Datasets:

neelblabla

/

enron_labeled_emails_with_subjects-llama2-7b_finetuning

like 3

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: NERC Statements on Impact of Security Threats on RTOs Body:: I agree with Joe. The IOUs will point to NERC as an objective third party on these issues. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: NERC Meeting Today Body:: 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. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: http://www.stanford.edu/~wolak/ Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Personal but in professional context <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Govt School Alumni Body:: FYI ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Employment arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Fwd: Portland Consultants Investigation Finds California Has Capacity for Electricity Needs Body:: FYI ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Data responses in SDG&E -- confidential treatment Body:: 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. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: CONFIDENTIAL - Residential in CA Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Online Niche Players Capitalize on Natural-Gas Shortage, Bypass Utilities Body:: nan What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: API Question; CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION & ATTORNEYS WORK PRODUCT Body:: Stan: V&E wrote/masterminded the partnership agreement for our MLP. It is complicated and has been amended several times. In view of these factors V&E should tell us whether we can use the $2.5 million of cash from the insurance recovery to retroactively reclaim a portion of the 4th quarter API's. In particular Baird should give us this opinion since he has handled the partnership agreement since day one. Baird is gone on vacation for the next week. He is planning to give us an answer within a few days of his return. He will give the matter serious thought but what we are asking is pretty aggressive. His associate Carlos Pena has reviewed the partnership agreement and his first take on the question is that we cannot revise the available cash for the fourth quarter in this way. But the matter requires far more thought than this----and Bob will also need to talk with Lori (also gone on vacation) to come up with a meaningful answer for us. I will stay after this but in light of the above it will probably be early July b/f we get V&E's final position on this. If this won't do please let me know and I'll explore other avenues of getting an answer out of V&E. Thanks. SWD What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Thursday Meeting on Winter Gas Prices Body:: calendar ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Privileged and Confidential communication to my attorneys Body:: 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 ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Rice Letter Body:: Anita Very minor changes. Thanks. Vince What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Document editing/checking/collaboration <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Enron Wind Policy Meeting Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Enron Support of a Standards Setting Organization Body:: I have reviewed the SSO principles -- look good to me. Thanks for sending them to look at. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: HOOVER INSTITUTION NEWS ADVISORY: Conference on the California Electricity Problem Body:: H o o v e r I n s t i t u t i o n News Advisory September 27 2001 _____ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Note: The complete text of this News Advisory can also be viewed in the attached file. CONFERENCE ON THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY PROBLEM October 18-19 2001 Sponsored by the Hoover Institution and Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) What: A conference on California's electricity problem sponsored by the Hoover Institution and Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). When: Thursday and Friday October 18-19 2001 Where: Stauffer Auditorium Hoover Institution Stanford University Why: To address the causes of and solutions to the problem including: its impact on the state economy deregulation issues and politics. Who: ????????The Honorable Spencer Abraham U. S. Secretary of Energy dinner speaker 6:30 p.m. October 18 ????????Discussion: Electricity problem's causes and proposed solution with James Sweeney of SIEPR Hoover and Stanford and Severin Borenstein of UC-Berkeley 1:15 p.m. October 18 ????????Discussion: I. The electricity problem's impact on the state economy with Edward Leamer of UCLA 3 p.m. October 18 ????????Discussion: II. Achieving competition through real time pricing with Frank Wolak of Stanford and SIEPR and Vernon Smith of George Mason University 3 p.m. October 18 ????????Panel: Power production and politics with John Bryson Edison International Peter Cartwright of Calpine Corporation and Hoover fellow and former California Governor Pete Wilson 8:30 a.m. October 19 ????????Panel: Deregulation with Hoover fellows Milton Friedman Nobel laureate former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz and James Sweeney 10:30 a.m. October 19 A mult box will be available for broadcast media. RSVP by October 15: Call Public Affairs at the Hoover Institution at 650-723-0603. Michele M. Horaney APR Michelle Mosman Director of Communications Public Affairs Manager Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Hoover Institution 579 Serra Mall@Galvez St. Stanford University Stanford University Stanford CA 94305-6010 Stanford CA 94305-6015 650-725-7293 F:650-8611 650-725-1872 cell: 650-722-0798 Horaney@Hoover.Stanford.edu mmosman@stanford.edu Hoover.Stanford.edu siepr@Stanford.edu What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Dinner next week with Piotr Body:: Czwartek mi odpowiada. Zadzwonie do Ciebie do pracy we wtorek. Wicek What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Purely Personal <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Senate passes Alper/Davis Bill 30-0 Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Mtg w/Bob Gee Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Shift May Empower California.htm Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Presentation to faculty and students at Berkeley Body:: 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. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Confidential Contact data and RFI Body:: Any nuclear specific info? Kevin Presto UBS Warburg Energy kevin.presto@ubswenergy.com Phone: 713-853-5035 Fax: 713-646-8272 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Minutes from last Thurs CAISO Board Meeting (Sorry for the delay) Body:: 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. What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Energy Issues Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: California Update Body:: 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. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Joe Hirko farewell reception Body:: ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Logistic Arrangements <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: California Power Issue Body:: 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. ----------------- What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: Re: Purported Ken Lay Promise to Haley Barbour Body:: 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 What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Company Business/Strategy <s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> You are reviewing an email using its subject and body. Based on the text in its subject and body, please categorize this email into one of the following categories: 1. 'Company Business/Strategy' 2. 'Purely Personal' 3. 'Personal but in a professional context' 4. 'Logistic Arrangements' 5. 'Employment arrangements' 6. 'Document editing/checking/collaboration' 7. 'Empty message (due to missing attachment)' 8. 'Empty message' Please provide only one category (e.g., 'Purely Personal'). <</SYS>> Subject:: RE: Boston Body:: Bill Thanks. I am forwarding the message to my son. Vince What should this email be categorized as? [/INST] Purely Personal <s>