California stalled Tuesday as Democrats questioned why a few alternative energy generators--some of them campaign donors--stood to receive higher payments than others. Lawmakers working to unravel California's energy mess have been negotiating for weeks in an effort to cut the price paid to more than 600 generators of alternative power by more than half to below 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. Those alternative generators' contracts with utilities have shot up in recent months because of a rise in the price of natural gas. The cash-strapped corporations have suspended or made partial payments to the generators over the last few months causing many to shut down or reduce their outputs. But even as the lawmakers reached agreement that pushed the average price to near the 8-cent level per kilowatt-hour some generators would have received higher prices under the bill by state Sen. Jim Battin (R-La Quinta). Some of the generators that stood to benefit had donated to Battin's campaigns. One--Windtec Inc.--gave Battin a $20000 campaign donation in 1999. Others contributed from $3000 and $5000 last year. Battin acknowledged that he has received campaign contributions from some wind power generators but said there is no connection between the donations and the bill's provisions. It is illegal it is unethical and it's not how I do business he said. Battin noted that 25% of the state's alternative energy producers are in his district. As Democrats on the Senate Energy Committee blocked the bill Battin warned that some alternative energy producers might react to the delay by trying to force Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric into bankruptcy. We will be the cause of bankruptcy Battin said. That prompted Energy Committee Chairwoman Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) to retort: I'm really tired of being threatened with bankruptcy. Alternative energy producers including those that use wind solar power biomass and other means produce 27% of the energy used in California. They sell the electricity to the utilities which in turn transmit it to retail consumers. But with the utilities facing multibillion-dollar debts the alternative energy producers under contract with Edison have not been paid since November. Scores of alternative energy producers supported the measure. Edison International and the San Francisco-based consumer group the Utility Reform Network opposed it. Michael Florio of the Utility Reform group said the deal could result in higher consumer prices an Edison representative said the same thing. Battin and Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek) worked out an arrangement with many of the generators. Keeley took the lead in the early negotiations and then turned to Battin to introduce the legislation SB 47X. Rather convoluted language would have allowed higher payments to a select few generators that produce electricity from wind and biomass. Most of California's wind suppliers for instance would have received about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. But a handful of them about half a dozen wind farms--mostly in the Palm Springs area represented by Battin--would have received 7.8 cents. Battin contends that other wind producers receive additional payments that boost them to the same level as Windtec and others that would get the higher payments. They get the same deal Battin said of the handful of generators that would benefit from the provisions he added to the bill. In California's overall energy market the amount of money that would have flowed to the favored generators is minor. But the added prices that would have been paid to the generators would have translated to at least $19 million in the next five years to be absorbed by Southern California Edison customers according to one analysis. Also Tuesday more details were disclosed about another leg of the state's effort to escape from the energy crunch--the deals with large power generators to supply electricity to California for as long as 10 years. Those arrangements were announced by Gov. Gray Davis Monday as the bedrock of California's energy policy. But some consumer advocates warned that the deals could lock the state into excessively high-priced contracts. S. David Freeman the general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Davis' negotiator said that the state guarded against that by varying the time spans of its deals. About 6000 megawatts are expected to be available this summer about one-third of the energy needed by the state Freeman said. The amount of power under contract swells until more than 9000 megawatts are contracted in 2004 half of the needed amount before dipping to 8000 megawatts in 2010. What we're doing here is what everybody said had to be done Freeman said. We deliberately bought 50% so we'd have a good mix between long-term contracts which may turn out to be somewhat higher or somewhat lower than the spot market and purchases on the spot market. ---- PG&E could face mutiny on outages: SMUD others may balk if utility orders summer blackouts By Carrie Peyton Bee Staff Writer (Published March 7 2001) Sacramento's electric utility wants out of a deal that imposes rolling blackouts locally on PG&E's command. So do a lot of other utilities. They've been writing letters lobbying lawmakers and launching informal talks with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to get off the hook before summer. Who dodges the blackout bullet is going to play out as a political hot button around the state said George Fraser head of the Northern California Power Agency a coalition of municipal utilities. In Sacramento the next volley is expected soon with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District reportedly poised to notify PG&E that it will no longer black out homes and businesses on the larger utility's command. We are absolutely trying to fight off the requirement for rolling blackouts for the Sacramento area said Linda Davis one of seven elected members of the SMUD board of directors. Saying they don't want to be dragged down by somebody else's problems two Southern California utilities have written grid operators asking to be exempted from any blackouts caused by PG&E's or Southern California Edison's financial woes. But in PG&E's view California is in an energy crisis (and) ... we're all in this together said spokesman John Nelson. The maneuvering comes amid bleak forecasts for power supplies this summer. Although Gov. Gray Davis has said conservation new power plants and moderate weather could avert blackouts officials at the Independent System Operator which runs much of California's grid expect frequent rotating outages. One consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicts 20 hours of rolling blackouts during July and August and about 200 hours of especially intense calls for voluntary cutbacks. Before blackouts hit the jockeying over just whose lights air conditioners and assembly lines will be shut down is growing. The outcome could affect millions of people statewide. The state Public Utilities Commission is probing rolling blackout programs run by the for-profit utilities it regulates including PG&E and Edison. A PUC analysis has suggested that PG&E's program which currently exempts about 40 percent of its customers should spread the burden more broadly. For example it said 1.9 million homes and businesses are spared just because they share a circuit with a customer deemed essential. But not-for-profit utilities such as SMUD which answer to their own elected boards or city councils have other worries. Many have already lined up their power supplies for summer. Some have raised rates or are considering raising rates. Some have taken extra conservation steps. They think those preparations ought to give them leverage to ease blackout clauses in their contracts with PG&E. SMUD general manager Jan Schori is going to use every avenue ... any avenue to put pressure on including lobbying the ISO the governor and others said utility director Davis. The Northern California Power Agency a joint-powers authority that owns and operates power plants for municipal utilities has begun informal negotiations with PG&E to change blackout rules according to Fraser its top executive. It is preparing to write PG&E asking that its members be exempted from outages altogether. Failing that it wants them to face fewer outages or to be compensated for cutting off power he said. At SMUD the utility board has met in closed session to discuss exactly what it is required to do during electric emergencies under terms of the interconnection contract that links SMUD's lines to PG&E's. The contracts are being inspected with a fine-tooth comb said SMUD director Howard Posner. Schori declined to comment on any specifics. Sources indicated that the main option being considered is notifying PG&E that because of changed circumstances SMUD believes it no longer is required to routinely comply with outage requests. Other options being explored include re-negotiating existing agreements with PG&E. Posner said that ever since two days of rolling blackouts in January constituents have been asking him 'Why are we participating when we're not the problem?' And I don't have a good answer to that. Several directors said SMUD has already spent a lot of money -- and is considering 16 percent rate increases -- to ensure that it has enough electricity under contract to meet its customers' summer demands. They believe PG&E should do the same. We're almost like a David against Goliath here said board vice president Genevieve Shiroma. The huge investor-owned utilities next door have severe problems that they need to get under control. In addition SMUD plans to argue that because it can cut usage through its Peak Corps program which remotely turns off air conditioners at volunteer households it has already done its part without rotating outages director Davis said. PG&E believes the interconnection agreements that govern smaller utilities' ties to its transmission lines have benefits and burdens to both sides said Nelson. It wouldn't be fair or good policy for just one provision to be altered without taking a look at how that affects the entire contract he said. Interconnection contracts generally have clauses that require utilities to help each other out to avert greater emergencies. Sometimes reducing demand -- called load shedding -- can be the only way to stabilize the electric grid in the seconds after a major power plant or transmission line fails. It's been around in the electrical fabric forever said Jim Pope head of Silicon Valley Power Santa Clara's city-run utility. In addition to legal requirements you have a moral obligation so you don't bring the system to collapse. Like other city-run utilities Silicon Valley Power has a contract with PG&E that requires it to shed load during an electric emergency. But its contract allows it to work with big users to reduce their demand so no one has to be completely shut off. Such agreements formed long before deregulation when PG&E ran the north state's grid now are complicated by the 1997 creation of the state Independent System Operator. The ISO today runs pieces of the grid owned by PG&E Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. If it believes power use is about to surge past supply potentially triggering a grid collapse across the western United States the ISO notifies the three utilities that they have to shed a certain number of megawatts. The big utilities meet that requirement two ways. They cut circuits to some of their own customers and they tell smaller connected utilities to cut a proportionate share. In Northern California about 80 percent of the outages are borne by PG&E customers and the rest by customers of SMUD and other municipal utilities and irrigation districts. In one sense we are all in this together. If SMUD were in danger of going down we would hope others would help us out said SMUD's Posner. But that's if we're in danger from circumstances beyond our control not from mismanagement or lack of financial wherewithal. It is unclear what penalties if any a utility would face for violating an interconnection agreement. In the long run the issue would be fought either in the courts or before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grid officials said. As a practical matter in the seconds when the risk to the grid is greatest if one utility refused to shed load the ISO would probably solve to problem by calling on PG&E Edison or others who are willing to make deeper cutbacks they said. ---- PUC to Decide Fate Of Utility Workers PG&E Edison want to trim costs by laying off thousands cutting service Bernadette Tansey Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 2001 San Francisco Chronicle State regulators are set to decide today whether debt-ridden Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison can conserve cash by laying off thousands of workers and letting service standards slip. Union officials who protested the layoffs before the California Public Utilities Commission warn that if the cuts go through neighborhoods hit by power outages could stay dark for hours and more customers could face busy signals when they call about their bills. An administrative law judge agreed advising the commission in February to order the utilities to restore 725 positions already cut and block the elimination of an additional 2125 jobs. Judge John Wong said PG&E and Edison have acknowledged the layoffs will not substantially improve their shaky financial condition which arose from skyrocketing wholesale electricity costs the utilities could not pass on to consumers under a rate cap. The savings would barely make a dent Wong said in his draft decision. The two companies together claim that their debt from power purchases amounts to more than $13 billion. PG&E says it has saved $18 million from the first wave of 325 layoffs. Wong's recommendation is already running into resistance on the PUC. Commissioner Richard Bilas said the five-member panel should not be micromanaging the utilities in a time of crisis. Bilas has proposed an alternate ruling that would allow the utilities to make the cuts but provide for PUC monitoring of service in case the commission wants to step in later. We're in a situation where the utilities are not collecting the revenues they need to operate and yet we may be guilty of not letting them cut expenses where they can cut expenses Bilas said. PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne said savings from the layoffs are helping to keep electricity running and gas flowing. It keeps cash in our accounts so we can keep doing day-to-day business Tremayne said. In addition to the 325 positions dropped so far PG&E is proposing to cut an additional 675 during the next three to six months. The cuts affect temporary and contract workers who read meters handle new service hookups and replace equipment. PG&E has no plans to eliminate permanent positions. The company is struggling to keep up with a higher workload at its call center as customers deluge the lines with inquiries about their rising bills and the effects of deregulation. Calls to PG&E ballooned from 1.3 million in January 2000 to 2.3 million in January 2001. Bilas advocates granting PG&E's request to temporarily relax standards requiring the utility to respond swiftly to customer calls and to read customers' meters once a month. PG&E wants to read meters bimonthly and send bills based on the estimated use between readings. Discrepancies could be corrected later. Wong called those measures unacceptable. He said customers need to know immediately if their efforts to conserve power are working. Wong also said the utilities' own experts have said the workforce reductions will lengthen the time required to restore power after nonemergency equipment failure. Eric Wolfe communications director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 said some customers have already been left without power overnight because PG&E is trying to avoid the use of overtime on nonemergency power outages. It hurts a lineman to walk away from the job leaving a customer without power Wolfe said. Tremayne said PG&E is trying to minimize overtime costs but denied the company has allowed customers to go without power out of financial concerns. He said crews were pulled out when darkness and falling trees made the work too dangerous. ---- Power prices could soar during the summer Posted at 10:35 p.m. PST Tuesday March 6 2001 BY STEVE JOHNSON Mercury News Unless Gov. Gray Davis arranges significantly more long-term electricity contracts or persuades people to turn off a lot more lights California's unpredictable spot market for power could wreak havoc this summer. Even with the 40 long-term deals announced by Davis on Monday experts interviewed Tuesday said up to 43 percent of the state's daily needs may have to come from this highly volatile market in which power is bought within a day of need. That could could prove hugely expensive because some spot market energy has cost five to six times what it would under the long-term contracts. It's widely expected that consumers ultimately would have to pay that tab which could amount to billions of dollars. And because that power won't be locked up in contracts there is no guarantee it will be available when it's needed which could lead to blackouts according to a recent report to the California Independent System Operator which oversees three-fourths of the state's power grid. ``The situation in California could reach catastrophic proportions'' the report concluded adding that unless things change dramatically ``it is a virtual certainty that peak demand will go unmet during many hot summer days.'' Steven Maviglio Davis' press secretary conceded Tuesday that the spot market could be troublesome. ``It's a major concern'' he said which is why the state is trying to line up more power contracts speed up power plant construction and promote conservation. During the normally hot month of August peak daily demand for power in the Independent System Operator's territory is expected to hit about 47700 megawatts -- enough for nearly 48 million homes. The state's three main utility firms generate about 8200 megawatts and have long-term contracts from wind solar and other energy sources for about 11700 megawatts more. That totals about 20000 megawatts. Add in the 7000 megawatts of long-term power that Davis has announced for this summer and the state is still nearly 21000 megawatts short. Costly proposition If all that power has to be obtained on the spot market the price could be high. On Friday last-minute purchases on the market averaged $411 per megawatt-hour compared to about $150 per megawatt-hour for all power obtained by the Independent System Operator and $69 per megawatt-hour on average under Davis' long-term contracts. It's possible that not all 21000 megawatts would have to be purchased on the market. Assuming Davis is successful in getting people to save 10 percent -- which could prove difficult -- conservation could reduce peak demand by nearly 5000 megawatts. California also might be able to trade for another 5000 megawatts with the federal government's Bonneville Power Administration and a hydroelectric operator in British Columbia said Arthur O'Donnell editor of California Energy Markets a trade publication. Under such deals those two outfits often send that much power to California when they don't need it and California returns the same amount or more when its demand is low. But O'Donnell said it wasn't clear whether 5000 megawatts would be available this summer because ``they still haven't gotten the snowpack they need in the Pacific Northwest'' which could limit that region's generating capacity. Still falling short Even if those hydropower imports are available and conservation works as Davis hopes it's likely California would still require the spot market for 11000 megawatts to meet the August demand. That's more than 20 percent of the state's overall power needs. ``All of the surrounding states are buying probably less than 5 percent at most of their energy on the spot market'' said Frank Wolak a Stanford economist who monitors electricity prices for the Independent System Operator. He worries about how much that power could cost and is disturbed that state officials haven't adequately addressed the issue. ``No one has any idea what they are going to do and that is part of the problem'' he said. Officials at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are particularly concerned. They fear that their company -- which is nearing bankruptcy -- could get stuck for much of the spot market purchases by the Independent System Operator which has threatened to bill the utilities for the cost. Fearing the annual bill for that power could hit $2.4 billion this year PG&E wants the tab sent to the Department of Water Resources which also is buying power on the spot market for the state. But the Department of Water Resources has objected to that idea and the matter is expected to be heard today by the California Public Utilities Commission. ``We're looking for clarity on a number of issues'' regarding how the spot market will work ``and certainly that's one of them'' said Thomas Hannigan the water agency's director. ``I don't think anybody knows the answer of who's going to pay for it'' added PG&E spokesman John Nelson. But Nettie Hoge executive director of the Utility Reform Network in San Francisco said she suspects consumers ultimately will foot the bill. The unfortunate likelihood about spot market purchases is that ``ratepayers are responsible for all of it eventually'' Hoge said. ``It's a very big problem.'' ---- Power Plant Plans Cause Conflicts East county residents blast supervisors Jason B. Johnson Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 Industry dreams of building new power plants in east Contra Costa's hills are prompting an angry reaction among residents and elected officials who say they don't want more plants. The conflict was sparked by a vote by county supervisors yesterday to aggressively explore possible sites for new power plants throughout the county. The measure by Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier and Federal Glover which passed on a 4-to-0 vote directs the county administrator and Department of Community Development to compile a report on possible sites within 45 days. Supervisor Donna Gerber abstained after criticizing the plan for potentially repeating the same mistakes that plagued the state's energy deregulation effort by not considering how much energy the state region and county will need in future years and how much power is slated to come online. Gerber said alternative power sources such as solar should also be examined. A site drawing much attention is on top of a deposit of natural gas near the Concord Naval Weapons Station off Highway 4. The owners of 70 acres of land near the station recently formed a company Golden State Power Co. to pursue construction of at least one small peaker plant and a much larger facility capable of producing 600 megawatts. The site could hold up to three small 50-megawatt peaker plants and a larger 15-acre natural gas plant said Steve Thomas managing partner with Golden State. No land use applications have been filed. Thomas said 30 acres could be kept as open space to form a buffer around the project. Both (facilities) are state of the art said Thomas. We believe that the site is ideal. But east county residents at yesterday's meeting blasted the supervisorial measure and the power plant proposal complaining that more plants could put people's health at risk. The region already is home to six power plants. We're going to get a good dose of poor air quality and (negative) health conditions from this said Concord resident Evelyn Frietas. I think we need to stop and think about what we're doing to our quality of life. Dan Torres said the home he bought in 1995 at a new Bay Point development would be alarmingly close to the proposed Golden State site. It will be dragging emissions over our home said Torres. I didn't buy a home on that hill to be surrounded by power plants. There are six power plants in operation in east Contra Costa. Pittsburg already has two power plants and two more under construction. City Council members Frank Aiello and Yvonne Beals said the Antioch-Pittsburg area has done more than its share of energy production. Aiello said Pittsburg will soon produce enough energy to power three million homes in California. When is enough enough? asked Aiello. Pittsburg has shouldered responsibility for a land-fill and two more power plants. At some point you have to say enough. Beals said that while power plants have added millions to the city's general fund the negatives of additional plants could outweigh the benefits. I don't think that Pittsburg or east county should be the dumping ground for energy for California said Beals. ---- Supervisors set search for power plant sites The board also heard from the potential developers of a 650-megawatt plant between Bay Point and Concord By Thomas Peele TIMES STAFF WRITER MARTINEZ -- Contra Costa County supervisors took tentative steps Tuesday toward allowing the construction of at least one small power plant before summer ordering that its staff identify potential sites in unincorporated areas within seven weeks. The board voted 4-0 to search for locations. Third District Supervisor Donna Gerber abstained saying her colleagues lacked a comprehensive context'' to identify sites. I think the board knows just enough to be dangerous'' she said. Gerber said the county should examine the potential for additional power plants within its borders but not investigate individual sites yet. But Fourth District Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier said the action was necessary because of the energy crisis and because of Gov. Gray Davis' call for local governments to help speed the construction of so-called peaker plants before July and August. I wouldn't do this except under an emergency DeSaulnier said after the vote. There are unusual circumstances. We're not talking about putting this in a residential area. Fifth District Supervisor Federal Glover backed DeSaulnier but said he hoped for a location outside his heavily industrialized East County district. There's a lot of concern in East County as to the number of plants he said. DeSaulnier said though that the only logical place for a small plant remains the industrial belt'' stretching along the waterfront from West County to Antioch. He declined to provide specifics but said the only other potential site outside the industrial areas was the Concord Naval Weapons Station property. But he quickly added that he believes the U.S. Department of Defense would never go for it. Also DeSaulnier said he could not rule out the county building the plant itself and entering the electricity-selling market during peak demand times. Board Chairwoman Gayle Uilkema called that idea extremely premature and unlikely. That's a very powerful decision. I do not think we are ready'' she said. The California Energy Commission listed the Equilon refinery in Martinez as one of 32 potential peaker plant sites in the state last week. Peaker plants kick in during peak usage times. Davis called for their quick construction before the height of summer and its energy demand for air conditioning. Plants that generate as much as 50000 megawatts don't need Energy Commission approval. DeSaulnier said he believed a peaker plant could be built about a month after final approval. Supervisors also heard from the potential developers of a 650-megawatt plant between Bay Point and Concord. Walnut Creek commercial real estate developer Steve Thomas announced his intentions for the site north of Highway 4 last week. Construction could take two years. Eric Hasseltine a consultant representing Thomas and what he described as a brand new company for the site the Golden State Power Co. told supervisors that if they intended to speed peaker plant construction they should do what they can to expedite the larger plant. The Thomas site could house a peaker plant until the proposed larger one goes online. A large natural gas line passes under the site. DeSaulnier seemed cautious about the larger proposal which he had described last week as a good site. Uilkema too said she knew too little about it to comment. A resident who lives near the Thomas property asked the board to build it (the larger plant) closer to where you have industrial areas. You have to carefully consider the people who live nearby said Dan Torres 39. Evelyn Freitas of Concord said she lives downwind of the proposed site. Our air quality is going to be worse then it is now she said. Gerber played on the environmental issues saying the county already ranks second statewide to Los Angeles in volume of hazardous materials and amount of electrical generation. ---- Peter Schrag: California's $90 billion infrastructure gap (Published March 7 2001) By now California's surreal energy mess has grown from a crisis to a condition. It may not be quite as permanent as say death and taxes but it's still something that could get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Until there's more realistic pricing no gubernatorial pea-under-the-shell buyout scheme will solve it. Beyond the energy crisis however and in many ways similar to it California faces a whole range of other infrastructure problems -- in transportation in water resources and sewer systems in school and university buildings -- that seem once again to be all but forgotten. The Business Roundtable has estimated the need at roughly $90 billion though no number can possibly be exact. What's certain is that after a burst of high-level investment in public facilities during the 1950s and 1960s California's annual capital investment has sunk precipitously -- from an annual $150 per capita in the 1960s according to a set of recent studies for PPIC the Public Policy Institute of California to about $30 in the 1990s. But you probably don't need to tell anyone driving Bay Area or Los Angeles freeways or looking at the ubiquitous portable classrooms those dreary brown boxes that house a fourth of our public school students. Ever since passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 we have been flying the flag of deferred maintenance. As in the state's electricity crisis however there's no way California can effectively address those problems merely by building or bonding itself out of them. In highway construction in developing water resources in finding enough university space to accommodate the Tidal Wave II of students managing demand is likely to be as crucial to any solution as new construction. In the energy market -- and in electricity particularly -- it's been a familiar principle ever since David Roe of the Environmental Defense Fund first persuaded Pacific Gas and Electric that a dollar invested in conservation may be worth as much as the same investment in new generation. But in most other sectors of California's infrastructure state and local it's a lesson still to be learned. There have been scattered attempts to encourage conservation and reduce demand -- significant reduction in water use for example through the installation of low-flow faucets and low-flush toilets some reduction in traffic by using rush-hour diamond lanes or by adjusting highway or (as in New York) bridge tolls to levels of congestion. But as pointed out by David Dowall an urban economist at Berkeley state policy-makers have not really begun to consider how demand management strategies can be applied to infrastructure service areas or how the more efficient use of facilities and more realistic pricing -- highway tolls say or parking fees -- can reduce demand for scarce infrastructure resources. In any case says Dowall in one of the PPIC reports we should pick which major projects we will build not just according to per capita estimates of how much we need but according to how much consumers are willing to pay for them. To avoid hurting the poor congestion-related highway tolls and other tariffs can be rebated on the basis of income. University fees can be means-tested. In California they also could be adjusted to encourage summer school classes and other off-peak uses rather than (as in the past) making UC summer courses more expensive. Given the political and economic uncertainties there's no way to know how far such demand management can be taken. But there's not much doubt that as Dowall and others point out the state's infrastructure planning is a jumble of uncoordinated agency agendas and wish lists. The Legislature last year passed a bill AB 1473 by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg that requires the governor beginning next year to submit an annual five-year infrastructure plan for state agencies and public schools along with recommendations on how to fund it. In addition Gov. Gray Davis' infrastructure commission is expected to recommend better coordination of infrastructure and land-use planning when it issues its report this spring. That would be a start. As California State Treasurer Phil Angelides has pointed out the state desperately needs to start joint planning -- regional planning -- for housing roads and other resources to reduce the need for long commutes to preserve open space and to bring jobs to where people live and housing to where the jobs are. That would itself reduce demand for more freeway lanes and equally important improve the quality of life. At present most planning for housing roads water systems and other facilities rarely recognizes the regional impact of local decisions. In the East Bay slow-growth forces push well-intended initiatives that would force more development into Tracy or Modesto and further tax the transportation systems to Silicon Valley. In city after city there are beggar-thy-neighbor efforts to grab yet another shopping mall that produces a little extra sales tax revenue for the city that gets it and that often compounds traffic and revenue problems in adjacent communities. In higher education we divide bond proceeds evenly among UC the California State University and the community colleges even though the community colleges serve eight times as many students as UC. We plan road projects according to county not regional priorities. It is all done according to antiquated political and fiscal formulas that often no longer make sense. We don't just need better capital planning we need a whole new planning system. ---- PG&E power plan debated at hearing A PUC meeting on the utility's capacity expansion project for the Tri-Valley follows weeks of protest from officials residents Power upgrade in valley debated By Megan Long TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN FRANCISCO -- Dublin officials and the developer of a Livermore subdivision faced questions Tuesday about their opposition to alternative routes of PG&E's controversial Tri-Valley power upgrade plan -- and answered by restating their long-standing objections. Tuesday's cross-examination came during the third and likely final week of the California Public Utility Commission's evidentiary hearings on the utility's $91 million Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project. It has followed weeks of protests of PG&E's upgrade plans by officials and residents of Livermore Pleasanton Dublin and San Ramon. And before the questioning started Dublin Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart reiterated concerns about an alternative route deemed environmentally superior that would place a substation just 1000 feet north of Interstate 580 between Tassajara and Fallon roads. She said that would undermine the results of a 15-year process to plan the eastern development of the city. It's extremely important to the residents of our community to follow a plan we worked hard to produce she said. Dublin officials favor PG&E's proposed placement of the station three miles north of the freeway away from new high-tech company offices and housing developments. Besides the Dublin substation the project calls for construction of a substation in North Livermore expansion of the Pleasanton substation and installation of 23.5 miles of new lines. In response to questions from PUC Administrative Law Judge Michelle Cooke Dublin's public works director Lee Thompson confirmed that the Lin family the owner of the property where the alternative substation would go wasn't interested in selling the land to PG&E. Cooke also asked Thompson to define a discretionary permit which is how city officials said they might treat a permit for a substation. Lee said that type of permit is one the city has the right to approve or not depending on the project's impact. Eddie Peabody Dublin's community development director testified that the zoning for the Lin property accommodates uses such as commercial business research and development and light manufacturing. It would not he said be appropriate for a power substation. He said parcels within the East Dublin area that could host a station would include those zoned for public and semi-public uses including land recently bought by Oracle and Sun Microsystems for new campuses. While Dublin officials testified that one buyer of land in that area paid $86 per square foot others suggested land prices would be inflated to help make a PG&E land buy look prohibitively expensive. An executive of Centex Homes the developer of new houses near Isabel Avenue and Concannon Boulevard objected to an alternative route that would place high-voltage transmission lines overhead along Isabel and Stanley Boulevard. David Barclay president of Centex's Northern California division said that the 80-foot to 150-foot towers would have a severe visual impact on residents of the Prima tract. Ed O'Neill a lawyer for the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association pointed out that existing distribution lines on 50-foot poles on Isabel already mar the view for residents. The Foley family has been ranching on land south of Pleasanton city limits for years said their attorney Kennedy Richardson. The utility's project would place overhead lines and a transmission station on rolling hills that the family envisions as one day being public open space with limited development Richardson said. Lawyers for Pleasanton Livermore Kottinger Ranch and Centex are scheduled to cross-examine a PG&E engineer today about the project's routing. That testimony should be the most controversial of the hearings. Judge Cooke is expected to recommend an alignment by July to the PUC which will make the final decision. ---- NEWS State OKs 'Peaker' Power Plant at SFO / Temporary generator could be sending electricity to 50000 homes by August Marshall Wilson 03/08/2001 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL Page A.20 (Copyright 2001) State energy officials yesterday approved plans to build a temporary electrical plant at San Francisco International Airport that should generate enough juice to power 50000 homes by August. Meeting in Sacramento the Energy Commission voted 4-0 to give the green light to the gas-fired plant. It will operate during peak summer and winter demand to help the state avoid Stage 3 power alerts and rolling blackouts. Texas-based El Paso Merchant Energy Co. won approval under a new state law mandating speedy four-month reviews of so-called peaker plants. It was the only one of seven applications statewide to win approval. The other proposals were withdrawn for various reasons. The 51-megawatt plant formally called the United Golden Gate Power Project is scheduled to be built at the northwest corner of the airport near the United Airlines maintenance center. Within the next few weeks El Paso plans to apply to build a 571- megawatt $400 million plant in the same area company spokesman Jesse Frederick said. It would undergo a separate review by state energy officials. The small peaker plant approved yesterday is to generate electricity beginning around Aug. 1 for up to three years. After the end of three years the plant would be closed or converted to a cleaner-burning system. Under state law a temporary peaker plant is permitted to spew more air pollution than a permanent plant. El Paso's temporary plant is to be built next to a co-generation plant operated by United Airlines. It would use existing connections for natural gas and water supplies and tap into existing power transmission lines. Electricity generated by the plant would be pumped into the state's electrical grid Energy Commission spokesman Gary Fay said. It would also serve as a backup for San Francisco Airport in case of a blackout. No one spoke against the proposed plant at yesterday's commission meeting. The proposal however has been criticized by area residents and environmentalists worried about air pollution. Scott Buschman a professional photographer and San Bruno resident said yesterday it was unjust that state officials 100 miles away in Sacramento approved a Texas company's proposal to put a power plant on land owned by San Francisco. The fact that they approved it without considering the public's concerns foremost air quality is very disturbing he said. Fay said the plant complies with clean-air standards. Answering the criticism about the location of yesterday's deliberation he said three hearings and several workshops were held in communities near the airport. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company Inc. All Rights Reserved. ---- Crossed Wires: Major Kinks Emerge In Gov. Davis's Plan To Power California --- State's Outlays for Electricity May Be Hard to Recover Without Rate Increases --- Betting on Long-Term Deals By Wall Street Journal staff reporters Rebecca Smith Mitchel Benson and John R. Emshwiller 03/08/2001 The Wall Street Journal A1 (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.) SACRAMENTO Calif. -- Earlier this year Gov. Gray Davis made what may be the biggest bet in the history of the nation's biggest state: that he could tame an out-of-control electricity market and avoid devastating blackouts without busting the state's budget antagonizing its consumers or derailing his own political career. His wager is still on the table but the assumptions that underlie it are looking increasingly shaky these days. The governor has already spent around $2 billion of public money buying hugely expensive wholesale power taking over the role formerly played by the state's near-bankrupt electric utilities. And California will probably be obliged to spend billions more before its electricity market stabilizes and those utilities are restored to some semblance of financial health. Under the governor's plan California aims to recoup the money it is using to buy electricity by issuing $10 billion in bonds. That way it would still have a healthy budget surplus to finance new spending on roads schools and other public services. But there's a potentially big obstacle to this plan. The state Legislature worried about racking up billions in new debt has put limits on the size of any bond offering. In broad terms the Legislature's action would allow the state to borrow only four times as much as it can recover annually from utility customers. Right now that doesn't appear to be much. Under the current rate structure essentially set in place by California's flawed 1996 electricity-deregulation plan consumers pay far less for power than the cost of acquiring it on the wholesale market. Preliminary estimates submitted by utilities last month to the California Public Utilities Commission show the state's share of the proceeds from electricity sales this year could be as little as $241 million -- not enough to support even $1 billion in bond sales under the Legislature's formula. That would leave the state on the hook for much of the money it has already paid for power -- not to mention the billions more Gov. Davis will need to spend. That in turn raises the prospect that California's economy and its credit rating both could deteriorate significantly. But state finance officials say that based on their own projections they will be able to extract enough money to support a $10 billion bond issue. Walking a careful line between fiscal prudence and political survival Mr. Davis and others in his administration are scrambling to come up with ways to get around the legislative restrictions without raising rates for consumers. If I wanted to raise rates I could solve this problem in 20 minutes Mr. Davis says. The governor says he believes that the state can obtain enough affordable power through long-term power-supply contracts to avoid the need for a big rate increase. The billions of dollars the state hopes to borrow would be used to help pay for power until electricity prices drop as they are expected to do when new power plants come online over the next few years. The Davis administration fears that what may be its only other option -- a big increase in retail electric rates -- could prompt angry consumer groups to seek new electricity laws through a statewide ballot initiative during next year's election. That's when Mr. Davis is expected to run for a second term as governor. But trying to save California without rate increases is forcing Mr. Davis to make some colossal gambles with the state's money. State officials estimate that in the next several months California will need to spend as much as $6 billion on power purchases -- equivalent to the state's entire fiscal surplus. Mr. Davis is also looking to spend several billion more to buy the transmission assets of three investor-owned utilities in order to restore two of them to credit-worthiness. He also has announced plans to spend several hundred million dollars more on conservation programs designed to reduce demand while new power plants are being built in the state. In order to limit the state's financial exposure in the meantime the governor and his aides have in some cases ignored state law. They have threatened appointed officials who have stood in the way. And they have sharply restricted the flow of information to the public. None of those steps is expected to do much to reduce state spending on power in the coming months. In a few weeks power usage is expected to begin a sharp seasonal rise as Californians switch on their air conditioners with the coming of warmer weather. By various estimates demand during peak periods this summer could outstrip supply by 10% or several thousand megawatts. That could produce more rolling blackouts like the ones that hit Northern California earlier this year. It is also likely to put strong upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. Steven Zimmerman managing director of Standard & Poor's Corp. says Mr. Davis and his aides don't have a lot of time to put a cap on the state's financial exposure to the crisis. The credit-rating agency has put the state on credit watch for a possible downgrade which would affect the value of all of California's outstanding public debt. Moody's Investor Service Inc. is also concerned. It said in a recent report that the power crisis could soon seriously threaten the health of the state's economy. Mr. Davis a Democrat and career politician was dealt a bad hand when he took office in 1999. The deregulation plan that sparked the state's electricity crisis was enacted under his predecessor Republican Pete Wilson. But Mr. Davis was slow to react to early signs of trouble this past summer and alarms sounded by members of the state Legislature. By the time Mr. Davis finally sprang into action earlier this year a troublesome power-supply squeeze had escalated into a crisis. In a Jan. 17 declaration of emergency the governor designated the state Department of Water Resources to take the utilities' place as the daily buyer of huge quantities of electricity. His hope: that by making the state the dominant player in California's power sector he would ease electricity producers' concerns about getting paid and give the state enough clout to negotiate lower long-term power prices. Earlier this week Mr. Davis announced final or tentative agreements with 20 power suppliers to furnish the state with a total of 8900 megawatts for periods of as long as 20 years. But the supply situation remains extremely uncertain for this summer when demand probably will top 45000 megawatts. If the state can secure enough power under contract and push down demand through aggressive conservation it might be able to squeak through the summer season. If not it will be forced to keep buying huge amounts of costly power in the cash market. Under deregulation retail electric rates were frozen for several years while wholesale-power costs were free to fluctuate. When the plan was conceived wholesale prices were low and expected to go lower. However a combination of unexpected growth in power demand and a lack of new generating capacity helped produce a supply squeeze. Average wholesale prices more than tripled last year from 1999. And in January those prices were up 10-fold from a year earlier. By then California's two biggest investor-owned utilities -- the Pacific Gas & Electric unit of PG&E Corp. and the Southern California Edison subsidiary of Edison International -- faced imminent financial collapse. They had racked up billions of dollars in wholesale power bills they couldn't afford to pay. As generators began shying away from selling to the two utilities the Clinton administration forced them to sell power into the California market an order left in place during the first weeks of the Bush administration. Still northern California was hit by rolling blackouts on several days in early January. Since then the DWR which does some electricity trading as an adjunct to its main mission of managing the state's giant system of aqueducts and reservoirs has had to learn the ins and outs of power markets on the run. It hasn't been easy. David Mills trading-floor manager for the federal Bonneville Power Administration says the water agency has at times offered to pay $50 to $100 per megawatt hour more than the available market price. They agree to prices that make you wonder says Mr. Mills whose organization markets electricity from federal dams in the Pacific Northwest. You'd at least think they'd check to see what the prevailing price is before throwing out their offer. Mr. Mills says that to cut California some slack he occasionally has instructed his traders to sell at prices lower than the DWR had offered to pay. Ray Hart the water agency deputy director responsible for the power purchasing says he isn't aware of any cases in which the DWR has overpaid. He says his team has been extremely successful by all measures. Ultimately the DWR's trading acumen is far less important than the overall arithmetic of power supply and demand in California. With the price of natural gas that feeds many of the region's generating plants at near record levels and some suppliers reluctant to sell into the troubled California market wholesale electric prices remain stubbornly high and in recent days have again been rising. The Legislature has advanced the DWR about $3 billion from the state's general fund for power purchases. Under emergency legislation passed by the Legislature and signed by Mr. Davis on Feb. 1 the general fund is to be reimbursed from a planned bond sale later this year. But under terms of the emergency law the water agency would have to wrest $2.5 billion a year in revenue from retail electricity rates in order to sell the $10 billion worth of bonds sought by Mr. Davis. Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg a Southern California Democrat says the formula was created to ensure that there would be a way to repay the bonds without draining the state's coffers. We didn't want to just open our wallets he says. According to the language of the Feb. 1 law the water agency gets what's left of revenue collected from ratepayers after the utilities pay certain of their own power-supply bills and other expenses. And in their filings with the PUC last month the utilities reckoned under their worst-case scenarios that there would be only $241 million available to the DWR this year. State officials are quietly pushing the PUC to rejigger the formula so that the water department gets more money -- even though that would clash with terms of the Feb. 1 law. Robert Miyashiro deputy director of the Department of Finance says the emergency law was drafted poorly and has led people to believe the DWR only gets the leftover money. He predicts there will be cleanup legislation. At the request of the Davis administration the PUC is considering a plan to use a different revenue-sharing formula than the one in the state law. The proposed new formula was written in close consultation with Mr. Davis's Finance Department says PUC President Loretta Lynch who supports the initiative and is hoping to rush it through. The effort has drawn some opposition. Commissioner Richard Bilas at a recent PUC meeting questioned the legality of the commission attempting to change a formula set by the Legislature. PG&E is even more emphatic since the DWR's extra money could come at the utility's expense. The formula threatens to undo the very financial protections for the utilities that [the new law] attempted to provide the utility said in a recent filing with the PUC. As politicians and regulators wrestle with that issue the Davis administration has taken a step to reduce the outflow of state cash that also seems to conflict with the Feb. 1 law. It was widely assumed that the law required the DWR to buy any electricity the state needed to keep its lights on. However on many occasions the DWR has refused to buy power on the grounds that it was too expensive citing a portion of the new law that urges the agency to hold down costs. The task of covering any remaining shortfall has passed to the California Independent System Operator which manages the state's energy grid and is charged with buying power when necessary to avert shortages. However the ISO doesn't have any power-purchasing money of its own and the major parties it would normally bill are PG&E and Edison whose inability to pay their power bills was the reason the state started buying electricity in the first place. Amid criticism of its stance from generators utilities and Wall Street the DWR says it has started covering more of the utilities' electricity costs. The water agency is now buying 95% to 99% of what California needs in a given day says the agency's Mr. Hart. But increased buying only adds to the uncertainty about the eventual tab. The state's legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill recently recommended that lawmakers hold off considering more than $2 billion in state spending on items ranging from college construction to beach cleanups because of continuing questions about the financial impact of the electricity crisis. Like others Ms. Hill complains that the governor's office and state agencies haven't been forthcoming with information. Indeed the DWR refuses to say precisely how much power it is purchasing and at what prices though it has on several occasions gone back to the Legislature for more money. State officials say that data on its purchasing activities would give suppliers an advantage in continuing electricity-supply contract talks. State Controller Kathleen Connell who is running for mayor of Los Angeles in an April election recently announced plans to post state power-spending information on her department's Web site. But within 24 hours Ms. Connell suspended that plan after discussions with senior Davis administration officials. I feel very strongly that this information should be publicly released says Ms. Connell. I just don't want to do anything that would weaken the state's effectiveness in negotiating. In an effort to more tightly control events the governor obtained legislative approval to abolish the 26-member ISO board which was made up of everyone from utility executives to representatives of consumer groups. He then appointed a new five-member board. To ensure a quick transition the California attorney general threatened the old board members with fines of as much as $5000 each if they didn't immediately relinquish their positions. All did. I was offended at the heavy-handed treatment says Karen Johanson a former ISO board member. One of the first acts of the ISO's new board was to close a meeting about the electricity crisis. The former ISO board routinely held such meetings in public. ISO attorneys say the meeting was largely designed as a private briefing for new board members and that the organization is committed to keeping its deliberations as open as possible. The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations have unsuccessfully challenged the closure in Sacramento state court. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company Inc. All Rights Reserved.

other

informative

Re: Eurelectric conference

Houston has experienced catastrophic flooding. My flight has been cancelled. It is conceivable that I could get out tomorrow but I am wondering if I should try. I could still make the speech if we don't get more rain but given the lack of other reasons for me to go I am considering cancelling. I don't think it makes much sense for me to go for a 15 minute speech. what do you think? phone 713.621.6550

personal & social

concerned

A Supportive Note

Dear Mr. Lay: I'm writing this note to you as a show of support to you during your dire times. The reason that I share this with you is my respect for you as a CEO a business leader and a person. My wife is one of your employees who routinely shares stories about you that are nothing less than inspiring. I know that during difficult times sometimes words emerge that can help people through difficult times. I believe that you are sincere man and know that you must be broken hearted but I hope that this article can help you lead a dispirted workforce to see things more clearly. My wife Shelly Pierce has worked for Enron for the past two years and like many of your employees has lost a great deal of her life savings. Of course I accept most of the blame for this for reasons related to this article. I lost my investment discipline and held out the false hope that Enron could not falter. After reading the article to her while I was out of town I believe that her spirit was a bit rejuvenated and she was ready to face the challenges that lay before you. Mr. Lay I appreciate the opportunity that you have given my wife and our family and hope that this story inspires you to regain your successes. From the USA Today Tuesday November 27 2001 page 15A. In recession face brutal facts thrive By Jim Collins A man in his early 20s recently asked me So what's a recession like? Its an entirely alien concept to him he'd grown up during the greatest economic boom in modern memory. His question drove home the fact that we haven't faced a severe protracted economic setback for nearly 2 decades leaving us terribly unpracticed at dealing with tough times. With this recession - long in coming perhaps long to stay - now officially upon us it is imperative that corporate leaders relearn a key lesson about how great companies (and great people) deal with difficult times differently from how they deal with merely good ones. That lesson is the Stockdale Paradox a peculiar psychology shown by those who emerge from tough times not just intact but stronger. Adm. Jim Stockdale was the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in the Hanoi prison camp during the Vietnam War. Tortured many times during his 8-year imprisonment Stockdale lived without any prisoner's rights no set release date and no certainty as to whether he would ever again see his family. He shouldered the burden of command while fighting an internal war against his captors and their attempts to use the prisoners for propaganda. At one point he beat himself with a stool and cut himself with a razor deliberately disfiguring himself so that he could not be put on video as an example of a well-treated prisoner. He exchanged secret intelligence information with his wife through their letters knowing that discovery would mean more torture and perhaps death. After his release Stockdale became the first three-star officer in the history of the Navy to wear both aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor. You can understand then my anticipation at the prospect of spending part of an afternoon with Stockdale who happened to be at the Hoover Institute across the street from my office when I taught at Stanford. In preparation I read In Love and War the book he and his wife wrote to chronicle their experiences those 8 years. As I read the book I found myself getting depressed. It just seemed so bleak - the uncertainty of his fate the brutality of his captors. And then it dawned on me: Here I am sitting in my warm comfortable office looking out over the Stanford campus on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. I'm getting depressed reading this and I know that he gets out reunites with his family and becomes a national hero. If it feels depressing for me how on earth did he deal with it when he was actually there and did not know the end of the story? I never lost faith in the end of the story Stockdale said when I asked him. I never doubted not only that I would get out but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life that in retrospect I would not trade. I didn't say anything for many minutes and we continued the slow walk toward the faculty club Stockdale limping and arc-swinging his leg still stiff from repeated torture. Finally I asked Who didn't make it out? Oh that's easy he said. The optimists. The optimists? I don't understand I said completely confused. The optimists. Oh they were the ones who said 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come and Christmas would go. Then they'd say 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart. After another long pause he turned to me and said This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the need for discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality whatever they might be. My conversation with Stockdale had a profound influence on me but I never really considered it a business lesson until my research team began to wrestle with the question of why some companies rise from difficulty to become great while others emerge from those exact same difficulties weakened and dispirited. We found that companies that became great embraced a corporate version of the Stockdale Paradox. Fannie Mae for example found itself in the 1982 recession losing $1M every business day with $56B in loans under water. Many analysts thought Fannie Mae which was getting 9% on its mortgage portfolio but paying 15% on the debt it issued was doomed. But CEO David Maxwell and his team never wavered in their aim to not merely survive but also to prevail as a great company. Yes they confronted the brutal fact that the interest-rate problem was not going to magically disappear (certainly not by Christmas). But they used this grim fact as a catalyst for creating an entirely new business model based on asking three central questions of greatness: What can we potentially do better than any other company in the world? What can best drive our economic engine? What best ignites the passions of our people? Instead of reacting to the recession with mindless restructuring Fannie Mae rebuilt itself based on its answers to these questions. Eventually it generated investor returns nearly eight times those of the general stock market. When asked how he dealt with the nay Sayers and the analysts who wrote Fannie Mae off Maxwell said that it was never an issue inside the company. Of course we had to stop doing a lot of stupid things but we never entertained the possibility that we would fail. We were going to use the calamity as an opportunity to remake Fannie Maw into a great company. The sad truth is that most executive teams won't respond that way to these dark days of uncertainty. Instead of using this recession as an opportunity to fundamentally rethink their business and rebuild a culture of discipline the will simply restructure lay off a bunch of people and liquidate their cultural equity. Mediocre leaders will hold out false hopes for a quick fix only to watch those hopes be swept away by events. Their companies will begin to die of a broken heart. It need not be this way. Those who lead with the Stockdale Paradox - those who retain the unwavering faith that they will find a way to prevail in the end but who also retain the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of reality - will find this an ideal time to rebuild and reinforce greatness. Used correctly this recession can be a defining time in your firm's history that in retrospect you would not trade. Used wrongly this recession will weaken your foundations and make it that much harder to become great. The choice is yours. Jim Collins the author of Good to Great operates a management-research laboratory in Boulder Colo. Regards Steve Steve Alexander Vice President North American Artemis Consulting Artemis International Solutions Corporation Office: +1 281.338.9616 Mobile: +1 281.830.7430 www.artemisintl.com

other

concerned

RE: ticket

vkaminski@aol.com

customer support

casual

Do you still expect Guinn to call Ken? If so do we have updated talking points (and background) for Ken?

business document

formal

Re: JDF Gala

Thanks for the invite (and the follow up voicemail). I'd love to see the General (and you of course) but I'm going to have to pass. Thanks anyway. Sent by: Cathy Phillips@ECT To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: JDF Gala I would like to invite you and a guest to join me for the annual Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Gala to be held on May 12 2001 at the Westin Galleria. The guest speaker this year will be General Norman Schwarzkof. Please contact Cathy Phillips (X-36898) and let her know if you are interested in attending. Thank you. Mike

other

polite

Enron Opportunity

any interest?

other

casual

I just spoke with Clark Smith head of Elpaso's merchant arm. I told him that we had been hearing that El Paso was blaming Enrononline for problems in Western gas markets. He asked for some more specifics about who exactly was spreading the rumor (I told him we had heard it from 3-4 sources). He acknowledged that EOL was not the problem said he couldn't believe that it had been identified as such and said he would bring it up on his call with his Washington team this afternoon. I think he will put it to rest (except for whatever damage has already been done). I did promise to get some more specifics on who has told us that El Paso pointed to us. Can anybody give some info on that?

other

confidential

Entry tax to dergulating markets

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

other

neutral

Dow Jones: Enron, Bushs Biggest Contributor

government & politics

neutral

Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA

Were you on the call yesterday---I went ballistic. And where are you now!?! The calls underway. Karen Denne 04/13/2001 12:45 PM To: Jeff Dasovich/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA I get so worked up over this issue... I really think now is the time to speak up and dissent. Skilling told us at a floor meeting that as an organization we've made poor decisions in the past and he believes it's because the people who disagreed with those decisions never spoke up. So help me out! From: Jeff Dasovich on 04/13/2001 12:34 PM Sent by: Jeff Dasovich To: Karen Denne/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA Amen.

other

disrespectful

Re: From Michael L. Kirby, Esq.

Bonnie: Please forward to Michael Kirby. I think the draft looks good. Could you also prepare a draft of the letter we discussed yesterday to convey the proposal to the committee? Bonnie Hugyez <blh@pkns.com> on 07/17/2001 12:34:20 AM To: <mmolland@brobeck.com> <mark.e.haedicke@enron.com> <skean@enron.com> <breasoner@gibbs-bruns.com> <mtuohey@velaw.com> cc: Subject: From Michael L. Kirby Esq. Attached is a draft Nonwaiver Agreement per our telephone conferences of yesterday after the meetings with Senator Dunn. I am available in my office for a conference call to discuss this. The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying documents is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product rule and is confidential business information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or representative of the recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify Kathryn A. Pugh at kpugh@pkns.com and immediately delete this message from your system. - 289271_1.WPD

legal affairs

formal

HIGH PRIORITY - PRs PRC Meeting

Please get available dates. I need to be there for this. -----------------

other

urgent

RE: Birhtday

Kevin Thanks. I am becoming an old man. Vince

personal & social

casual

Enrons Matching Gift Program

Tim -- Cindy manages this program. Mary -- please give some thought to how we might solicit employee views on this. Cindy -- I believe we already allow matching of donations to quasi-religious organizations: religious schools for example and perhaps relief organizations like Catholic Relief Services? I think that if we want to consider extending it we should probably discuss it in a smaller group than the e-speak forum -- the Enron Foundation Board perhaps? This could become controversial though (recall the Planned Parenthood debate and the periodic attempts of shareholders to add restrictions through the proxy mechanism). -----------------

other

formal

Nepal

There may be some press today about Enron's involvement in the Nepal hydro project. The government of Nepal is hopeful that we will pursue it but we are not going to. Kelly's response on press inquiries will be that we are not pursuing the project. Kelly will also be getting in touch with David Howe. I just wanted to keep you guys posted in case you are getting questions.

other

formal

Re: Humberto (Beto) Kuhn, resume

Humberto - I forwarded your resume to Barry Hunsaker who is general counsel at EOG Resources. As you may know EOG used to be Enron Oil and Gas a majority-owned Enron subsidiary. A couple of years ago Enron sold its interest in EOG and it became a stand alone company. EOG Resources has been doing very well. I don't know if they are looking for lawyers now but I think I sent your resume to the right place. Humberto Kuhn <BetoKuhn@msn.com> on 05/21/2001 11:17:21 AM To: <skean@enron.com> cc: Subject: Humberto (Beto) Kuhn resume Dear Steve:? With sincere and advance thanks and pursuant to your recent conversation with my brother George I attach a copy of?the short version?of my resume.? I have a longer detailed version as well as numerous references that I will be pleased to furnish you.? In addition I am at your disposal at any time that?you or any others at ENRON should wish to meet with me.? Again?my thanks for your assistance and guidance. ? Kind regards ? ? Beto Kuhn Cell:? 713/ 906-8463 Res:? 713/ 467-3974 - RESUME HGKShort Form 05-01.doc

employment

formal

address

JOSEPH KOOTHRAPPALLY (713) 853-6819 jkoothr@enron.com

employment

formal

California Power Markets

energy trading

neutral

Portal

Attached are some late night thoughts on the portal. Most of this is focussed on the portal for opinion leaders but some of it could be applicable to the comemrcial portal as well. Could you forward this to Palmer ... for some reason my address book doesn't pull him up when I'm off the system.

other

casual

Re: Mondays follow-up meeting on cost control

I am calling Rob Walls to see if he can attend. Carol Ann Brown@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS 03/30/2001 02:49 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: Monday's follow-up meeting on cost control Steve Should Jim Derrick be invited to Monday's cost control meeting? I asked Kevin and he told me to ask you. Suzanne Brown came by today and said that his name was brought up at last week's meeting. Sincerely Carol Brown Office of the Chairman Enron Broadband Services Inc. 713.853.7974 713.853.9469 - fax carol_brown@enron.net

other

formal

TW Gas Sales: PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE

In anticipation of potential litigation involving TW's operational activities please prepare an analysis for me of the reasons for TW's sale of excess natural gas at the California border. I am aware of several of these sales and have been informed that excess pressure at the border is the basic reason for them. I'd like a more specific explanation that includes the following information: 1. What are the specific pressures and volume considerations that could make it operationally necessary to sell gas at the California border? 2. What is the process that is followed to make such a determination? 3. Which individuals or groups are involved in determining whether an operational sale is necessary? 4. In what way have system operations changed since last year and how do those changes contribute to the increased frequency of such sales compared to previous years? 5. What alternatives to operational sales are considered before the decision to make a sale is reached? Thanks for your attention to this request. Please give me a call to discuss and please designate your response as Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Privileged.

energy trading

formal

BIPAC Board meeting

I wuold like to attend if my calendar is open -----------------

other

casual

Re: Beta Gamma Sigma

Thanks for the invite. I would suggest Jean Ryall - who heads our Texas government/regulatory affairs team. She is certainly more familiar with the details (of which there will be many more after this legislative session and the conclusion of the pilot program). She is also a very good speaker (and can probably relate a few war stories to spice things up). From: Susan Skarness/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/04/2001 11:20 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Maureen McVicker/NA/Enron@Enron Subject: Beta Gamma Sigma Steve I am a member of Beta Gamma Sigma (BGS) the honor society for business programs accredited by AASCB - The International Association for Management Education. If you are not familiar with BGS a member must be in the upper 5% of their class as a junior and the upper 10% as a senior and in graduate school to be nominated for induction into the society. In an effort to provide additional programs and benefits to alumni members alumni chapters are being developed around the country. There are currently nine alumni chapters around the U.S. with a new one being formed in the Houston area. I am serving on a steering committee for the development of this Houston Area Alumni Chapter. Our primary reasons for starting a Houston Area Chapter include networking professional affiliations outreach to students resources learning opportunities and providing scholarships. Our initial outreach to Beta Gamma Sigma members will be through a reception/dinner to be held in October 2001. We are currently looking at either October 16 or 18. All 6200 Houston area members will be invited to participate however we expect attendance to be closer to 75-100 people. The ages experiences and business affiliation of the members will be very diverse but all will have the common thread of business excellence. The details of this event are still being finalized however at our last meeting the discussion encompassed possible speakers and topics. Overwhelmingly the team decided on Electricity Deregulation in Texas and since I work at Enron I was asked to assist in locating a dynamic speaker. Cliff Baxter suggested that you would be an ideal speaker on this topic. Are you available and willing to address this group in October? If I can provide any additional information please let me know. Thank you for your consideration Steve.

other

polite

Pipeline safety legislation - update

print

legal affairs

casual

California Power Crisis Update (No. 10)

We have been pulling together these weekly(sometimes more often) summaries for internal purposes. Would you find it helpful to be on the distribution list? Hope you are doing well. Look forward to touching base soon.

other

friendly

I set up a meeting for next Friday in Washington with Ed G. and Ralph Reed starting at 7:30 am.

project management

formal

Re: Congratulations

Thanks. Vince J Kaminski@ECT 01/11/2000 08:01 AM To: Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: Congratulations Rick I have just looked at the memo regarding promotions. Congratulations - well deserved. Vince

other

friendly

Sen. Hagels ESI speech

The senator's speech is focused on the oil sector almost exclusively but it does an exceptional job of framing the importance of the issue.

other

formal

Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Work Product

Rick Committee staff attendees included David L. Cavicke (Committee Majority Counsel) Brian McCullough (Committee Majority Professional Staff Member) Christopher Knauer (Committee Minority Investigator) and Michael Geffroy (Committee Minority Counsel). Jim

legal affairs

formal

Confidential Information and Securities Trading

To:NEMEC GERALD Email:gerald.nemec@enron.com - 7138533512 ? Enron Wholesale Services - Office of the Chairman ? From:??Mark Frevert Chairman & CEO ??????Greg Whalley President & COO ??????Mark Haedicke Managing Director & General Counsel ? Subject:??Confidential Information and Securities Trading ? Enron Wholesale Services ('EWS') maintains official Policies and Procedures Regarding Confidential Information and Securities Trading ('Policies and Procedures') which have been revised as of November 15 2000 to reflect the new EWS structure. These policies and procedures are intended to allow us simultaneously to pursue our diverse businesses and to protect confidential information our reputation for integrity and EWS and its employees from legal liability. ? You are required to become familiar with and to comply with the Policies and Procedures. The newly revised Policies and Procedures are available for your review on LegalOnline the new intranet website maintained by the Enron Wholesale Services Legal Department. Please click on the attached link to access LegalOnline: ? ? You must certify your compliance with the Policies and Procedures within two weeks of your receipt of this message. The LegalOnline site will allow you to quickly and conveniently certify your compliance on-line with your SAP Personal ID number. If you have any questions concerning the Policies or Procedures please call Lance Schuler at extension 3-5419 Mark Haedicke at extension 3-6544 Alan Aronowitz at extension 3-3214 Bob Bruce at extension 5-7780 or Donna Lowry at extension 3-1939.

other

formal

SBX 6 / SBX 33

other

neutral

RE: CONFIDENTIAL Information Request for Henry Bath US

I am not aware of any.

other

formal

RE:

Aruna I shall be in London this week. Please call me on Monday next week. Best time is between 7:30 and 8:30 my time. Vince

personal & social

casual

Department meeting conference call. 800-283-1805, in Ricks name.

Page Montovano Diane -- pay for part of an admin Ken Rice Steve Shackman -- MayaMora Weber 609 279 4094 Cal trip Leave meessage for Eliz and Karen 39504 Sheila Galloway Ralph Cavanagh (415) 777 -0220 Mike Day 415 781 0701 Meg Nollen

other

formal

RE: Southern Co.s Testimony

I think a rebuttal would be in order if others agree.

meetings & events

formal

Re: Project Stanley Q&As

I think the Qs and As look good. I wouldn't bring up the California situation (eliminate the second half of A25). Eric Thode 08/22/2000 04:53 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Project Stanley Q&As Comments? -----------------

project-specific

formal

Re: Fletcher School/Enron

Thaniks for the note. Christie is now organizing our university relationships so direct the communication to her. Thanks again David Merrill@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 09/09/2000 05:59 AM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Fletcher School/Enron Dear Steve: Last month while at my reunion at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University some of the school officials told me that Enron has hired about eight Fletcher graduates recently and is happy with them. The school is also happy and wants to strengthen its relationship with Enron. They had earlier this year contacted a Laura Kalmans Director of Community Development at Enron to discuss various ideas for cooperation with Enron that would strengthen our capacity in environmental matters and give the students exposure to real world issues but nothing happened and they lost contact. They asked me who they should contact to find out how to pursue this and I said I thought it might be you or someone under you. They now want to send a letter to someone at Enron on this proposal. It is OK if it is addressed to you or should I tell them another name? Please advise me how to steer them in the right direction. Many thanks. David Merrill -----------------

human resources

formal

Re: Hap Boyd Promotion

I don't really have a problem with this but I thought that all VP promotions were supposed to go through our year end process. That's what I have been saying in response to the inquiries I am getting. Ken being newly back in the fold likely didn't know about the process. Kurt S Huneke@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 12/12/99 08:31 PM To: Steven J Kean@EES cc: Subject: Hap Boyd Promotion First I heard about this. I assume it is a reward for the PTC extension. Hope it makes sense to you. -----------------

other

neutral

California Lawmakers Vote to Limit Power Costs - WSJ

Look at this. Baum finally speaks up -- way too late. Can somebody tell me what SDG&E's energy rate was pre-dereg? -----------------

other

casual

Re: Spoke with Jeff

I'm glad things are moving forward. I've talked with Dave briefly and will follow up with him again. Kevin Scott on 07/13/2001 10:14:01 AM Please respond to kevinscott@onlinemailbox.net To: Steve Kean <skean@enron.com> cc: Subject: Spoke with Jeff Steve As planned I spoke with Jeff this morning. It was a great call. I am really excited about what is ahead. We discussed the title issue. I don't have any problems. We should go with what is the best way to enter the organization. Jeff said he was going to touch base with Dave this morning to move the process forward. I can't wait for my interviews and to join the team. Thanks for all of your help. Kevin Contact Information E-mail kevinscott@onlinemailbox.net Phone (213) 926-2626 Fax (707) 516-0019 Traditional Mail PO Box 21074 ? Los Angeles CA 90021

business document

excited

Re: CA Price caps

I'm afraid we have our work cut out for us. We have been working the proces at the state and federal level in the past couple of weeks. I continue to believe (hope) Susan J Mara 08/11/2000 11:56 AM To: Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES cc: Subject: CA Price caps I heard you've been raising a ruckus about our activities on the price caps -- asking us to do more. Thanks. I feel as if I have been a voice in the wilderness for the past six months when I was trying to get people to pay attention to the bad things happening in CA and warning that the problems (mainly a threat of reregulation) will spread elsewhere.

other

frustrated

Nigeria Contract support

Sean - is this anything we need to follow up on?

contract management

casual

Electricity Deregulation Report Card

I think I confirmed for this already but could you check and put on my calendar and put this in the meeting file.

other

casual

Enron Advertising

do we have a mechanism to survey employees? Can we do a scientific poll? -----------------

marketing & promotion

inquisitive

Update on House RTO Activities

There are now two House hearnigs tomorrow not just one. In the morning there is a panel on reliability siting and incentive pricing for transmission. Jim Steffes is the EPSA witness. The RTO-related hearing originally scheduled on a separate day will be in the afternoon tomorrow. Peter Esposito of Dynegy is the expected EPSA witness. I am checking on the final list of other panelists and will advise. Finally Andy Black of Chairman Barton's staff advises that they will release draft RTO language as early as today. We expect that this draft will not be to our liking. Barton thinks FERC is moving too quickly and with too much force. We expect his proposal to set a deadline of something like 12 months for utilities to join an RTO. The key is in part whether he allows FERC to continue to decide what constitutes an acceptable RTO or whether he will try to grandfather in some fashion those RTOs that have been proposed by utilities to date.

energy trading

formal

Mike - perhaps you can help me or forward this on to someone who can. The people in my organization support all the Enron business units but many are specifically dedicated to certain business units. As a consequence we have ended up on a variety of LANs with a variety of support people. Due to the fine efforts of your team many people in my group have migrated over to the Enron Corp LAN. We are also now enjoying great support from Russell & Russell (Servat and Mitchell). As the IT guy I'm sure you are accustomed to such profuse praise. However many of the people on my team (including me) are on the EES LAN. Historically EES has supported us with the equipment we need and they too have been doing a fine job in that regard. Historically therefore we have not budgeted for IT .... a practice which will change starting next year. In the meantime when we sought to migrate the rest of my organization to the CORP LAN we were told that we would have to pay for all of our current equipment or give it back to EES. If you need me to I can explain in detail why this makes no sense.

information technology

formal

WPTF Friday Crazy About U Burrito

THE FRIDAY BURRITO=20 Ben Zycher from the RAND Corporation used the following line in his talk at= =20 the WPTF General Meeting in Phoenix a few weeks ago. The story takes place = in=20 the good ol' days of the Soviet Union when Brezhnev was Premier.? Brezhnev= =20 and the rest of the Politburo one fine May Day were watching the tanks and= =20 missiles pass by the Kremlin Wall when Leonid noticed in the middle of the= =20 parade a truck carrying a group of civilians.? He turned to Dmitri Ustinov= =20 the Defense Minister and asked Who are they?? Ustinov replied Those a= re=20 our economists.? You just wouldn't believe their destructive potential.=20 This is appropriate for our time and our situation.? The economists descend= ed=20 upon us when the California market was designed but we know not from where= .?=20 Aliens?? Since weaving conspiracy theories is a popular past time in=20 Sacramento (We just know they are gouging us them bullies) I believe th= at=20 one must do the same by following the money.? I'm not talking about the=20 campaign contributions in Gray Davis' pocket. The most money has gone from= =20 power sales in California to the Canadian Province of British Columbia.? It= =20 was a plot the Canadians hatched. I mean look at Governor Davis.? He looks= =20 kind of BC-ish.? Skinny and lanky wimpy hair and a hesitation in his=20 speech. He talks their language: a mix of misspelled French (meet me at th= e=20 centre) English and Eh(?).? One night in 1996 the BC government secretl= y=20 sent us some economists by the truckload to destroy California.? The=20 utilities probably paid for the bus tickets.? I happen to know that Frank= =20 Wolak Chair of the ISO Market Surveillance Committee once lectured at a=20 University in Vancouver B.C..? What more evidence do you need?? The BC=20 Government sent us cheap hydro power sold at inflated market prices so tha= t=20 they could do what the citizens of California wanted to do with their budge= t=20 largess =01( build roads schools and hospitals. They didn't think we coul= d=20 figure out their plot but we did.? Now is the time for California to=20 counter-attack.? We'll send them some of our politicians a bipartisan grou= p=20 including a few who can add and some of our select energy thugs from the= =20 CPUC and the Blind Oversight Board.=20 Speaking of times and situations there was a time when discussing the ISO= =20 words such as communist and Nazi were only uttered by my pal Carl=20 Imparato.? We would shake our heads and chuckle at Carl's extremism.? We= =20 aren't laughing now.? The descriptors seem to arise again and again in poli= te=20 conversation by a wider circle of people.? I watch with utter amusement=20 (because the alternative is retching breakfast) at the demagoguery of the I= SO=20 Governing Board the Market Despair Team the Governor's office and some= =20 members of the California Legislature. Like an audience watching a tragedy= =20 from hell we scream aloud These people are crazy!? And indeed they are= .?=20 Mr. President is not helping us at all by continuing to wrangle over who ge= ts=20 the musical Chair at FERC =01( Bubba Curt or Bubba Patrick.? Listen to us = Mr.=20 President.? Let Bubba Curt keep the reigns for a year or two and let Bubba= =20 Patrick take a seat at the table.? We need someone with a shockproof BS=20 detector.? Someone who can honestly field a motion to dismiss the Californi= a=20 ISO.? The time is long overdue to shoot this horse in the head.=20 Not all is evil.? This week in Houston the resource capital of California= I=20 visited the trading floor folks at Dynegy before attending the WTPF Board= =20 meeting.? The coolest thing I saw besides all the neat gadgets on each=20 trader's desk was the coffee machine.? Brother Jolly Hayden showed me how = to=20 use it.? You pick the type of coffee you want.? The contents of the coffee= =20 are in a shot-glass sized plastic tub with a foil top.? I picked Venezuelan= =20 #6 Decaffeinated Waxy Crude.? The tub is placed inside the brewing machine= =20 and the start button is pushed.? Presto coffee drips from the spout into a= =20 waiting cup.? I asked Jolly How did the hot water get mixed into the grou= nd=20 beans?? He removed the tub from the machine and showed me a pin prick hole= =20 made in the foil top and another that was made at the bottom.? Is that nea= t=20 or what?=20 I would like to buy a brewing machine just like the Dynegy coffee machine= =20 but a little larger.? I would set up a booth in Sacramento on the corner o= f=20 11th and L and bark out to passing members of the Legislature Free spa= ce=20 shuttle. Come and see life on other planets.? They would jump at the chanc= e=20 to visit other planets.? I would seat them in the machine push the start= =20 button and voila.? Dripping out would be the essence of democracy.? Don't= =20 worry about the holes needed at the top and the bottom.? They are already= =20 there and quite enlarged.=20 Back to my day at Dynegy.? Trade floors might seem similar across companies= =20 but the small differences speak to the management style embraced by the cre= w=20 and its leaders.? Each electric trading desk for various parts of the=20 country is set up a little bit differently.? For example some desks have = a=20 person doing asset-backed trading but some don't.? When I arrived at 6 a.m= .=20 Houston time the Eastern desk was busy in its trade day.? The Western folk= s=20 hadn't arrived yet.? Later I sat with Randy LeForce of the Western desk.?= =20 Captain LeForce to you he told me.? He could talk big because Dave=20 Francis who sits next to Randy and hangs witty quotes from the ceiling=20 above his head (Even a blind pig could make money in this market) was on= =20 vacation.? As the pace of the trading gathered steam Randy kept an eye on= =20 all the different people working the Western trading desk.? The Captain=20 worked it like a maestro.=20 During my visit some Dynegy folks came up to me introduced themselves an= d=20 said how much they enjoyed the Friday Burrito.? I'll tell you what.? There= =20 are few things in life that give me as much satisfaction.? Complete strange= rs=20 who tell you that something you do makes them feel good well it doesn't g= et=20 any better than that.? Garrison Keillor the well-known author of Lake=20 Woebegone Days and NPR radio entertainer once said a writer should have an= =20 audience.? Not everyone in the world should be in the audience but an=20 audience nonetheless of some people.? I now know what he means.? And the=20 people I met on the trading floor felt like they knew me and shared with m= e=20 their thoughts and opinions on a lot of things.?? Often they asked me Are= =20 those California people really that crazy?=20 Since last week you might have noticed the pace at the FERC has picked up= =20 somewhat.? Last Friday the FERC issued an Order on possible refunds for=20 alleged overcharges by parties selling to the ISO last January.? That was= =20 news worthy.? Then on Wednesday the FERC issued an Order to remove barrie= rs=20 to additional electric generation in the West.? The Order admits that it=20 won't change the dire situation in the West but these are steps in the rig= ht=20 direction.? The FERC also issued on Wednesday a show-cause order to AES and= =20 Williams regarding the maintenance of RMR units that were called by the ISO= =20 in April and May of 2000.? That is a serious case that we must watch=20 closely.? Also this week the California Senate kicked off its own=20 investigation (this will be the tenth such investigation of the California= =20 markets to uncover alleged price manipulation).? The Senate Committee will= =20 have subpoena rights and if I understand it correctly they plan to subpoe= na=20 individuals.? Sounds like a Kangaroo Court and a Three-Ring Circus to me.= =20 Thursday Secretary Abraham stated in a congressional hearing that the West= =20 would certainly experience power outages this summer. Finally an LA Times= =20 reporter asked me if I had heard that a small QF company had filed for=20 seizure of SCE property to satisfy an outstanding debt.? That would be step= =20 one of the bankruptcy cha-cha.? All in all a typical week among crazy=20 people.=20 Let's see what else we can talk about.=20 Things in the People's Republic of California=20 ?@@@ PUC Updates Utility Liabilities=20 ?@@@ Be a Source for Energy Price Update=20 ?@@@ BPA Misquoted in the WSJ=20 Things FERC=20 ?@@@ Market Monitoring Proposal=20 Letters=20 Jobs and People=20 Odds & Ends (_!_)=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20 Things in the People's Republic of California=20 ?@@@ PUC Updates Utility Liabilities=20 My favorite regulator the California PUC issued an Order in the Utilities= '=20 Rate Stabilization case to re-open the record on utility audits.? Although= =20 the text of the order is unremarkable the data tables bring up to date as= =20 of March 8 the outstanding liabilities of PG&E and SCE.=20 The PG&E commercial paper obligation due as of March 8 increased by $354=20 million since January 31 for a total default amount of $790 million.? QF= =20 purchases increased by $280 million for the same five-week period now=20 totaling $651 million.? The ISO payments increased $934 million now totali= ng=20 $1.5 billion and the direct access charge backs for negative PX credits=20 increased $214 million now totaling $433 million.? PG&E's total default=20 amount is now $3.3 billion excluding amounts yet to be collected from PG&E= =20 customers for DWR purchases.=20 The SCE balance is as follows: The commercial paper obligation that is due = as=20 of March 8 increased by $260 million since January 31 for a total default= =20 amount of $401 million. SCE defaulted on a significant amount of long-term= =20 debt principal and interest roughly $249 million.? QF purchase defaults=20 increased by $354 million for the same five-week period now totaling $835= =20 million.? The ISO obligations decreased $1.1 million and the direct access= =20 charge backs for negative PX credits increased $21 million now totaling $2= 5=20 million.? SCE's total default amount is now $1.7 billion excluding amounts= =20 yet to be collected from SCE customers for DWR purchases.=20 There is little question that the QFs are taking it on the chin big time.?= =20 In the last five weeks between January 31 and March 8 the defaulted=20 payments to the QF owners from both utilities has increased $630 million.?= =20 The total QF default for both utilities as of March 8 stands at $1.5=20 billion.? Does anyone wonder why 1500 MW of QF capacity has shut down in=20 California?? Without these payments being made very soon I would expect th= e=20 amount of shut down QF capacity to easily double or more.? Why would these= =20 projects produce without the promise of being paid?=20 Things in the People's Republic of California=20 ?@@@ Be a Source for Energy Price Update=20 Art O'Donnell editor and associate publisher of the well-known and widely= =20 read California Energy Market (CEM) is looking for traders willing to=20 participate in his survey in exchange for receiving an advanced copy.? The= =20 Survey is a regular feature in CEM. The information collected by Art is=20 matched against the responses of the other people he interviews and some=20 posted sources (Pricewaterhouse Coopers BPA=01s daily offerings for=20 instance).? It is written up in narrative form. The report goes out twice= =20 weekly once on Wednesday afternoon/evening via e-mail as a courtesy to the= =20 respondents (because the week is pretty much done by then) and a rewrite o= n=20 Friday that is e-mailed around 10 am posted on the newsdata.com Web site= =20 and published in the newsletter for general consumption. The Friday report= =20 also features a brief story about natural gas markets in the West=20 The WPTF Board of Directors has allowed me to publicize this offering and = to=20 explain that if your company is interested in participating the informatio= n=20 you provide to Art would be protected as confidential.? In Art's words Th= e=20 price survey is =01( unlike some attempts at creating a tradable index numb= er=20 (e.g. McGraw-Hill=01s Power Markets Week index or the Dow Jones indices) = is=20 more of a narrative about the state of the market d a pulse reading as=20 opposed to a blood pressure number or an EKG. As such I do not ask traders= =20 and schedulers for precise dollar figures or volumes associated with specif= ic=20 trades but rather questions like 'What=01s Mid-Columbia going for today?= What=20 about off-peak? How has that changed since this morning? Oh yeah why is=20 that? Anything else I should know?'=20 The WPTF Board asked Art to explain how the information he collects would b= e=20 protected since so many marketers and generators are under State data=20 subpoenas.? Art replied The Constitution of the State of California=20 provides for a blanket immunity against government intrusions for news=20 gathering from confidential sources and unpublished information something= =20 which we believe in strongly at Energy NewsData Corporation and which we ar= e=20 willing to go to jail to protect. So if for instance the Attorney General= =20 tried to subpoena me or anyone from my staff about power price information= =20 we would 1) refuse to divulge anything other than the already published=20 accounts 2) send back a copy of the Constitution 3) contact the attorneys= =20 for the Society of Professional Journalists and 4) start preparing a benef= it=20 party to raise legal fees. =20 If you would like to participate in Art's survey please e-mail him at=20 aod@newsdata.com.=20 Things in the People's Republic of California=20 ?@@@ BPA Misquoted in the WSJ=20 In last week's Burrito I referred to a Wall Street Journal article that=20 portrayed a BPA trader as admonishing the DWR for accepting bids over marke= t=20 prices.? I was surprised when I received the following e-mail from BPA's=20 David Mills.? His message to me copied a letter he sent to DWR's Ray Hart= =20 explaining what he meant as opposed to what he was quoted as saying.=20 Dear Ray:=20 ?=20 As per our telephone discussion I just wanted to reiterate a few things=20 re:the Wall Street Journal article and the quotes attributed to me.? At no= =20 time during the interview with Ms Smith did I state that I thought that=20 CDWR's offers were out of line with the prevailing market price in Californ= ia=20 or that your traders should check that price before entering the market.? T= he=20 reporter was quite interested in the price difference between California an= d=20 the MidC price here in the Northwest and when I asked I told her that=20 currently that price delta was roughly $50-$100 MWhr with MidC being lower= =20 than the CA prices.? I did not indicate to the reporter that I thought that= =20 CDWR was paying more than the California market price and was simply trying= =20 to make a comparison of price relativity between California and the=20 Northwest.? Lastly BPA has on occasion charged extra-regional entities= =20 less than the prevailing market price but has only done so to remain=20 consistent with our own pricing strategies.=20 ?=20 ?I apologize for any misconceptions or miscommunications that may have=20 resulted from this and look forward to a continuing working relationship=20 between CDWR and BPA.=20 ?=20 Things FERC=20 ?@@@ Market Monitoring Proposal=20 FERC Staff issued a report with Recommendations on Prospective Market=20 Monitoring and Mitigation for the California Wholesale Electric Power=20 Market.? WPTF members are taking this proposal very seriously and we inte= nd=20 to provide comments on March 22.? If you are interested in a copy of the=20 report go to General members are able to participate along with the Board members and=20 other general members working on our response.? We have retained the servic= es=20 of Dr. Ben Zycher of the RAND Corporation to help us draft the policy=20 issues.? He will be working with our counsel Dan Douglass of Arter & Hadde= n=20 to craft our reply.=20 In short our submission will point out the flaws in FERC's proposed=20 methodology and demonstrate the shortcomings of narrowly limiting the=20 definition of producer marginal cost to operating variable cost.? Further= =20 excluding measures of credit worthiness are an important missing variable i= n=20 the FERC analysis.? Next week I will include a short summary of our respon= se=20 in the Burrito.=20 Letters=20 I received a note from one of our legal beagles that drop me a line every n= ow=20 and then.? I don't have the facts of the case to which this person refers= =20 but I hope the sender provides us with an update if a judgement should occu= r.=20 Universal Studios wants FERC to find that Universal owes no penalty to SCE= =20 for not interrupting its interruptible load (under a CPUC rate schedule)=20 because SCE did not adhere to the FERC requirement in the Dec 15 order to= =20 schedule 95% of its load in the day ahead market ...... according to=20 Universal if SCE had done so then it would have had to provide Universal= =20 power at below its cost.? SCE didn't and Universal got interrupted and now= =20 Universal owes $$$$$$$$$$$$$.? Does anyone else know about this filing?=20 Lind Guerry veteran of the PX halcyon days wrote Hi Gary.? Hope you're= =20 having a nice day.? Just wanted to let you know that I'm really enjoying th= e=20 Burrito and am so glad you're sending it to my home email.? I really got a= =20 kick out of the Ten Reasons....? It's hard to believe that our wonderful= =20 state is in such incompetent hands isn't it?? And not only are they=20 incompetent they continue to remain so with such regularity you could=20 probably make a killing marketing their incompetence as a laxative.? Do you= =20 think if we tried to do that we'd get accused of exercising market power?= =20 Think of the power we'd wield as the holder of the largest amount of=20 incompetence!! ?=20 Lind we need a product name for the laxative idea.? Any ideas? How about= =20 Sane Away?=20 Jobs and People=20 The folks at Dynegy sent me a couple of job postings.? If your company has= =20 similar posting or job openings or if you are reader looking for a new gig= =20 drop me a line.? After all it's free.=20 Position Description:=20 Dynegy's position has responsibility for the development of transmission an= d=20 power markets in a geographic region of the U.S.? Duties are driven primari= ly=20 by federal regional and state activities to restructure and deregulate th= e=20 electric power industry and the need for industry participants to develop= =20 and implement market structures policies and regulations that promote=20 liquid and competitive transmission and power markets.? Significant activit= y=20 within a region to reshape the structure and operation of the transmission= =20 grid is resulting from FERC Order 2000 which directs the establishment of= =20 Regional Transmission Organizations. Extensive travel (40%-60% and higher = at=20 times) is highly probable. Primary goals of this position are to:1) Create= =20 more liquid and competitive transmission and power markets? 2) Maximize th= e=20 value of Dynegy's positions and assets by working closely with the trading= =20 and power groups to develop?? and implement commercial strategies that crea= te=20 and capture significant business opportunities and 3) Provide timely and= =20 accurate information market intelligence and recommendations to clients. = 4)=20 Maximize the value of Dynegy's positions and assets by working closely with= =20 the trading and power groups to develop and implement commercial strategies= =20 that create and capture significant business opportunities and=20 recommendations to clients.=20 Interested parties should contact Jolly Hayden at jjha@ngccorp.com.=20 Odds & Ends (_!_)=20 First I would like to welcome WPTF's newest general member Wellhead=20 Electric.? Hal Dittmer is the founder and president of Wellhead.? I have=20 known Hal for a couple of years first as a client for my over priced=20 consulting services and later as a friend and source of all kinds of usefu= l=20 information.? Wellhead is one of those QF owners who are owed a boatload of= =20 money.? However Hal's company is developing some new projects and he is= =20 looking for prospective power buyers.? Hence his interest in WPTF is=20 obvious. Wellhead is WPTF's 31st member.=20 Well the Dynegy gang has been a source of comfort and joy to me this week.= ?=20 They couldn't let me leave their abode without stuffing a song in my pocket= =20 that is a tribute to their creative skills.? Timely too.? Sing it to the tu= ne=20 of California Dreaming by the Mamas and the Papas.=20 ISO California=20 (to the tune of Hotel California) On a dark Western highway=20 No wind in my hair=20 No rain for the hydro=20 No NOX in the air=20 Up ahead in the distance=20 I saw a flickering sight=20 The load grew heavy and the lights grew dim=20 No relief in the night=20 So we stood in the darkness=20 Down at the Taco Bell=20 And I was thinking to myself=20 This could be Heaven or this could be Hell=20 We lit up a candle=20 No power in the Bay=20 There were voices down the corridor=20 I thought I heard them say? =01(=20 Welcome to the ISO California=20 Such a lovely place=20 Such a lovely place=20 Such a lovely face=20 Powering up for the ISO California=20 What a nice surprise=20 What a nice surprise=20 Bring your alibis? =01(=20 Its mind is policy twisted=20 Can=01t stop consumption trends=20 Got a lot of NIMBY boys=20 Cisco calls friends=20 How we sweat in the courthouse=20 Sweet summer sweat=20 Without the AC=20 We try to forget=20 So I called up the Gov=01nor=20 Please energize this line=20 He said=20 We haven=01t built a new plant here since 1969=20 Last thing I remember=20 We were running for the door=20 We had to find the passage back to the place we were before=20 Relax said Judge Damrell=20 California=01s programmed to receive=20 Go belly up any time you like=20 But your power can never leave=20 ?=20 [refrain]=20 =3D=20 Don't refrain.? Have a great weekend y'all.=20 gba=20 ?

other

casual

Draft Response to CPUC OII

I have taken a stab at putting a draft response together indicating areas where we need more flesh. I will forward Tim/Mary's presentation to FERC EPSA's California Fact Sheet and the transcript from the hearing held on 8/23 and 8/24. Witness Wolak Market Surveillance Committee of ISO had some good points about rational behavior in markets with scarcity of supply. His comments were on 8/23. Please feel free to comment. Dan Douglass Arter&Hadden (818-596-2201) will be filing these comments on Enron's behalf which are due on Friday. I would suggest that Dan provide some of the legal view on whether the CPUC has adequate jurisdiction over retail rates not wholesale rates. We should shoot for final comments by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow if possible. This will allow an opportunity to discuss any last minute changes if necessary before filing. Seabron Adamson Frontier Economics (617-354-0060) will be providing additional drafting. Be sure to send any comments to these parties along with the internal list. Thanks.

energy infrastructure

formal

Energy Issues

Please see the following articles: Oakland Trib Wed 3/7: Breakthrough made in rescue of PG&E Bakersfield Californian Wed 3/7: El Paso Energy closes six valley power plants Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: Still undecided: Who'll pay DWR for electricity SF Chron Wed 3/7: State Taxpayers In Dark on Details Of Energy Deal Sac Bee Wed 3/7: Lawmakers pitch fixes for region's energy woes Orange Co. Register Wed 3/7: Power plan called wrong LA Times - Wed 3/7: Bill to Cut Some Power Prices Stalls Sac Bee Wed 3/7: PG&E could face mutiny on outages: SMUD others may balk if utility orders summer blackouts SF Chron Wed 3/7: PUC to Decide Fate Of Utility Workers PG&E Edison want to trim costs by laying off thousands cutting service San Jose Mercury Wed 3/7: Power prices could soar during the summer SF Chron Wed 3/7: Power Plant Plans Cause Conflicts East county residents blast supervisors Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: Supervisors set search for power plant sites Sac Bee Wed 3/7: Peter Schrag: California's $90 billion infrastructure gap Contra Costa Times Wed 3/7: PG&E power plan debated at hearing SF Chron Thurs. 3/8: State OKs 'Peaker' Power Plant at SFO / Temporary generator could be sending electricity to 50000 homes by August WSJ Thurs. 3/8: Crossed Wires: Major Kinks Emerge In Gov. Davis's Plan To Power California --- State's Outlays for Electricity May Be Hard to Recover Without Rate Increases --- Betting on Long-Term Deals ------------------------ Breakthrough made in rescue of PG&E State ready to pay $7 billion for lines By Steve Geissinger SACRAMENTO BUREAU SACRAMENTO -- Signaling a breakthrough in secret energy crisis talks the Davis administration disclosed Tuesday it may announce the framework of a pact to rescue the teetering Pacific Gas and Electric Co. next week. Things are going very well said Steve Maviglio a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis. The state appears to be poised to pay at least $7 billion -- and possibly billions more -- for PG&E's high-voltage transmission lines as part of a deal to financially renovate the north-state utility according to sources familiar with the negotiations. But consumer advocates insisted that even the $7 billion price is too much to pay. And experts warned that a deal with PG&E will be more complex than with other utilities. PG&E representatives declined comment in keeping with their policy on the talks even though the Davis administration said an announcement could come as early as next week or the following week. The new timetable for an announcement was substantially sooner than in Davis' original forecast. Until late last week PG&E was still resisting the sale of its power grid despite the fact that Davis had announced the framework of an agreement with Southern California Edison. Davis expects to soon announce a similar deal with the San Diego Gas and Electric Co. However any such deal still would need federal approval. The investor-owned utilities trapped between high wholesale costs and lower regulated retail rates amassed nearly $13 billion in debts and were unable to buy electricity this winter. With the onset of rolling blackouts the state began brokering billions of dollars in emergency short- and long-term power purchases. Davis' strategy to ease the energy price and supply crisis includes bolstering both conservation and generation while fiscally refurbishing the nearly bankrupt utilities. As part of the rescue deal the utilities would have to drop legal actions seeking dramatically higher electricity bills environmentally shield wildlands they own sell power from their generators to Californians for the next decade and secure help with their debts from their parent companies. Together with the cash infusion from the sale of their power 26000-mile power grids the utilities would be allowed to sell bonds to raise funds and use customer money to pay them off. The state would upgrade the high-voltage lines and lease them back to the utilities for operation. In a reflection of the negotiations with the three utilities a Davis administration official said the deal with PG&E is proving to be more complex than with the other firms. Though PG&E finally agreed late last week to sell its transmission grid the utility apparently wants more than the $7 billion that Davis has offered according to sources. The figure is more than twice the book amount or the value placed on the system for purposes of accounting. And that's the markup that lured Edison into an agreement to sell its smaller portion of the transmission grid for $2.8 billion. But PG&E which fears an erosion of its economic base may be asking as much as $10 billion. Due to complexities in the state's 1996 deregulation of the industry PG&E is more likely to lose revenue than Edison as a result of selling its transmission lines according to experts. Big customers might be able to bypass the utility's remaining local distribution lines thereby eroding its customer base. Therefore the utility may view bankruptcy and sale of its transmission lines to the highest bidder as a potentially attractive alternative to selling its share of the grid to the state at too low a price. ---- El Paso Energy closes six valley power plants Filed: 03/07/2001 By CHIP POWER Californian staff writer e-mail: ppower@bakersfield.com El Paso Energy citing non-payment from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. said it has shut down six cogeneration plants this week. The smaller plants produced about 175 megawatts of electricity and are located primarily in the San Joaquin Valley said company spokesman Mel Scott. A megawatt can supply power to 1000 homes. At least 10 plants have closed in the past two weeks as a result of non-payment according to the state Independent System Operator which manages most of the state's electrical distribution. The El Paso Energy plants are operated with various partners and had not been compensated for December January and February deliveries said Scott. He said he did not know the total amount due but said the plants would be closed until PG&E's credit worthiness is improved. A cogeneration plant common in oil fields simultaneously produces heat energy and electrical or mechanical power from the same fuel in the same facility. Typically it produces electricity and steam which can be deployed to enhance oil recovery. Kern County is the state's leading oil-producing county. El Paso owns or has interests in more than 40000 miles of interstate and intrastate pipeline connecting the nation's principal natural gas supply regions to the five largest consuming regions in the United States namely the Gulf Coast California the Northeast the Midwest and the Southeast. El Paso closed up 99 cents on Tuesday or 1.4 percent at $71.49. The Houston-based company's stock price has ranged between $36.31 and $75.30 in the last 52 weeks. ---- Still undecided: Who'll pay DWR for electricity By Karen Gaudette ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO -- The price tag is $3.2 billion and counting for electricity bought by the state Department of Water Resources for the customers of two nearly bankrupt utilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Southern California Edison and the state disagree over how the DWR eventually will be reimbursed for its purchases on the expensive last-minute power market. So do the state power regulators who have the final call over who gets the money when. Under a recent law the DWR went into the electricity-buying business to help keep the two utilities from sinking further into their $13 billion debt. The state plans to retrieve the money by selling $10 billion in revenue bonds. The utilities continue to collect ratepayer dollars on that electricity which the bill's author Assemblyman Fred Keeley D-Boulder Creek says is meant to help them begin paying down their debt. In a recent letter however DWR officials requested that the state Public Utilities Commission order that a portion of that money be diverted to the state. But after the utilities subtract the costs of generating electricity payments to environmentally friendly power plants and other expenses there is no money left from ratepayer dollars to give to the DWR without sinking further into debt PG&E spokesman Ron Low said Tuesday. If it passed along money to the DWR our undercollection would grow by about $2.4 billion by the end of the year Low said. The commission unable to agree on the best course of action left the issue untouched at its last meeting but expects to revisit the issue when it meets this morning. Commissioner Richard Bilas is proposing an alternate plan that would have the DWR set its own revenue requirements that would be passed on to ratepayers. The PUC also is expected to respond to complaints from laid-off workers and customers that layoffs by utilities to cut costs have been hurting service. Commissioner Carl Wood warned at the last meeting that failure to provide safe and reliable service could mean fines for the utilities. Representatives from electrical workers unions the PUC and the utilities were to discuss the issue Tuesday afternoon. I don't think we believe that utilities can find a way out of their problems by laying off workers said Mindy Spatt a spokeswoman with the Utility Reform Network. We think consumers deserve safe and reliable service and we think they deserve it at a reasonable price. ---- State Taxpayers In Dark on Details Of Energy Deal David Lazarus Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Few people would purchase a car simply because the dealer said ''Trust me it's a great deal.'' Yet Gov. Gray Davis essentially is telling Californians just that about dozens of long-term power contracts. Because of confidentiality agreements with power companies the governor has revealed only scant details about the state's multibillion-dollar contracts for electricity over the next 10 years. Gov. Davis has our money and we can't see how he's spending it said Doug Heller a spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. We've been locked out of the room. Neither Davis nor power companies would divulge specific details about the price duration or scope of individual contracts. Each cited secrecy clauses that the governor's office said had been desired by both sides. What consumers do know is this: -- California has signed 40 contracts and tentative accords valued at about $40 billion to secure enough power to light 9 million homes over the next decade. -- The average purchase price of each deal is $69 per megawatt hour -- well above the $30 to $40 charged by power generators before California's energy market went haywire last summer. -- If as is widely expected wholesale power prices fall in years ahead the state nevertheless will be locked into paying above-market rates for electricity. But it is not known which generator agreed to part with the most power at the cheapest level or the full range of the prices in concocting the $69 average. Moreover it is unclear how shrewdly the state negotiated with taxpayer money in securing power on behalf of cash-strapped utilities. These agreements are the bedrock of our long-term energy policy Davis said Monday in announcing the deals. The governor's office defended the murky nature of the contracts yesterday. It's a business transaction in which private corporate information is included said Steve Maviglio a spokesman for Davis. That's the kind of information that never gets revealed. While additional elements of the contracts will be publicized in coming months he said the contracts themselves will remain a secret. You'll never see all the details Maviglio said. This did not sit well with many observers. It's a breach of public trust said Daniel Bacon a San Francisco attorney specializing in business law. A public servant spending public money shouldn't be able to keep the spending secret. But Gary Ackerman executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum an energy-industry association in Menlo Park called confidentiality agreements a necessary evil in transactions like this. He explained that no power company would agree to a long-term contract if rival firms could learn the terms of the accord. The company would be losing too much of its competitive edge in the marketplace Ackerman said. At the same time he noted that secrecy allowed the buyer -- in this case California taxpayers -- to secure more favorable terms with individual sellers. A high price with one generator would not necessarily be sought by all power providers. Still the fact that public funds are being used makes confidentiality in this case a different matter than say Cisco Systems' quietly negotiating to take over yet another tech rival. The public is in a very awkward position said Michael Shames executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego. It has to rely on the good word and expertise of the governor and he has yet to demonstrate that he has expertise or good word in this field. Shames likened consumers to passengers in a plane being flown by a pilot without a license to fly. But what choice do we have? he asked. I don't see many other options available right now. There's the rub. No matter how bad a deal California may have cut to help meet its energy demands the alternative -- blackouts disruptions economic catastrophe -- is far far worse. On the other hand it already appears that the new contracts will not shield Californians from the threat of daily outages this summer when demand surges. Davis said only about 60 percent of the state's summertime electricity needs so far had been met. Part of the reason is that many power companies already have contracted for their output this year. Duke Energy said this was why it would not begin its nine-year contract with California until 2002 while Williams Cos. said it would only gradually increase the amount of available wattage in its 10-year contract. Both companies meanwhile will continue to profit this summer by selling into the volatile spot market where wholesale power went for as much as $1 500 per megawatt hour last year. You can't sell all your power into long-term contracts said Paula Hall- Collins a Williams spokeswoman. You save some for the spot market. Consumer groups worry that consumers will be hammered again this summer with sky-high power prices and then get nailed down the road by contracts for above-market rates. If we could look at the terms of the deals we'd see that California is being gouged for 10 years said Heller of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. But the governor doesn't want us to see that. Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum said the state had gotten the best rates it could under current market conditions. California went for long-term contracts when everyone else moved in as well he said. Californians are paying a price for not acting sooner. ---- Lawmakers pitch fixes for region's energy woes By David Whitney Bee Washington Bureau (Published March 7 2001) WASHINGTON -- California members of Congress pleaded for everything from wholesale price caps to extending daylight-saving time an extra hour to help the region cope this summer with its persistent electricity shortage but none of the ideas seemed to catch fire at a House hearing Tuesday. People will die in California because of this crisis Rep. Brad Sherman a Los Angeles-area Republican warned the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Sherman testified that his idea for saving lives is to extend daylight-saving time by an extra hour so that there would be more daylight at the end of the day when power consumption surges. One of the peak demand periods for electricity occurs between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. when the sun sets and people come home from work Sherman testified. If people come home and it is light out there is less of an inclination to turn a light on. Sherman said the state Legislature has called for congressional approval for states to be given authority to extend daylight-saving time and he cited analyses by the California Energy Commission and other agencies suggesting that it could cut power consumption by 1 percent to 2 percent. Sherman who was one of about a dozen California lawmakers presenting their views on the energy squeeze drew no questions from committee leaders about what his legislation might do to everything from airline schedules to television programming if West Coast states didn't agree on the same time standard. Most of the committee's questioning was on the more popular idea proposed by several California and Western lawmakers primarily Democrats to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose caps on wholesale electricity prices that have gone wild because of a regional power shortage. Rep. Bob Filner D-San Diego charged that the price spiral has little to do with power shortages but a lot to do with a small cartel of generators bilking ratepayers. Rep. Jay Inslee D-Wash. said he brought up the idea of regional price caps with President Bush who was initially skeptical. But Inslee said that Bush warmed to the idea after being told that protections could be built into the caps so as not to discourage construction of new power plants. Upon hearing that Inslee said Bush invited him to meet with the president's Cabinet-level task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney on a national energy strategy. But Inslee said he can't get the group to meet with him. It's very disappointing Inslee said. Tuesday's hearing was part of a series the panel is holding on the California crisis so far without any emerging consensus on what if anything Congress should do. ---- Power plan called wrong Wall Street analysts say the governor's approach to the problem avoids the issue that caused the imbalance. March 7 2001 By DON THOMPSON The Associated Press SACRAMENTO California's scramble to insulate consumers from the soaring price of electricity may add to the state's power problems this summer Wall Street analysts said Tuesday. Gov. Gray Davis' emphasis on buying utilities' transmission lines and negotiating long-term power contracts to help ease their debts skirts the deep imbalance between wholesale and market rates that led to the state's power problems in the first place they said. In the long run it doesn't solve anything said Michael Worms an industry analyst for Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. In the long run you need to send the right price signals to consumers which will create its own conservation signals. Unfortunately customers were shielded from that in California. Davis said Monday that the state's first contracts to buy electricity for two financially struggling utilities will provide only about two-thirds of the power needed on a typical summer day forcing Californians to cut power use at least 10 percent to avoid blackouts. Since early January the state has been buying one- third of the power Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers need. The two utilities denied credit by suppliers say they have lost nearly $14 billion due to soaring wholesale electricity prices that the state's industry-deregulation law says they cannot pass on to consumers. The keepers of the state power grid had enough electricity Tuesday to avoid declaring an electricity alert but have faced an almost-daily scramble for weeks due to a tight supply and high wholesale prices. Several wholesale and retail rate proposals are circulating. Among them: Free-market advocates such as Worms want an immediate end to the deregulation-imposed retail rate freeze on Edison and PG&E that will expire next year. Davis wants a Western price cap of $100 per megawatt hour on power generators he says have been prof iteering from California's short energy supply. The Bush administration and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are cool to that idea. In December FERC imposed a soft cap of $150 per megawatt hour on wholesale rates in the state and required suppliers to justify any higher prices they charge. Consumer groups such as The Utility Reform Network or TURN want regulated rates for residential and small-business customers but free-market rates for large industrial customers which sought deregulation in the first place. TURN also advocates a tiered rate structure with higher rates for consumers who use more than a reasonable amount of electricity each month. Assembly Republicans say electricity and natural-gas prices will fall naturally if the state increases supply mainly by making it easier to build plants and pipelines. Right now you're sort of sitting partially with regulation and part with the free market said Paul Fremont an analyst with Jefferies & Co. Both these systems work. It's sort of that in-between system that you have in Califor nia that doesn't appear to be working. The system discourages generators from building new power plants because they aren't guaranteed a profit and it doesn't do enough to discourage power use by consumers because the price they pay doesn't reflect the true cost of power Fremont said. I don't think people here have much faith in the market and why should they? countered TURN's Mindy Spatt. I think there are probably better ways of encouraging consumers to conserve than by gouging them. Davis insists the crisis can be resolved without raising rates for Edison and PG&E customers beyond the existing rate structure. In January state regulators imposed temporary rate hikes of 7 to 15 percent on Edison and PG&E customers. The Legislature and Davis extended the increases for up to a decade to help pay back the estimated $10 billion in power buying the state expects to do for Edison and PG&E over the next several years and finance its purchase of the power lines owned by the two companies and San Diego Gas & Electric. Rates were already scheduled to increase next year for Edison and PG&E customers. Under the 1996 deregulation law the pair's ratepayers saw a 10 percent rate reduction but only until early 2002. That rate cut will likely expire as planned Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio has said. Davis wants those rates to cover not only the traditional cost of generating transporting and distributing power but the added cost of paying off the two utilities' massive debt and buying their transmission lines said Assemblyman Fred Keeley D-Boulder Creek the Assembly's chief power negotiator. Yet Davis has indirectly addressed the rate imbalance by signing legislation that will let regulators raise consumer rates if necessary Keeley said. The governor and lawmakers are in effect spreading out rate increases over a decade by using long-term revenue bonds to buy power for the nearly bankrupt utilities said Severin Borenstein director of the University of California Energy Institute. At some point we have to deal with the reality that all of the power that we buy has to be paid for by somebody - it's either going to come from taxpayers or it's going to come from ratepayers Bor enstein said. Raising rates now would get us a lot of conservation. Davis also wants financial incentives for conservation and power-plant construction in time to make a difference this summer. Our mouths were agape at the rapid timetable Keeley said. Legislators are rushing to pass those incentives by month's end he said allowing three months for consumers and suppliers to act before the heat of summer. Among bills considered Tuesday the Senate Energy Committee approved legislation to accelerate the siting of power plants. It also was considering a proposal to restructure rates for generators that use renewable energy to provide about 30 percent of the state's electricity. ---- Bill to Cut Some Power Prices Stalls Energy: Democrats balk at varying payment levels for alternative generators. By DAN MORAIN JULIE TAMAKI Times Staff Writers SACRAMENTO--Legislation aimed at cutting prices for more than a fourth of the power consumed in California stalled Tuesday as Democrats questioned why a few alternative energy generators--some of them campaign donors--stood to receive higher payments than others. Lawmakers working to unravel California's energy mess have been negotiating for weeks in an effort to cut the price paid to more than 600 generators of alternative power by more than half to below 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. Those alternative generators' contracts with utilities have shot up in recent months because of a rise in the price of natural gas. The cash-strapped corporations have suspended or made partial payments to the generators over the last few months causing many to shut down or reduce their outputs. But even as the lawmakers reached agreement that pushed the average price to near the 8-cent level per kilowatt-hour some generators would have received higher prices under the bill by state Sen. Jim Battin (R-La Quinta). Some of the generators that stood to benefit had donated to Battin's campaigns. One--Windtec Inc.--gave Battin a $20000 campaign donation in 1999. Others contributed from $3000 and $5000 last year. Battin acknowledged that he has received campaign contributions from some wind power generators but said there is no connection between the donations and the bill's provisions. It is illegal it is unethical and it's not how I do business he said. Battin noted that 25% of the state's alternative energy producers are in his district. As Democrats on the Senate Energy Committee blocked the bill Battin warned that some alternative energy producers might react to the delay by trying to force Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric into bankruptcy. We will be the cause of bankruptcy Battin said. That prompted Energy Committee Chairwoman Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) to retort: I'm really tired of being threatened with bankruptcy. Alternative energy producers including those that use wind solar power biomass and other means produce 27% of the energy used in California. They sell the electricity to the utilities which in turn transmit it to retail consumers. But with the utilities facing multibillion-dollar debts the alternative energy producers under contract with Edison have not been paid since November. Scores of alternative energy producers supported the measure. Edison International and the San Francisco-based consumer group the Utility Reform Network opposed it. Michael Florio of the Utility Reform group said the deal could result in higher consumer prices an Edison representative said the same thing. Battin and Assemblyman Fred Keeley (D-Boulder Creek) worked out an arrangement with many of the generators. Keeley took the lead in the early negotiations and then turned to Battin to introduce the legislation SB 47X. Rather convoluted language would have allowed higher payments to a select few generators that produce electricity from wind and biomass. Most of California's wind suppliers for instance would have received about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. But a handful of them about half a dozen wind farms--mostly in the Palm Springs area represented by Battin--would have received 7.8 cents. Battin contends that other wind producers receive additional payments that boost them to the same level as Windtec and others that would get the higher payments. They get the same deal Battin said of the handful of generators that would benefit from the provisions he added to the bill. In California's overall energy market the amount of money that would have flowed to the favored generators is minor. But the added prices that would have been paid to the generators would have translated to at least $19 million in the next five years to be absorbed by Southern California Edison customers according to one analysis. Also Tuesday more details were disclosed about another leg of the state's effort to escape from the energy crunch--the deals with large power generators to supply electricity to California for as long as 10 years. Those arrangements were announced by Gov. Gray Davis Monday as the bedrock of California's energy policy. But some consumer advocates warned that the deals could lock the state into excessively high-priced contracts. S. David Freeman the general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Davis' negotiator said that the state guarded against that by varying the time spans of its deals. About 6000 megawatts are expected to be available this summer about one-third of the energy needed by the state Freeman said. The amount of power under contract swells until more than 9000 megawatts are contracted in 2004 half of the needed amount before dipping to 8000 megawatts in 2010. What we're doing here is what everybody said had to be done Freeman said. We deliberately bought 50% so we'd have a good mix between long-term contracts which may turn out to be somewhat higher or somewhat lower than the spot market and purchases on the spot market. ---- PG&E could face mutiny on outages: SMUD others may balk if utility orders summer blackouts By Carrie Peyton Bee Staff Writer (Published March 7 2001) Sacramento's electric utility wants out of a deal that imposes rolling blackouts locally on PG&E's command. So do a lot of other utilities. They've been writing letters lobbying lawmakers and launching informal talks with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to get off the hook before summer. Who dodges the blackout bullet is going to play out as a political hot button around the state said George Fraser head of the Northern California Power Agency a coalition of municipal utilities. In Sacramento the next volley is expected soon with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District reportedly poised to notify PG&E that it will no longer black out homes and businesses on the larger utility's command. We are absolutely trying to fight off the requirement for rolling blackouts for the Sacramento area said Linda Davis one of seven elected members of the SMUD board of directors. Saying they don't want to be dragged down by somebody else's problems two Southern California utilities have written grid operators asking to be exempted from any blackouts caused by PG&E's or Southern California Edison's financial woes. But in PG&E's view California is in an energy crisis (and) ... we're all in this together said spokesman John Nelson. The maneuvering comes amid bleak forecasts for power supplies this summer. Although Gov. Gray Davis has said conservation new power plants and moderate weather could avert blackouts officials at the Independent System Operator which runs much of California's grid expect frequent rotating outages. One consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicts 20 hours of rolling blackouts during July and August and about 200 hours of especially intense calls for voluntary cutbacks. Before blackouts hit the jockeying over just whose lights air conditioners and assembly lines will be shut down is growing. The outcome could affect millions of people statewide. The state Public Utilities Commission is probing rolling blackout programs run by the for-profit utilities it regulates including PG&E and Edison. A PUC analysis has suggested that PG&E's program which currently exempts about 40 percent of its customers should spread the burden more broadly. For example it said 1.9 million homes and businesses are spared just because they share a circuit with a customer deemed essential. But not-for-profit utilities such as SMUD which answer to their own elected boards or city councils have other worries. Many have already lined up their power supplies for summer. Some have raised rates or are considering raising rates. Some have taken extra conservation steps. They think those preparations ought to give them leverage to ease blackout clauses in their contracts with PG&E. SMUD general manager Jan Schori is going to use every avenue ... any avenue to put pressure on including lobbying the ISO the governor and others said utility director Davis. The Northern California Power Agency a joint-powers authority that owns and operates power plants for municipal utilities has begun informal negotiations with PG&E to change blackout rules according to Fraser its top executive. It is preparing to write PG&E asking that its members be exempted from outages altogether. Failing that it wants them to face fewer outages or to be compensated for cutting off power he said. At SMUD the utility board has met in closed session to discuss exactly what it is required to do during electric emergencies under terms of the interconnection contract that links SMUD's lines to PG&E's. The contracts are being inspected with a fine-tooth comb said SMUD director Howard Posner. Schori declined to comment on any specifics. Sources indicated that the main option being considered is notifying PG&E that because of changed circumstances SMUD believes it no longer is required to routinely comply with outage requests. Other options being explored include re-negotiating existing agreements with PG&E. Posner said that ever since two days of rolling blackouts in January constituents have been asking him 'Why are we participating when we're not the problem?' And I don't have a good answer to that. Several directors said SMUD has already spent a lot of money -- and is considering 16 percent rate increases -- to ensure that it has enough electricity under contract to meet its customers' summer demands. They believe PG&E should do the same. We're almost like a David against Goliath here said board vice president Genevieve Shiroma. The huge investor-owned utilities next door have severe problems that they need to get under control. In addition SMUD plans to argue that because it can cut usage through its Peak Corps program which remotely turns off air conditioners at volunteer households it has already done its part without rotating outages director Davis said. PG&E believes the interconnection agreements that govern smaller utilities' ties to its transmission lines have benefits and burdens to both sides said Nelson. It wouldn't be fair or good policy for just one provision to be altered without taking a look at how that affects the entire contract he said. Interconnection contracts generally have clauses that require utilities to help each other out to avert greater emergencies. Sometimes reducing demand -- called load shedding -- can be the only way to stabilize the electric grid in the seconds after a major power plant or transmission line fails. It's been around in the electrical fabric forever said Jim Pope head of Silicon Valley Power Santa Clara's city-run utility. In addition to legal requirements you have a moral obligation so you don't bring the system to collapse. Like other city-run utilities Silicon Valley Power has a contract with PG&E that requires it to shed load during an electric emergency. But its contract allows it to work with big users to reduce their demand so no one has to be completely shut off. Such agreements formed long before deregulation when PG&E ran the north state's grid now are complicated by the 1997 creation of the state Independent System Operator. The ISO today runs pieces of the grid owned by PG&E Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. If it believes power use is about to surge past supply potentially triggering a grid collapse across the western United States the ISO notifies the three utilities that they have to shed a certain number of megawatts. The big utilities meet that requirement two ways. They cut circuits to some of their own customers and they tell smaller connected utilities to cut a proportionate share. In Northern California about 80 percent of the outages are borne by PG&E customers and the rest by customers of SMUD and other municipal utilities and irrigation districts. In one sense we are all in this together. If SMUD were in danger of going down we would hope others would help us out said SMUD's Posner. But that's if we're in danger from circumstances beyond our control not from mismanagement or lack of financial wherewithal. It is unclear what penalties if any a utility would face for violating an interconnection agreement. In the long run the issue would be fought either in the courts or before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grid officials said. As a practical matter in the seconds when the risk to the grid is greatest if one utility refused to shed load the ISO would probably solve to problem by calling on PG&E Edison or others who are willing to make deeper cutbacks they said. ---- PUC to Decide Fate Of Utility Workers PG&E Edison want to trim costs by laying off thousands cutting service Bernadette Tansey Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 2001 San Francisco Chronicle State regulators are set to decide today whether debt-ridden Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison can conserve cash by laying off thousands of workers and letting service standards slip. Union officials who protested the layoffs before the California Public Utilities Commission warn that if the cuts go through neighborhoods hit by power outages could stay dark for hours and more customers could face busy signals when they call about their bills. An administrative law judge agreed advising the commission in February to order the utilities to restore 725 positions already cut and block the elimination of an additional 2125 jobs. Judge John Wong said PG&E and Edison have acknowledged the layoffs will not substantially improve their shaky financial condition which arose from skyrocketing wholesale electricity costs the utilities could not pass on to consumers under a rate cap. The savings would barely make a dent Wong said in his draft decision. The two companies together claim that their debt from power purchases amounts to more than $13 billion. PG&E says it has saved $18 million from the first wave of 325 layoffs. Wong's recommendation is already running into resistance on the PUC. Commissioner Richard Bilas said the five-member panel should not be micromanaging the utilities in a time of crisis. Bilas has proposed an alternate ruling that would allow the utilities to make the cuts but provide for PUC monitoring of service in case the commission wants to step in later. We're in a situation where the utilities are not collecting the revenues they need to operate and yet we may be guilty of not letting them cut expenses where they can cut expenses Bilas said. PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne said savings from the layoffs are helping to keep electricity running and gas flowing. It keeps cash in our accounts so we can keep doing day-to-day business Tremayne said. In addition to the 325 positions dropped so far PG&E is proposing to cut an additional 675 during the next three to six months. The cuts affect temporary and contract workers who read meters handle new service hookups and replace equipment. PG&E has no plans to eliminate permanent positions. The company is struggling to keep up with a higher workload at its call center as customers deluge the lines with inquiries about their rising bills and the effects of deregulation. Calls to PG&E ballooned from 1.3 million in January 2000 to 2.3 million in January 2001. Bilas advocates granting PG&E's request to temporarily relax standards requiring the utility to respond swiftly to customer calls and to read customers' meters once a month. PG&E wants to read meters bimonthly and send bills based on the estimated use between readings. Discrepancies could be corrected later. Wong called those measures unacceptable. He said customers need to know immediately if their efforts to conserve power are working. Wong also said the utilities' own experts have said the workforce reductions will lengthen the time required to restore power after nonemergency equipment failure. Eric Wolfe communications director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 said some customers have already been left without power overnight because PG&E is trying to avoid the use of overtime on nonemergency power outages. It hurts a lineman to walk away from the job leaving a customer without power Wolfe said. Tremayne said PG&E is trying to minimize overtime costs but denied the company has allowed customers to go without power out of financial concerns. He said crews were pulled out when darkness and falling trees made the work too dangerous. ---- Power prices could soar during the summer Posted at 10:35 p.m. PST Tuesday March 6 2001 BY STEVE JOHNSON Mercury News Unless Gov. Gray Davis arranges significantly more long-term electricity contracts or persuades people to turn off a lot more lights California's unpredictable spot market for power could wreak havoc this summer. Even with the 40 long-term deals announced by Davis on Monday experts interviewed Tuesday said up to 43 percent of the state's daily needs may have to come from this highly volatile market in which power is bought within a day of need. That could could prove hugely expensive because some spot market energy has cost five to six times what it would under the long-term contracts. It's widely expected that consumers ultimately would have to pay that tab which could amount to billions of dollars. And because that power won't be locked up in contracts there is no guarantee it will be available when it's needed which could lead to blackouts according to a recent report to the California Independent System Operator which oversees three-fourths of the state's power grid. ``The situation in California could reach catastrophic proportions'' the report concluded adding that unless things change dramatically ``it is a virtual certainty that peak demand will go unmet during many hot summer days.'' Steven Maviglio Davis' press secretary conceded Tuesday that the spot market could be troublesome. ``It's a major concern'' he said which is why the state is trying to line up more power contracts speed up power plant construction and promote conservation. During the normally hot month of August peak daily demand for power in the Independent System Operator's territory is expected to hit about 47700 megawatts -- enough for nearly 48 million homes. The state's three main utility firms generate about 8200 megawatts and have long-term contracts from wind solar and other energy sources for about 11700 megawatts more. That totals about 20000 megawatts. Add in the 7000 megawatts of long-term power that Davis has announced for this summer and the state is still nearly 21000 megawatts short. Costly proposition If all that power has to be obtained on the spot market the price could be high. On Friday last-minute purchases on the market averaged $411 per megawatt-hour compared to about $150 per megawatt-hour for all power obtained by the Independent System Operator and $69 per megawatt-hour on average under Davis' long-term contracts. It's possible that not all 21000 megawatts would have to be purchased on the market. Assuming Davis is successful in getting people to save 10 percent -- which could prove difficult -- conservation could reduce peak demand by nearly 5000 megawatts. California also might be able to trade for another 5000 megawatts with the federal government's Bonneville Power Administration and a hydroelectric operator in British Columbia said Arthur O'Donnell editor of California Energy Markets a trade publication. Under such deals those two outfits often send that much power to California when they don't need it and California returns the same amount or more when its demand is low. But O'Donnell said it wasn't clear whether 5000 megawatts would be available this summer because ``they still haven't gotten the snowpack they need in the Pacific Northwest'' which could limit that region's generating capacity. Still falling short Even if those hydropower imports are available and conservation works as Davis hopes it's likely California would still require the spot market for 11000 megawatts to meet the August demand. That's more than 20 percent of the state's overall power needs. ``All of the surrounding states are buying probably less than 5 percent at most of their energy on the spot market'' said Frank Wolak a Stanford economist who monitors electricity prices for the Independent System Operator. He worries about how much that power could cost and is disturbed that state officials haven't adequately addressed the issue. ``No one has any idea what they are going to do and that is part of the problem'' he said. Officials at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are particularly concerned. They fear that their company -- which is nearing bankruptcy -- could get stuck for much of the spot market purchases by the Independent System Operator which has threatened to bill the utilities for the cost. Fearing the annual bill for that power could hit $2.4 billion this year PG&E wants the tab sent to the Department of Water Resources which also is buying power on the spot market for the state. But the Department of Water Resources has objected to that idea and the matter is expected to be heard today by the California Public Utilities Commission. ``We're looking for clarity on a number of issues'' regarding how the spot market will work ``and certainly that's one of them'' said Thomas Hannigan the water agency's director. ``I don't think anybody knows the answer of who's going to pay for it'' added PG&E spokesman John Nelson. But Nettie Hoge executive director of the Utility Reform Network in San Francisco said she suspects consumers ultimately will foot the bill. The unfortunate likelihood about spot market purchases is that ``ratepayers are responsible for all of it eventually'' Hoge said. ``It's a very big problem.'' ---- Power Plant Plans Cause Conflicts East county residents blast supervisors Jason B. Johnson Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday March 7 2001 Industry dreams of building new power plants in east Contra Costa's hills are prompting an angry reaction among residents and elected officials who say they don't want more plants. The conflict was sparked by a vote by county supervisors yesterday to aggressively explore possible sites for new power plants throughout the county. The measure by Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier and Federal Glover which passed on a 4-to-0 vote directs the county administrator and Department of Community Development to compile a report on possible sites within 45 days. Supervisor Donna Gerber abstained after criticizing the plan for potentially repeating the same mistakes that plagued the state's energy deregulation effort by not considering how much energy the state region and county will need in future years and how much power is slated to come online. Gerber said alternative power sources such as solar should also be examined. A site drawing much attention is on top of a deposit of natural gas near the Concord Naval Weapons Station off Highway 4. The owners of 70 acres of land near the station recently formed a company Golden State Power Co. to pursue construction of at least one small peaker plant and a much larger facility capable of producing 600 megawatts. The site could hold up to three small 50-megawatt peaker plants and a larger 15-acre natural gas plant said Steve Thomas managing partner with Golden State. No land use applications have been filed. Thomas said 30 acres could be kept as open space to form a buffer around the project. Both (facilities) are state of the art said Thomas. We believe that the site is ideal. But east county residents at yesterday's meeting blasted the supervisorial measure and the power plant proposal complaining that more plants could put people's health at risk. The region already is home to six power plants. We're going to get a good dose of poor air quality and (negative) health conditions from this said Concord resident Evelyn Frietas. I think we need to stop and think about what we're doing to our quality of life. Dan Torres said the home he bought in 1995 at a new Bay Point development would be alarmingly close to the proposed Golden State site. It will be dragging emissions over our home said Torres. I didn't buy a home on that hill to be surrounded by power plants. There are six power plants in operation in east Contra Costa. Pittsburg already has two power plants and two more under construction. City Council members Frank Aiello and Yvonne Beals said the Antioch-Pittsburg area has done more than its share of energy production. Aiello said Pittsburg will soon produce enough energy to power three million homes in California. When is enough enough? asked Aiello. Pittsburg has shouldered responsibility for a land-fill and two more power plants. At some point you have to say enough. Beals said that while power plants have added millions to the city's general fund the negatives of additional plants could outweigh the benefits. I don't think that Pittsburg or east county should be the dumping ground for energy for California said Beals. ---- Supervisors set search for power plant sites The board also heard from the potential developers of a 650-megawatt plant between Bay Point and Concord By Thomas Peele TIMES STAFF WRITER MARTINEZ -- Contra Costa County supervisors took tentative steps Tuesday toward allowing the construction of at least one small power plant before summer ordering that its staff identify potential sites in unincorporated areas within seven weeks. The board voted 4-0 to search for locations. Third District Supervisor Donna Gerber abstained saying her colleagues lacked a comprehensive context'' to identify sites. I think the board knows just enough to be dangerous'' she said. Gerber said the county should examine the potential for additional power plants within its borders but not investigate individual sites yet. But Fourth District Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier said the action was necessary because of the energy crisis and because of Gov. Gray Davis' call for local governments to help speed the construction of so-called peaker plants before July and August. I wouldn't do this except under an emergency DeSaulnier said after the vote. There are unusual circumstances. We're not talking about putting this in a residential area. Fifth District Supervisor Federal Glover backed DeSaulnier but said he hoped for a location outside his heavily industrialized East County district. There's a lot of concern in East County as to the number of plants he said. DeSaulnier said though that the only logical place for a small plant remains the industrial belt'' stretching along the waterfront from West County to Antioch. He declined to provide specifics but said the only other potential site outside the industrial areas was the Concord Naval Weapons Station property. But he quickly added that he believes the U.S. Department of Defense would never go for it. Also DeSaulnier said he could not rule out the county building the plant itself and entering the electricity-selling market during peak demand times. Board Chairwoman Gayle Uilkema called that idea extremely premature and unlikely. That's a very powerful decision. I do not think we are ready'' she said. The California Energy Commission listed the Equilon refinery in Martinez as one of 32 potential peaker plant sites in the state last week. Peaker plants kick in during peak usage times. Davis called for their quick construction before the height of summer and its energy demand for air conditioning. Plants that generate as much as 50000 megawatts don't need Energy Commission approval. DeSaulnier said he believed a peaker plant could be built about a month after final approval. Supervisors also heard from the potential developers of a 650-megawatt plant between Bay Point and Concord. Walnut Creek commercial real estate developer Steve Thomas announced his intentions for the site north of Highway 4 last week. Construction could take two years. Eric Hasseltine a consultant representing Thomas and what he described as a brand new company for the site the Golden State Power Co. told supervisors that if they intended to speed peaker plant construction they should do what they can to expedite the larger plant. The Thomas site could house a peaker plant until the proposed larger one goes online. A large natural gas line passes under the site. DeSaulnier seemed cautious about the larger proposal which he had described last week as a good site. Uilkema too said she knew too little about it to comment. A resident who lives near the Thomas property asked the board to build it (the larger plant) closer to where you have industrial areas. You have to carefully consider the people who live nearby said Dan Torres 39. Evelyn Freitas of Concord said she lives downwind of the proposed site. Our air quality is going to be worse then it is now she said. Gerber played on the environmental issues saying the county already ranks second statewide to Los Angeles in volume of hazardous materials and amount of electrical generation. ---- Peter Schrag: California's $90 billion infrastructure gap (Published March 7 2001) By now California's surreal energy mess has grown from a crisis to a condition. It may not be quite as permanent as say death and taxes but it's still something that could get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Until there's more realistic pricing no gubernatorial pea-under-the-shell buyout scheme will solve it. Beyond the energy crisis however and in many ways similar to it California faces a whole range of other infrastructure problems -- in transportation in water resources and sewer systems in school and university buildings -- that seem once again to be all but forgotten. The Business Roundtable has estimated the need at roughly $90 billion though no number can possibly be exact. What's certain is that after a burst of high-level investment in public facilities during the 1950s and 1960s California's annual capital investment has sunk precipitously -- from an annual $150 per capita in the 1960s according to a set of recent studies for PPIC the Public Policy Institute of California to about $30 in the 1990s. But you probably don't need to tell anyone driving Bay Area or Los Angeles freeways or looking at the ubiquitous portable classrooms those dreary brown boxes that house a fourth of our public school students. Ever since passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 we have been flying the flag of deferred maintenance. As in the state's electricity crisis however there's no way California can effectively address those problems merely by building or bonding itself out of them. In highway construction in developing water resources in finding enough university space to accommodate the Tidal Wave II of students managing demand is likely to be as crucial to any solution as new construction. In the energy market -- and in electricity particularly -- it's been a familiar principle ever since David Roe of the Environmental Defense Fund first persuaded Pacific Gas and Electric that a dollar invested in conservation may be worth as much as the same investment in new generation. But in most other sectors of California's infrastructure state and local it's a lesson still to be learned. There have been scattered attempts to encourage conservation and reduce demand -- significant reduction in water use for example through the installation of low-flow faucets and low-flush toilets some reduction in traffic by using rush-hour diamond lanes or by adjusting highway or (as in New York) bridge tolls to levels of congestion. But as pointed out by David Dowall an urban economist at Berkeley state policy-makers have not really begun to consider how demand management strategies can be applied to infrastructure service areas or how the more efficient use of facilities and more realistic pricing -- highway tolls say or parking fees -- can reduce demand for scarce infrastructure resources. In any case says Dowall in one of the PPIC reports we should pick which major projects we will build not just according to per capita estimates of how much we need but according to how much consumers are willing to pay for them. To avoid hurting the poor congestion-related highway tolls and other tariffs can be rebated on the basis of income. University fees can be means-tested. In California they also could be adjusted to encourage summer school classes and other off-peak uses rather than (as in the past) making UC summer courses more expensive. Given the political and economic uncertainties there's no way to know how far such demand management can be taken. But there's not much doubt that as Dowall and others point out the state's infrastructure planning is a jumble of uncoordinated agency agendas and wish lists. The Legislature last year passed a bill AB 1473 by Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg that requires the governor beginning next year to submit an annual five-year infrastructure plan for state agencies and public schools along with recommendations on how to fund it. In addition Gov. Gray Davis' infrastructure commission is expected to recommend better coordination of infrastructure and land-use planning when it issues its report this spring. That would be a start. As California State Treasurer Phil Angelides has pointed out the state desperately needs to start joint planning -- regional planning -- for housing roads and other resources to reduce the need for long commutes to preserve open space and to bring jobs to where people live and housing to where the jobs are. That would itself reduce demand for more freeway lanes and equally important improve the quality of life. At present most planning for housing roads water systems and other facilities rarely recognizes the regional impact of local decisions. In the East Bay slow-growth forces push well-intended initiatives that would force more development into Tracy or Modesto and further tax the transportation systems to Silicon Valley. In city after city there are beggar-thy-neighbor efforts to grab yet another shopping mall that produces a little extra sales tax revenue for the city that gets it and that often compounds traffic and revenue problems in adjacent communities. In higher education we divide bond proceeds evenly among UC the California State University and the community colleges even though the community colleges serve eight times as many students as UC. We plan road projects according to county not regional priorities. It is all done according to antiquated political and fiscal formulas that often no longer make sense. We don't just need better capital planning we need a whole new planning system. ---- PG&E power plan debated at hearing A PUC meeting on the utility's capacity expansion project for the Tri-Valley follows weeks of protest from officials residents Power upgrade in valley debated By Megan Long TIMES STAFF WRITER SAN FRANCISCO -- Dublin officials and the developer of a Livermore subdivision faced questions Tuesday about their opposition to alternative routes of PG&E's controversial Tri-Valley power upgrade plan -- and answered by restating their long-standing objections. Tuesday's cross-examination came during the third and likely final week of the California Public Utility Commission's evidentiary hearings on the utility's $91 million Tri-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project. It has followed weeks of protests of PG&E's upgrade plans by officials and residents of Livermore Pleasanton Dublin and San Ramon. And before the questioning started Dublin Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart reiterated concerns about an alternative route deemed environmentally superior that would place a substation just 1000 feet north of Interstate 580 between Tassajara and Fallon roads. She said that would undermine the results of a 15-year process to plan the eastern development of the city. It's extremely important to the residents of our community to follow a plan we worked hard to produce she said. Dublin officials favor PG&E's proposed placement of the station three miles north of the freeway away from new high-tech company offices and housing developments. Besides the Dublin substation the project calls for construction of a substation in North Livermore expansion of the Pleasanton substation and installation of 23.5 miles of new lines. In response to questions from PUC Administrative Law Judge Michelle Cooke Dublin's public works director Lee Thompson confirmed that the Lin family the owner of the property where the alternative substation would go wasn't interested in selling the land to PG&E. Cooke also asked Thompson to define a discretionary permit which is how city officials said they might treat a permit for a substation. Lee said that type of permit is one the city has the right to approve or not depending on the project's impact. Eddie Peabody Dublin's community development director testified that the zoning for the Lin property accommodates uses such as commercial business research and development and light manufacturing. It would not he said be appropriate for a power substation. He said parcels within the East Dublin area that could host a station would include those zoned for public and semi-public uses including land recently bought by Oracle and Sun Microsystems for new campuses. While Dublin officials testified that one buyer of land in that area paid $86 per square foot others suggested land prices would be inflated to help make a PG&E land buy look prohibitively expensive. An executive of Centex Homes the developer of new houses near Isabel Avenue and Concannon Boulevard objected to an alternative route that would place high-voltage transmission lines overhead along Isabel and Stanley Boulevard. David Barclay president of Centex's Northern California division said that the 80-foot to 150-foot towers would have a severe visual impact on residents of the Prima tract. Ed O'Neill a lawyer for the Kottinger Ranch Homeowners Association pointed out that existing distribution lines on 50-foot poles on Isabel already mar the view for residents. The Foley family has been ranching on land south of Pleasanton city limits for years said their attorney Kennedy Richardson. The utility's project would place overhead lines and a transmission station on rolling hills that the family envisions as one day being public open space with limited development Richardson said. Lawyers for Pleasanton Livermore Kottinger Ranch and Centex are scheduled to cross-examine a PG&E engineer today about the project's routing. That testimony should be the most controversial of the hearings. Judge Cooke is expected to recommend an alignment by July to the PUC which will make the final decision. ---- NEWS State OKs 'Peaker' Power Plant at SFO / Temporary generator could be sending electricity to 50000 homes by August Marshall Wilson 03/08/2001 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL Page A.20 (Copyright 2001) State energy officials yesterday approved plans to build a temporary electrical plant at San Francisco International Airport that should generate enough juice to power 50000 homes by August. Meeting in Sacramento the Energy Commission voted 4-0 to give the green light to the gas-fired plant. It will operate during peak summer and winter demand to help the state avoid Stage 3 power alerts and rolling blackouts. Texas-based El Paso Merchant Energy Co. won approval under a new state law mandating speedy four-month reviews of so-called peaker plants. It was the only one of seven applications statewide to win approval. The other proposals were withdrawn for various reasons. The 51-megawatt plant formally called the United Golden Gate Power Project is scheduled to be built at the northwest corner of the airport near the United Airlines maintenance center. Within the next few weeks El Paso plans to apply to build a 571- megawatt $400 million plant in the same area company spokesman Jesse Frederick said. It would undergo a separate review by state energy officials. The small peaker plant approved yesterday is to generate electricity beginning around Aug. 1 for up to three years. After the end of three years the plant would be closed or converted to a cleaner-burning system. Under state law a temporary peaker plant is permitted to spew more air pollution than a permanent plant. El Paso's temporary plant is to be built next to a co-generation plant operated by United Airlines. It would use existing connections for natural gas and water supplies and tap into existing power transmission lines. Electricity generated by the plant would be pumped into the state's electrical grid Energy Commission spokesman Gary Fay said. It would also serve as a backup for San Francisco Airport in case of a blackout. No one spoke against the proposed plant at yesterday's commission meeting. The proposal however has been criticized by area residents and environmentalists worried about air pollution. Scott Buschman a professional photographer and San Bruno resident said yesterday it was unjust that state officials 100 miles away in Sacramento approved a Texas company's proposal to put a power plant on land owned by San Francisco. The fact that they approved it without considering the public's concerns foremost air quality is very disturbing he said. Fay said the plant complies with clean-air standards. Answering the criticism about the location of yesterday's deliberation he said three hearings and several workshops were held in communities near the airport. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company Inc. All Rights Reserved. ---- Crossed Wires: Major Kinks Emerge In Gov. Davis's Plan To Power California --- State's Outlays for Electricity May Be Hard to Recover Without Rate Increases --- Betting on Long-Term Deals By Wall Street Journal staff reporters Rebecca Smith Mitchel Benson and John R. Emshwiller 03/08/2001 The Wall Street Journal A1 (Copyright (c) 2001 Dow Jones & Company Inc.) SACRAMENTO Calif. -- Earlier this year Gov. Gray Davis made what may be the biggest bet in the history of the nation's biggest state: that he could tame an out-of-control electricity market and avoid devastating blackouts without busting the state's budget antagonizing its consumers or derailing his own political career. His wager is still on the table but the assumptions that underlie it are looking increasingly shaky these days. The governor has already spent around $2 billion of public money buying hugely expensive wholesale power taking over the role formerly played by the state's near-bankrupt electric utilities. And California will probably be obliged to spend billions more before its electricity market stabilizes and those utilities are restored to some semblance of financial health. Under the governor's plan California aims to recoup the money it is using to buy electricity by issuing $10 billion in bonds. That way it would still have a healthy budget surplus to finance new spending on roads schools and other public services. But there's a potentially big obstacle to this plan. The state Legislature worried about racking up billions in new debt has put limits on the size of any bond offering. In broad terms the Legislature's action would allow the state to borrow only four times as much as it can recover annually from utility customers. Right now that doesn't appear to be much. Under the current rate structure essentially set in place by California's flawed 1996 electricity-deregulation plan consumers pay far less for power than the cost of acquiring it on the wholesale market. Preliminary estimates submitted by utilities last month to the California Public Utilities Commission show the state's share of the proceeds from electricity sales this year could be as little as $241 million -- not enough to support even $1 billion in bond sales under the Legislature's formula. That would leave the state on the hook for much of the money it has already paid for power -- not to mention the billions more Gov. Davis will need to spend. That in turn raises the prospect that California's economy and its credit rating both could deteriorate significantly. But state finance officials say that based on their own projections they will be able to extract enough money to support a $10 billion bond issue. Walking a careful line between fiscal prudence and political survival Mr. Davis and others in his administration are scrambling to come up with ways to get around the legislative restrictions without raising rates for consumers. If I wanted to raise rates I could solve this problem in 20 minutes Mr. Davis says. The governor says he believes that the state can obtain enough affordable power through long-term power-supply contracts to avoid the need for a big rate increase. The billions of dollars the state hopes to borrow would be used to help pay for power until electricity prices drop as they are expected to do when new power plants come online over the next few years. The Davis administration fears that what may be its only other option -- a big increase in retail electric rates -- could prompt angry consumer groups to seek new electricity laws through a statewide ballot initiative during next year's election. That's when Mr. Davis is expected to run for a second term as governor. But trying to save California without rate increases is forcing Mr. Davis to make some colossal gambles with the state's money. State officials estimate that in the next several months California will need to spend as much as $6 billion on power purchases -- equivalent to the state's entire fiscal surplus. Mr. Davis is also looking to spend several billion more to buy the transmission assets of three investor-owned utilities in order to restore two of them to credit-worthiness. He also has announced plans to spend several hundred million dollars more on conservation programs designed to reduce demand while new power plants are being built in the state. In order to limit the state's financial exposure in the meantime the governor and his aides have in some cases ignored state law. They have threatened appointed officials who have stood in the way. And they have sharply restricted the flow of information to the public. None of those steps is expected to do much to reduce state spending on power in the coming months. In a few weeks power usage is expected to begin a sharp seasonal rise as Californians switch on their air conditioners with the coming of warmer weather. By various estimates demand during peak periods this summer could outstrip supply by 10% or several thousand megawatts. That could produce more rolling blackouts like the ones that hit Northern California earlier this year. It is also likely to put strong upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. Steven Zimmerman managing director of Standard & Poor's Corp. says Mr. Davis and his aides don't have a lot of time to put a cap on the state's financial exposure to the crisis. The credit-rating agency has put the state on credit watch for a possible downgrade which would affect the value of all of California's outstanding public debt. Moody's Investor Service Inc. is also concerned. It said in a recent report that the power crisis could soon seriously threaten the health of the state's economy. Mr. Davis a Democrat and career politician was dealt a bad hand when he took office in 1999. The deregulation plan that sparked the state's electricity crisis was enacted under his predecessor Republican Pete Wilson. But Mr. Davis was slow to react to early signs of trouble this past summer and alarms sounded by members of the state Legislature. By the time Mr. Davis finally sprang into action earlier this year a troublesome power-supply squeeze had escalated into a crisis. In a Jan. 17 declaration of emergency the governor designated the state Department of Water Resources to take the utilities' place as the daily buyer of huge quantities of electricity. His hope: that by making the state the dominant player in California's power sector he would ease electricity producers' concerns about getting paid and give the state enough clout to negotiate lower long-term power prices. Earlier this week Mr. Davis announced final or tentative agreements with 20 power suppliers to furnish the state with a total of 8900 megawatts for periods of as long as 20 years. But the supply situation remains extremely uncertain for this summer when demand probably will top 45000 megawatts. If the state can secure enough power under contract and push down demand through aggressive conservation it might be able to squeak through the summer season. If not it will be forced to keep buying huge amounts of costly power in the cash market. Under deregulation retail electric rates were frozen for several years while wholesale-power costs were free to fluctuate. When the plan was conceived wholesale prices were low and expected to go lower. However a combination of unexpected growth in power demand and a lack of new generating capacity helped produce a supply squeeze. Average wholesale prices more than tripled last year from 1999. And in January those prices were up 10-fold from a year earlier. By then California's two biggest investor-owned utilities -- the Pacific Gas & Electric unit of PG&E Corp. and the Southern California Edison subsidiary of Edison International -- faced imminent financial collapse. They had racked up billions of dollars in wholesale power bills they couldn't afford to pay. As generators began shying away from selling to the two utilities the Clinton administration forced them to sell power into the California market an order left in place during the first weeks of the Bush administration. Still northern California was hit by rolling blackouts on several days in early January. Since then the DWR which does some electricity trading as an adjunct to its main mission of managing the state's giant system of aqueducts and reservoirs has had to learn the ins and outs of power markets on the run. It hasn't been easy. David Mills trading-floor manager for the federal Bonneville Power Administration says the water agency has at times offered to pay $50 to $100 per megawatt hour more than the available market price. They agree to prices that make you wonder says Mr. Mills whose organization markets electricity from federal dams in the Pacific Northwest. You'd at least think they'd check to see what the prevailing price is before throwing out their offer. Mr. Mills says that to cut California some slack he occasionally has instructed his traders to sell at prices lower than the DWR had offered to pay. Ray Hart the water agency deputy director responsible for the power purchasing says he isn't aware of any cases in which the DWR has overpaid. He says his team has been extremely successful by all measures. Ultimately the DWR's trading acumen is far less important than the overall arithmetic of power supply and demand in California. With the price of natural gas that feeds many of the region's generating plants at near record levels and some suppliers reluctant to sell into the troubled California market wholesale electric prices remain stubbornly high and in recent days have again been rising. The Legislature has advanced the DWR about $3 billion from the state's general fund for power purchases. Under emergency legislation passed by the Legislature and signed by Mr. Davis on Feb. 1 the general fund is to be reimbursed from a planned bond sale later this year. But under terms of the emergency law the water agency would have to wrest $2.5 billion a year in revenue from retail electricity rates in order to sell the $10 billion worth of bonds sought by Mr. Davis. Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg a Southern California Democrat says the formula was created to ensure that there would be a way to repay the bonds without draining the state's coffers. We didn't want to just open our wallets he says. According to the language of the Feb. 1 law the water agency gets what's left of revenue collected from ratepayers after the utilities pay certain of their own power-supply bills and other expenses. And in their filings with the PUC last month the utilities reckoned under their worst-case scenarios that there would be only $241 million available to the DWR this year. State officials are quietly pushing the PUC to rejigger the formula so that the water department gets more money -- even though that would clash with terms of the Feb. 1 law. Robert Miyashiro deputy director of the Department of Finance says the emergency law was drafted poorly and has led people to believe the DWR only gets the leftover money. He predicts there will be cleanup legislation. At the request of the Davis administration the PUC is considering a plan to use a different revenue-sharing formula than the one in the state law. The proposed new formula was written in close consultation with Mr. Davis's Finance Department says PUC President Loretta Lynch who supports the initiative and is hoping to rush it through. The effort has drawn some opposition. Commissioner Richard Bilas at a recent PUC meeting questioned the legality of the commission attempting to change a formula set by the Legislature. PG&E is even more emphatic since the DWR's extra money could come at the utility's expense. The formula threatens to undo the very financial protections for the utilities that [the new law] attempted to provide the utility said in a recent filing with the PUC. As politicians and regulators wrestle with that issue the Davis administration has taken a step to reduce the outflow of state cash that also seems to conflict with the Feb. 1 law. It was widely assumed that the law required the DWR to buy any electricity the state needed to keep its lights on. However on many occasions the DWR has refused to buy power on the grounds that it was too expensive citing a portion of the new law that urges the agency to hold down costs. The task of covering any remaining shortfall has passed to the California Independent System Operator which manages the state's energy grid and is charged with buying power when necessary to avert shortages. However the ISO doesn't have any power-purchasing money of its own and the major parties it would normally bill are PG&E and Edison whose inability to pay their power bills was the reason the state started buying electricity in the first place. Amid criticism of its stance from generators utilities and Wall Street the DWR says it has started covering more of the utilities' electricity costs. The water agency is now buying 95% to 99% of what California needs in a given day says the agency's Mr. Hart. But increased buying only adds to the uncertainty about the eventual tab. The state's legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill recently recommended that lawmakers hold off considering more than $2 billion in state spending on items ranging from college construction to beach cleanups because of continuing questions about the financial impact of the electricity crisis. Like others Ms. Hill complains that the governor's office and state agencies haven't been forthcoming with information. Indeed the DWR refuses to say precisely how much power it is purchasing and at what prices though it has on several occasions gone back to the Legislature for more money. State officials say that data on its purchasing activities would give suppliers an advantage in continuing electricity-supply contract talks. State Controller Kathleen Connell who is running for mayor of Los Angeles in an April election recently announced plans to post state power-spending information on her department's Web site. But within 24 hours Ms. Connell suspended that plan after discussions with senior Davis administration officials. I feel very strongly that this information should be publicly released says Ms. Connell. I just don't want to do anything that would weaken the state's effectiveness in negotiating. In an effort to more tightly control events the governor obtained legislative approval to abolish the 26-member ISO board which was made up of everyone from utility executives to representatives of consumer groups. He then appointed a new five-member board. To ensure a quick transition the California attorney general threatened the old board members with fines of as much as $5000 each if they didn't immediately relinquish their positions. All did. I was offended at the heavy-handed treatment says Karen Johanson a former ISO board member. One of the first acts of the ISO's new board was to close a meeting about the electricity crisis. The former ISO board routinely held such meetings in public. ISO attorneys say the meeting was largely designed as a private briefing for new board members and that the organization is committed to keeping its deliberations as open as possible. The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations have unsuccessfully challenged the closure in Sacramento state court. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company Inc. All Rights Reserved.

other

informative

On Market Power in California

fyi. -----------------

other

neutral

Public Policy Contacts for California

Please respond to kevinscott Jeff and Steve As you requested I have prepared a list of my preferred public policy contacts for California. It is composed of professionals from an array of public private and non-profit backgrounds. I have worked in some capacity with each of these people and most I know quite well. Please call me for further background. Kevin 213-926-2626 Attachment - Kevin Scott - Preferred Contacts - 6-20-01.doc

other

formal

Can you help me?

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

external affairs

friendly

Liberalisation of Italys Energy Markets

Any interest? -----------------

other

casual

Invitation to speak at September Pricing conference

Forward to whomever you see fit. It looks like an opportunity to explain price risk management to large customers. -----------------

other

formal

UC/CSU press release

fyi -----------------

other

casual

Regulatory issues memo: Revised

Additional information on the regulatory context. -----------------

legal affairs

formal

Confidential Due Diligence Info - GS

There is a lot of confidential information here (in items 1and 2) Detailed monthly P&L covering all trading activity for the last three years Potential Exposure by sector (eg gas and electricity utility) Detailed monthly P&L covering all trading activity for the last three years.

other

cautious

Re: Enron Mentions

It looks like we are playing a smaller role than the WSJ article indicates -- i.e. a role commensurate with our level of interest. I have talked with John several times about the relative importance of OPIC ExIm and other funding organizations in light of the change in emphasis in our business. As a result of those discussions we cut headcount and expenditures from the proposed budget for 01 and John has joined Linda Robertson's organization in the DC office (instead of being a stand alone effort). Having said that my view (based on the work John has been doing) is that we continue to have a considerable amount of work for him to do on the project finance front as a result of existing projects projects we continue to pursue and transfer issues associated with the asset sales. Do you agree?

other

formal

Request for Comments

Have you solicited comments fromo EES? -----------------

other

formal

TV News Clip

Jeff At the end of last week there was a very interesting TV news story on NBC KRON Channel 4 in San Francisco. You lead the story which also includes Governor Davis President Bush. What most catches my attention are the visuals and chant of the protestors during the Enron segment. The props and signs are very TV camera friendly. For instance there is a larger then life mask of you and a mockup of a paycheck to you from the people of California. The chant rhymes with your name. From my perspective this was no simple pie in the face. This protest was very organized and sophisticated. I think it would be prudent to gain more information about who was behind it and who was behind them. I tried sending you the video file in mpeg format but at 8400k it was too large to email. To see the news clip you may double click this link After downloading the video will play on a computer that has Real Player. Kevin

media & press

inquisitive

Ken Lay update

Ken left a msg for me on Sunday. He was able to return Bryson's call. Not much new: Ken got Jeff's paper will try to reach Hertzberg on Monday. Bryson gave an update (very consistent with yours on Fri) Wants us to think creatively about how to keep DWR contracts from preventing the comprehensive solution and how to address the concerns of the state treasurer. Ken tried to reach Pete Peterson (Blackstone) but did not make contact.

other

casual

Humberto (Beto) Kuhn, resume

Maureen - please forward on to Barry when you get his e-mail address. Barry - I don't know Humberto personally but looking over his resume I thought he might be a fit in your organization. -----------------

human resources

formal

<<Concur Expense Document>> - February 2001-CR

finance

neutral

California Lawmakers Vote to Limit Power Costs - WSJ

They refer to expedited siting. What are the provisions? -----------------

other

inquisitive

Reliability and Security Arguments (RTOs)

This responds to Charles's voice mail and the RTO conference calls that Janel has been on where we have discussed responding to those who say the heightened interest in security is a reason NOT to do large RTOs. Jim Steffes is the EPSA witness on reliability and other issues at a Barton subcommittee hearing next Wed. Oct. 10th. While the written testimony filed for the Sept. 11 hearing that was canceled is still operative Jim's oral remarks can be whatever he wishes. Also even if he does not raise it in his opening statement the issue will no doubt come up by others or in Q&A. Thus -- any talking points need to be ready by Tuesday for this hearing. Does not have to be anything fancy or hand-out quality. Just something for Jim to consider using. Charles I do not recall any specific articles on what NERC said but Sarah Novosel said she would check since she thought there was something like what you raised in your voice mail.

energy trading

formal

<<Concur Expense Document>> - RLB-Florida

finance

neutral

Vision Focus Groups

Rosie and Sherrie: Jeff Ken and Joe wanted to discuss the attached. Joe -- this is the same document I forwarded to you earlier. -----------------

other

casual

Re: Confidential --CFTC Chair

do not circulate fyi

other

confidential

Invitation to Corporate Responsibility Task Force Meeting

Let me know when and where. -----------------

corporate governance

casual

Re: FW: Surprise!!

EB 4712C Ext. 3-1586

business document

neutral

Senate Investigative Committe Begins Hearings Today @ 1:30

The State Senate begins it's investigative hearings today April 18 @ 1:30 pm in Room 2040. The topic this week and next week will be to go over previous investigations into market power. Today the committee will be hearing testimony from: Frank Wolak Chairman Market Surveillance Committee CAISO. Eric Hildebrandt Manager Market Monitoring CAISO Elaine Howle State Auditor IEP will be prepared to respond to media at the hearings and will be distributing the attached materials: An outline of previous investigations into market manipulation and price gouging -- and ???their findings. ? A detailed analysis of the flaws in the CAISO reports We will keep you posted. Thanks Jean -- Jean Munoz McNally Temple Associates Inc. 916-447-8186 916-447-6326 (fx) - ISO Report An.pdf - Previous Inve.pdf

government & politics

formal

CA Legislative Summary

legal affairs

neutral

Privileged and Confidential communication to my attorneys

Felicia Does this sound right to you? Just wanted to confirm. Thanks. Michelle -----------------

legal affairs

formal

PARAGRAPH

Enron also announced today a restructuring of its broadband business. Conditions in the broadband industry have reduced revenue opportunities in the sector. The strategy we pursued in the broadband business will allow us to quickly restructure this business without affecting our strong earnings outlook said Skilling.

other

formal

Re: Arbitration with Reliance and ONGC

Are you aware of this? -----------------

legal affairs

inquisitive