http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/enrn25.shtml

Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis

Thursday, January 25, 2001

By JONATHAN SALANT

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- One of the biggest beneficiaries of the California power crisis is a Texas energy conglomerate that more than any other single company has helped bankroll President Bush's political career.

Enron Corp. of Houston is among a handful of a new generation of independent electric power brokers and producers that have reaped giant revenue increases from California's power shortages and higher natural gas prices nationwide.

The new president's rejection of price controls to hold down soaring electricity costs in the Golden State reflects the views of Enron, the largest wholesaler of electricity and largest owner of natural gas pipelines in North America.

The company and its employees have given more than anyone else to Bush's two campaigns for governor, his unsuccessful House campaign in 1978 and last year's race for the White House, according to the watchdog Center for Public Integrity.

Enron and its employees gave $113,800 to Bush's presidential campaign, his 10th most generous contributor; $250,000 to the Republican National Convention host committee; and $300,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee.

Enron Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lay, who raised more than $100,000 for Bush's campaign, is a member of the president's energy transition team and attended his economic summit.

"I clearly think Ken Lay and the Enron Corp. has President Bush's ear on energy matters," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, an advocacy group critical of Bush.

"They had his ear when he was governor. It's no surprise that Bush's policies mirror those of Enron."

Enron spokesman Eric Thode said Bush campaigned as "a proponent of states' rights and deregulation. He doesn't need anybody to suggest that to him."

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan also denied that Enron influenced Bush's decision Tuesday to continue for only another two weeks Clinton administration orders to the company and other power providers to continue supplying electricity to California's near bankrupt utilities.

"The president believes this is an issue that was created by this rather unique legislation in California and that by providing the two weeks, it will enable California to take the steps that it needs to do to begin to resolve this situation," she said.

Overall, Enron gave $2.3 million to federal candidates and the political parties during the 2000 election, more than double its $1.1 million in 1998 and more than any other energy company, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that studies campaign finance. Almost three-fourths of the company's donations went to Republicans.

Right behind Enron in campaign contributions from energy companies was Southern Co., whose Southern Energy subsidiary, recently renamed Mirant, is an electricity supplier in California. Atlanta-based Southern Co. gave $1.3 million in 2000, including $14,000 directly to Bush.

© 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

-- (Camp@ign.financing), January 28, 2001

Answers

Except for the slant, this seems perfectly normal. People and organizations contribute to the campaigns of those candidates whose positions they prefer. Should we outlaw all campaign contributions?

But the slant is just what Uncle Bob has been documenting for us. If a Democrat is elected, of course those who contributed did so in recognition of the candidates superior policy positions (if the contributors are mentioned at all). But if a Republican is elected, then the implication is that he has sold his soul to his contributors. This article's thrust is NOT that Enron and Bush share a philosophy, it's that Enron bought Bush.

Now, most large companies like Enron make big contributions to BOTH parties. How much did Enron contribute to Gore's campaign? Just read the article -- *surely* Jonathan Salant would mention this as well? Uh, he leaves it out? Imagine that!

And if Gore had won, do you suppose Salant would have written an article documenting how much Gore owed Enron? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Salant writes the truth, but FAR from the whole truth. After all, the whole truth wouldn't create the intended impression.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 2001.

Enron Corp. of Houston is among a handful of a new generation of independent electric power brokers and producers that have reaped giant revenue increases from California's power shortages and higher natural gas prices nationwide. The new president's rejection of price controls to hold down soaring electricity costs in the Golden State reflects the views of Enron, the largest wholesaler of electricity and largest owner of natural gas pipelines in North America.

These huge corporations are price gauging US working people, especially poor working people. That shows where Bush's sympathies lie -- it's not with the little folks who have to pay the bills. We're looking at over a 50 percent rate increase here in the coming year. New York could have blackouts this summer.

Working class folks are being SCREWED by Enron and Bush. Enron's chief executive is on the Bush's transition energy team -- that ought to tell you all you need to know.

-- Greedy Extortionists (bush@will.pay), January 28, 2001.

S O R E / L O S E R M A N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahehehehohoho wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee

-- hohoho (goresux@hehe.com), January 28, 2001.

Duuuuh. People have to be very fucking blind and stupid if they think it is just a coincidence that gas and power shortages occur right as Dumbyafuck takes office. How many times are these bastards going to pull your strings before you wake up and see you are being played like a puppet on their stage? "Power" brokers indeed, in more ways than one. These greed psychos want to destroy environmental regulations in California so that they can tear up the wilderness to dig for oil and gas and build more plants. Dumbya is exactly the kind of dumbass with no integrity that will grant them their wishes, willing to bend over for any amount of money. Now that they've got their man, they are going to continue to raise prices to California until the people hurt enough to sacrifice environmental protection regulations. Of course Dumbya, by destroying regulations that protect the environment, can then say he is just "giving the people what they want".

-- wake up fools (power "crisis" @ is. staged), January 28, 2001.

"These greed psychos want to destroy environmental regulations in California so that they can tear up the wilderness..."

Umm.. maybe, but I just read an excellent UPI article that talked about how deregulation *caused* this problem. Your argument doesn't show how the problem was caused by *newly elected* deregulators.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Bemused:

I hope the California experience educates some people in other states that you cannot legislate yourself an exemption from the law of supply and demand. The current problems are not entirely an artifact of "deregulation a la California", wherein we deregulate wholesale prices and let them rise, but continue to regulate rates so they can't rise in response. This is sheer stupidity.

Beyond that, there are real shortages. How much these are due to the exhaustion of supply (if any), and how much to artifically low (regulated) gas prices discouraging drilling, transportation, maintenance etc. I don't know. But I *do* know that natural gas doesn't get created as a byproduct of profane ranting against those who would provide it affordably (or at least, not enough is generated thereby).

Eventually, the policy of grabbing the benefits while someone else pays the costs backfires. And we're watching this happen now.

(Incidentally, I think some of these responses are generated by robot. No actual person could be quite that ignorantly hateful)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 2001.

Flint:

"I hope the California experience educates some people in other states that you cannot legislate yourself an exemption from the law of supply and demand..."

Exactly! It seems these Californians think they can increase demand without increasing supply. Californians? Thoughts?

I think we need several more power plants in the West, ones that will feed CA.

I've read in Scientific American (I'm not a Nuke "expert", although I'm an engineer, I should listen to the PH.D's like everyone else - I'm including congress) that we now have the ability to create incredibly clean and efficient nuclear power plants. And we also have the ability to store nuclear waste produced by fission reactors in storage sites that will be safe for many thousand years.

Geologically, these people can't predict plate tectonics. But what they're saying is that 100,000 years from now, our kids may be smart enough that these deposits of fission reactors will be childs play to deal with. And that's long before we have to worry about earthquakes where these folks are thinking of building bunkers for the waste.

I just don't get it. Why is nuclear power so bad?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Bemused:

I think there are three or four significant factors to be considered.

1) Safety. You could make a good case that the Chernobyl meltdown did more, more widespread, and longer lasting damage than every problem ever experienced at all other types of generating plants combined, since we've been generating electricity. Problems at nuclear plants may be rare, but the *potential* for disaster is unequaled.

2) Disposal. Yes, we *think* that vitrification followed by burial in salt domes will be good for 10,000 years. We lack longitudinal data on this (joke, BTW). But we might be wrong, and we still need to transport the waste to the disposal sites (risking train wrecks, etc.), and the cleanup effort around current nuclear sites is gawdawful (go visit Hanford on your vacation). Do we want more of this?

3) Cost. When we start adding the cost of building "safe" plants, with all of the multiple redundant safety factors, with the cost of "safe" disposal, with the cost of the red tape to get a plant designed, approved, built, etc. the power is no longer competitively priced.

4) Sheer fear of the unknown. Radiation is weird stuff. You can't see it or feel it or know it's around, and there's no feedback as you absorb a fatal dose of roentgens, and you die in the most horrible painful way in the most immediate case. And in the less immediate cases, you have strange mutations and increased cancer rates and unfaithful replication (i.e. birth defects) and other Very Bad Things, all without any way to tell it's happening to you.

Hey, if something is hot or smelly or noisy, I don't need to take someone's word for this, I can see it and feel it. But radiation? I have to *trust* someone who likely has vested interests that may not be the same as mine.

And considering all this, AND the virulent anti-nuke lobby, selling nukes is a very hard sell.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 2001.

It seems these Californians think they can increase demand without increasing supply.

Jan. 19, 2001

The Facts Are In: Electricity Demand in California Was Lower Four of Past Six Months Than in 1999

Data Casts Doubt on Power Producers’ Claims That Demand Has Fueled Higher Prices

WASHINGTON, DC -- Power demand during four of the past six months in California was lower than during the same period in 1999, indicating that California’s power producers are misrepresenting the facts about energy demand to justify gouging the state’s utilities.

System hourly load data compiled by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) was analyzed. CAISO uses this data to find out how much energy must come from various plants to meet California demand and records the highest amounts of demand by hour within the state of California. The data shows that while demand did soar in May, in four out of the past six months -- July, August, October and December -- California saw a lower peak demand than during the same months in 1999.

"The facts are in, and they prove that power producers have been misrepresenting the energy crisis as caused by increased consumer demand," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Power producers want Californians to believe that consumers need to pay higher rates to encourage the construction of new power plants to meet the alleged higher demand."

With no increase in energy demand, a major contributor to the current crisis is that plants servicing California with 11,000 megawatts of capacity have been taken out of service for a variety of reasons, most undisclosed.

Now, power producers are inappropriately citing increased demand to justify building new plants, and they are hoping to speed the process by suspending California’s environment-friendly standards and blocking the ability of communities to oppose new plants.

While power producers acknowledge that many other factors are affecting prices, including demand in the entire western U.S., they have focused on California energy demand when justifying their high prices.

-- Just the facts (not@spin.com), January 28, 2001.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001.

Flint:

"1) Safety... Problems at nuclear plants may be rare, but the *potential* for disaster is unequaled...."

Problems are rare, but the stakes are high. (does that sound familiar, Flint?)

The *potential* for disaster is high, if the *potential* for any kind of major failure is high. It's not.

"2) Disposal. Yes, we *think* that vitrification followed by burial in salt domes will be good for 10,000 years. We lack longitudinal data on this (joke, BTW). But we might be wrong, and we still need to transport the waste to the disposal sites (risking train wrecks, etc.), and the cleanup effort around current nuclear sites is gawdawful (go visit Hanford on your vacation). Do we want more of this?"

Flint, I've seen 100,000 years as the limit for when we can't predict safety, not 10,000. But maybe it's all the same to you.

"3) Cost. When we start adding the cost of building safe plants, with all of the multiple redundant safety factors, with the cost of safe disposal, with the cost of the red tape to get a plant designed, approved, built, etc. the power is no longer competitively priced."

Huh? The nuclear folks ... I know do not agree.

And then finally, you give:

"4) Sheer fear of the unknown. Radiation is weird stuff. You can't see it or feel it or know it's around, and there's no feedback as you absorb a fatal dose of roentgens, and you die in the most horrible painful way in the most immediate case."

As I said before, I'm an engineer. I just can't make myself afraid like you obviously can.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

not spin:

Let's see if I'm reading this unattributed article correctly. Demand is measured by CAISO according to the load, i.e. the amount of juice actually being consumed. However, 11,000 megawatts went out of service, so it could not be consumed. We've been reading elsewhere that over the last several months, those industries on the voluntary blackout list (those willing to accept loss of power in exchange for lower rates when they have power) have been experiencing periods without power. These are not "blackouts", they are announced, contracted outages by specific customers.

Now, the article goes on to say that "demand" (the amount consumed) has gone down! Well, duh. It hasn't been there to be provided. Actual consumption has been at (or just below) everything they can possibly produce. Saying "demand isn't as high" is purely an artifact of available generation and transmission, and has *nothing to do* with how much power Californians want or can pay for. Implying otherwise, as this article does, is pure spin.

And why are 11,000 megawatts off-line? "For a variety of reasons, most undisclosed" says the article. OK, what has been disclosed? These plants are offline because of (1) no money to buy fuel; (2) they've reached their "pollution limit"; (3) Scheduled maintenance; (4) Unscheduled maintenance (breakdowns). The only thing "undisclosed" is the technical cause of the breakdowns.

But this article implies that the power companies have taken perfectly good plants offline for no better reason than to create an artificial "crisis". This is pure spin.

No wonder you don't tell us who wrote this or where it was published. But it's spin from start to finish.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 2001.

To the person who posted and the subsequent idiots who supported the poster. Have you got any clue about how CA arrived at this point? PG&E is near declaring bankruptcy. Does that sound like $ are going into anyone's pocket? If you want to dance, you have to the band, you moron.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

If you want to dance, you have to the band, you moron.

Say what?

-- sumer (shh@@aol.con), January 29, 2001.

LOL That's what happens when one doesn't check the words! Ok it's a quiz. Fill in the blank, "If you want to dance, you have to blank the band"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

pay

Did I win?

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), January 29, 2001.

Peg, you may have won but what is the prize? Ah I know, you get to dance! (I know pretty lame)

Well I thought of these other responses:

Madonna, "screw"

Mr. Clinton, "pardon"

Hillary, "talk nice to"

Anal-retentive people, "set a date for dancing, find all band members, negotiate a price, and write up a contract with"

Prez Bush, "first learn how to dance, then find country musicians for"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

"Reliant, Dynergy, and AES have been branded by Califronia governor Gray Davis as 'pirates and plunderers.' The companies and their shareholders won't care. Last week Enron announced a huge increase in revenues at the end of the fourth quarter, driven by soaring wholesale operations. It refused to split out Californian earnings. Dynergy's fourth quarter saw earnings double to 105.9 million."

You want to pay this, Maria? You want to line the pocket of the profiteers, the people who are making obscene profits at the expense of the working people who pay the bills?

Do you think this is right? Do you think the market is efficient here, doing the right thing by all the people? What about poor people who cannot afford to pay their bills -- should they freeze this winter or next? Do they have to support energy companies who are making fortunes as they sell electricity at vastly inflated prices -- up to $1,000 a megawatt hour compared with a $30 norm?

You call that kind of obscene profiteering "paying the band."

If you buy into this, you really do deserve what you get. We didn't deserve this, but you do.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 29, 2001.

Coup, What about poor people who cannot afford to pay their bills

You want to help the poor pay their electric bill, then put your money where your mouth is. Pay the friggin' bill yourself! I have! The electric company will take your money to pay the poor, directly goes to the bill owed.

CA did this themselves, not Bush. Bush didn't even declare his candidacy when CA started having troubles. Hawk you're an idiot!

Just do a little adding. Companies that sell more, make more. That's the idea. Do you think companies should go into business without any thought for making a profit? Please, I'll give you a dime, go buy a clue.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

Get a clue.

(snip)

US NATURAL GAS SHORTFALL

Underlying this electric power crisis is a shortage of natural gas. US installed generating capacity was some 743,000 MW in 1998. 90% of new capacity to 2010 is planned to be natural gas fired, with 22,000 MW added in 2000. (Western Power's installed capacity on the SW grid is just over 3,000 MW). Power generation is the major contributor to the 2.6% pa growth in US natural gas consumption, forecast to grow by 40% over 10 years.

Natural gas is the principal fuel for winter heating in North America, winter consumption is 50% higher than in summer. Consumption has exceeded US production since 1985 and Canadian imports now supply 15% of US consumption. However, US production has declined since 1997 with new gas wells unable to offset a doubling of production well decline rates in the 1990's. A similar pattern has emerged in Canada. Running faster and faster just to stand still! There is no way US production and imports from Canada can grow at 2.6% per annum.

Summer gas production is stored in depleted onshore oil and gas fields to meet 20% of winter heating demand. However, gas turbines used to meet summer power loads are rapidly eroding the capacity to recharge these storages. The current winter is a cold one and consumption is being met by drawing them down. Leading analysts believe they could be depleted during the 2002/2003 winter.

(snip)

http://www. hubbertpeak.com/news/article.asp?id=1565

-- Cave Man (Caves@are.us), January 29, 2001.

Thank you Mr. Clinton for your wonderful energy policy.

-- Mr Bush (will@get.us.out), January 29, 2001.

You want to help the poor pay their electric bill, then put your money where your mouth is. Pay the friggin' bill yourself! I have! The electric company will take your money to pay the poor, directly goes to the bill owed.

Gee, Maria, maybe you have a point. After all, we can read about how this works in Dickens novels. Hey, if it worked in 19th-century industrial England, why can't it work here?

Oh, sure, lots of children died from poverty and neglect back then, but you can't really help that -- I mean, helping other folks is optional, and there just wasn't enough good will to go around. And maybe we'll see a resurgence of great heart-rending classics, like "A Christmas Carol."

Hmmm, maybe it can work... Nineteenth-century Dickensonian social solutions for twenty-first-century America.... Kind of a Superbowl approach -- survival of the fittest, winner takes all deal.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 29, 2001.

Flint,

"...(4) Unscheduled maintenance (breakdowns). The only thing "undisclosed" is the technical cause of the breakdowns."

It's the "embeddeds".

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 30, 2001.