Volunteers Needed... energy deregulation - made easy

[salin]

That is the project. No prior knowledge or experience with energy issues required. None. (I most others talking about this started with 0 knowledge... don't let that be the hindrance)

I hope that we can get at least 10-15 people to join a little exercise.

Background:
We are a couple of weeks out from the likely vote on the Energy Bill. The darn thing is so complex, so dense and so technical that it makes most of our (and our legislator's) eyes glaze over. It is easy to forget its origins hidden in the secret energy task force that Cheney led and is fighting up to the Supreme Court to keep secret. It includes proposals that Ken Lay gave to Cheney as a 'wish list' - and during that time with Ken's meetings - Cheney and bush declined using federal authority to step in to help solve the energy manipulation in California (little did we know how much Enron needed the extra millions being gouged to try to pretend to stay afloat.)

Problem in getting action going:
Groups that should be active in trying to raise citizen action are not yet active. Perhaps because the whole thing appears to be a done deal, or perhaps because it is so hard to figure out what the damage is because it is so complex/hard to sort out.

Almost daily a story leaks out about some ugly aspect of it (a couple of days ago the NYT commented about the granting of eminent domain not to government but to private corporations for electricity transmission (pipelines/wires/etc.); then it that they were slipping a 'scaled back' ANWR provision; and other goodies). But the stories are in different news papers - sometimes buried a bit - and no one - is looking across the stories (except perhaps evilDUers and folks working for nonprofits focusing on the issues).

Our resource:
There is a great primer on the deregulation aspect of this bill. And it spells out the damage that it can do. They want to kill the "Public Utilites Holding Corporation Act". Okay - wipe that glaze off of your eyes... Public Citizen wrote this primer: PUHCA for Dummies. http://www.citizen.org/documents/puhcafordummies.pdf


The task:
What we need - a group of folks willing to read this document (PUHCA for Dummies) over the next 24 hours, to discuss it if there are any comments while reading it; and to come back and help write (as a group) some analogies that can help explain PUHCA and what its end can mean. Don't worry if you don't know squat about energy or energy regulation (or deregulation). Not to long ago I knew nothing either - learn it together.

If we can write a series of vignettes or scenarios or analogies that can turn this dusty eyeglazing complex stuff into items that folks can read and begin to get a gist of... then we can get a whole lot of folks better versed. We can write articles and letters - not just to our legislators - but to other activist groups that they can take to their members to call for action (if they so choose).

An Example (albeit a long clunky one - see this is why your help is needed!
To make the concept of why energy or utilities are not commodoties in which "the market" works to set the best prices and thus protect consumers I offer the following analogy.

You live in a midsized or large city. A corporation - Watershed - has just bought the local utility to help solve the local budget crisis. They promise through the efficiency of business to be able to drive the rates to consumers down. Within six months they raise rates by 15%. Bills being relatively small to begin with people notice, but accept the excuse that the old water purification plant had fallen into disrepair and the extra money was needed for updates (after all we know that government run organizations are not run well so this excuse resonates). Six months later the rates are increased another 20%. Few folks are able to use well water. Some folks try to cut consumption by using bottled water - but that only works for drinking water, as too much is required for things like laundry, washing dishes, showers of flushing toilets. Through conservation measures people try to curb consumption - but they can not go to an alternative provider, nor can they just stop using water. The city is a captive market. The corporation is an unregulated monopoly. When the rates go up 30% more the next year, folks write letters to the editor but can do nothing as they can't use the power of elections to approve bond issues (to determine if the infrastructure needs to be upgraded) and they can't 'throw out' the politicians (by electing someone else) who made decisions about the rate hikes, etc.

A bunch of us - working together - to understand the issues (the primer makes it very clear) - and come up with good illustrations - can make big strides in spurring some action on an issue that the bushies desperately want (payback to their donors) and that we as a society desperately need to prevent.

What say you - will you step up?

More Background: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=393201&mesg_id=393201

[salin]

1. at least help me keep this visible

long enough to get a few volunteers? This is VERY important!

[T Roosevelt]

2. Definitely interested

and made through most of the previous threads. Remains to be seen how much time I can put on this though.

[salin]

3. we work together... and it shouldn't take any one person too much time

biggest thing is to read through the puhca article. Then we can just try to get some creative juices flowing - and build off of each other. Add on when you have time.

Thank you. A little bit from a number of people - and I think we can turn a bit of understanding and energy (pun intended) into something that can be used to raise awareness and action.

Just have to be able to make it digestable.

Thanks for reading these threads. Never sure if it is just a few folks reading - or if more folks are reading but not participating.

:toast:

[Mandate My Ass]

4. Kick

Bookmarked. :kick:

[salin]

5. thanks Monica_L

hope you can find the time to read PUHCA for Dummies it is well done. Brings in Enron and other fun examples of how we can really be in trouble if they kill it.

[Mandate My Ass]

6. tomorrow should be a slow day

in work for me. Slogging PUHCA will compete with surfing DU to get me to the 5:00PM finish line for the week. :)

[salin]

7. Cool!

:toast:

[salin]

8. Comeon folks.. this is IMPORTANT

and will expand your mind more than reading the current animosity between candidate x fans and candidate y fans. Heck you can follow those threads and get involved in this project...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. You know you can count on me to work on this

I am leaving right now and might not be on again for a day or so but whatever I can do, I will.
:D

[salin]

10. cool... you can make longwinded writing

into hard hitting punchy, readable bites - that don't lose the impact through the process of rewriting. You rock! Glad to have you on board.

[blm]

11. I second that. nsma is a punchy writer.

Great at explaining difficult issues.

[salin]

12. then join the fun on this one

instead of a long unwieldy discussion trying to tie together a bunch of strands... we will be focusing just on one document - and then taking a few pieces to illustrate (by word) and make it accessible. NO previous knowledge on energy policy required. :D

[blm]

13. check

your PM.

[stevedeshazer]

14. I can help

I'll start with Puhca for Dummies. This one is near and dear to me. No. not the dummy part.

Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", has some great stuff that anyone can understand about this issue in one of the chapters.

Thanks for attempting to organize, there is a curious vacuum around this issue....

[bigtree]

15. kick

:kick:

[salin]

24. I take it that you are in ?

I hope.

[salin]

23. I have the book in the house somewhere (Palast)

will have to find it and read the chapter... (I know - I need to read the whole book!)

[kimchi]

16. I read it very quickly,

a lot is still muddy, but I think I get the overall picture. It will be hard to condense all that, especially with all the history. I can't seem to come up with any illustrations, I am still thinking more along the lines of what good things PUHCA has done, to give some concreteness to the examples.

I will look at it again in the morning. And thanks, NSMA for kicking this to my attention.

[salin]

17. we can start playing with it

hard simplified examples are a good place to start. The most important thing is to be able to convey the big concepts - with a sense of urgency.

Thanks for jumping on board, kimchi!

[sistersofmercy]

18. I would love to help but I need someone to tell me how to bookmark

this and I'll read the "PUHCA for dummies" first thing in the morning.

[stevedeshazer]

19. Top of the thread, left side, click "Bookmark"

[salin]

20. scroll up to the top of this page

above the box that says: Lobby / Latest General Discussion Forum

There are three icons on the left side, listed atop of one another.

Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread

Click the bottom one.

To get bookmarks - go to the lobby and near the top of the page with the list of icons (e.g., logout, search, inbox). Click the icon: bookmarks.

Good thing to do with the speed that things fly off the front of the forum these days.

Thanks!

[sistersofmercy]

22. Nevermind I figured it out! DUH!

[salin]

25. cool

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

21. Groups against the repeal

Possibly to get involved with for a coordinated effort.

http://www.kannerandassoc.com/cfc/CFC%20PUHCA%20flier.html

[salin]

26. Great find

maybe we contact them - with an item they can send (if they chose) as an action item for their membership - ?? Very cool, indeed.

[stevedeshazer]

29. ENRON is on this list?

:wtf:

[sandnsea]

33. Yep

This is really complicated stuff and I don't get it all. But part of it is that local regulated power companies have a monopoly. Stay with me. Pick PG&E in CA, for example, and presume they had no competition and there was no economic incentive to invest in new power sources. All it had to do is go to the state and get a rate increase rather than create cheaper power sources, like wind or solar. Enron likes this because it sold power from cheaper sources in Texas, say, to expensive regulated places like PG&E. Now I know California deregulated, but not totally. If power is totally deregulated than a company like Enron doesn't need to exist. At least that's how I understand it. That's why Clinton was actually looking at deregulation, as a way to use wind power from the midwest as an electricity source for the northeast. As long as the local electricity is totally regulated, you may never get cleaner renewable energy sources because the idea is that government can't force the local power company to do anything in regards to building new energy sources.

But I just disagree with this premise. The government can just come along and say yes you do have to use renewable energy as 20% or 40% of your power within 20 years. You have to or you lose whatever credits you're getting now. And I think all energy sources have some sort of tax credits. And now that I understand the SEC part of the control, I really think we have to have utitlities regulated. It's just ridiculous to put the country at risk like this. I thought it was a bad idea to remove some of the regulations of the stock market the way we did and that went bad. We've removed alot of the depression era controls in banks, investing and insurance and I'm not sure we've seen the end of the problems that could result.

Now don't quote me on this, because I'm not 100% sure I understand it. But it's pretty close I think.

[AP]

80. The thing is that capitalism is great when there's competition...but

there's no competition with energy. The energy companies pretend that electricity competes with gas, but, even if you have gas and electricity lines running into your house, you can't switch to your gas run refrigerator, and you can't switch over your gas stove to electricity when the prices go up. Right now, nobody is going to invest the capital in home appliances to do what you'd have to do to have real competion.

Also, it makes no economic sense to build two gas companies and two electricity companies with access to the lines to your house just so that you could have a competitive market. The social costs just aren't worth the benefits -- just the cost alone of having to constantly monitor electricty costs so that you can get the cheapest ones would be such a waste of human resources (much the same way it's a tremendous waste of human time resources trying to get the cheapest phone rates).

The other biggest problem though, is that there should be no free market in things that are not only easy to monopolize, but things that are vital for life or for a minimal level of dignified living. When you really need something to have the base level of human existence, you know companies will want to monopolize it (becuase they'll have a totally tied, dependant market and therefore assured profits).

To make other parts of society and the markets work, you want to make sure that people aren't being ripped off by the things they have to buy.

[stevedeshazer]

27. From the dark side

The Heritage Foundation issued this missive just yesterday in favor of, among other things, the repeal of PUHCA.

<snip>
Repeal PUHCA. Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act (PUHCA) is long overdue. PUHCA is a New Deal-era statute
that makes it difficult for firms to acquire and divest power assets
and interferes with the ability of firms to enter new markets. In fact,
the SEC, which administers PUHCA, has been recommending its
repeal since the 1980’s. Repeal of this antiquated law would help
attract new investment capital to the industry.

source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm338.cfm

I, for one, do not want my electricity company (Enron-owned Portland General Electric) to "enter new markets" utilizing the captive ratepayers of their utility as risk capital for other ventures.

Okay, I'm starting to get it, I think.

[salin]

30. BINGO

that is a BIG reason PUHCA was created - guess there was some big corporate abuse... and when the loans were called in by the banks (on the risky ventures)... down went the utility companies...

I, for one, do not want my electricity company (Enron-owned Portland General Electric) to "enter new markets" utilizing the captive ratepayers of their utility as risk capital for other ventures.

:thumbsup: Yes you are starting to get it!

[sandnsea]

28. points

From Consumer Watch Dog
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr003560.php3

Undercut regulators' ability to stop market abuses before they arise.

Allow big utilities to move ratepayer money away from projects needed to protect local customers.

Allow big utilities to engage in business ventures not related to their core utility business, using ratepayer money to subsidize corporate projects.

Allow greater consolidation in the electricity industry, creating fewer and larger utility monopolies, which have a wider reach of control over the energy system yet less regulatory oversight.

Lead to more complex utility corporations that are less accountable to the public.

[salin]

31. I have to head out

for the night - but many of these points could easily be turned into a scenario or analogy that would make the point AND capture folks attention. :thumbsup:

[dmr]

32. I'll help

I read the PUHCA for dummies, and guess what? I'm still a dummy, but a smarter dummy.

What I get from this, is PUHCA is our checks and balances to protect us, the utility bill paying customer. from being raped by the corporates so they can fund their more lucrative, but risky endeavors - some of which may have creative accounting practices. The customer is a bankroll that keeps on paying monthly - what a coup for big business! To not have PUHCA would have us between a rock and a hard place, or for many between having or not having.

This summer's blackout gave us an example on how much we are dependent upon electricity. I realized at the time, that I have more plugged-in in my home office than all the electrical devices we had in our house when I was growing up!

We could be held for ransom by ever-increasing energy costs. Without PUHCA, we would never know, or be able to ascertain whether we are actually paying for our energy or financing a corporations money-making interest. This is almost akin to patients who need life-sustaining medications, but due to the lobbying of big pharmaceuticals, the high cost of these drugs have patients chosing whether to eat or be medication compliant - both of which affects their quality of life.

I'm willing to lend a hand, this is an important issue. I am working, though, in the endless email campaign struggle for BBV - I am far from a techie, but in my small way, I still try to get the word out. But when I find something that grabs me, I always find the time to write and/or make a phone call, even if it's only to make me feel like I'm accomplishing something. So, salin, count me in.

[oasis]

34. kick

I know this is important but I need to read this later on tommorrow when I can think clearer.

[salin]

35. Great!

Will keep seeing about any additional willing folks - and give others a chance to read the document. Catch up with you when you are ready!

[buddhamama]

36. i've read it

and will be happy to get involved.

i've been away for a few days (i'm sick :-( ) and have to refresh and catch upon what i have missed.

will check back in.

[bigtree]

37. questions. what about reform of PUHCA? Should we just leave PUHCA as is?

How do we reform PUHCA to foster the emergence of alternative sources? Do the regulations which limiting holding companies to "businesses integral to the efficient operation of the utility system" discourage existing providers from considering alternatives?

Some sources are regulated differently than others. Start up costs can be less for some alternatives, for example, because of less stringent regulations. Should existing providers bear all of the cost of any change in the law that accomodates the emergence of independent alternatives.

Is competition desirable? If so, then how can competition be enhanced or allowed within PUHCA so that the larger companies don't just get larger? What would stop existing companies from using laws which further competition from investing in their own alternatives, and increasing their monopoly? Can we reasonably restrict them from diversifing in that atmosphere?

Most alternative sources require less regulation and lower start up costs than traditional sources. If the law is changed and competition is allowed, what obligation would the state have in compensating the existing providers who had organized their utility under the old law? Will the money lost by these old entities because of a change in the law be recoverable (passed on to) from consumers who switch to the new sources?

Would the old utilities still be required to purchase the excess
power produced by the independent alternative sources if they have their own alternative interests?

I'm mainly concerned with expanding the opportunities for alternative sources. Can we do this without reforming PUHCA?

[salin]

38. I will be mostly out today - but

will re-read - I don't see any disincentive for investment in alternative energy. How do you see it as being a disincentive?

PUHCA prevents large companies from getting larger and larger (and being able to through vertical monopoly be able to manipulate the subsidiaries for related/owned industries). Or at least this is how I read it.

I will need to read with a closer eye towards that question.

PUHCA isn't used to prevent competition - it is about SEC oversight of the investments of Utility holding corporations to prevent market manipulation and/or using utility investments - due to their regular nature (they always pull in regular rate payer $$s) to back risky investments - which if they go bad - put the utility company (and rate payers) at great risk.

I think PUHCA would prevent budding start-ups from takeover by big corps (due to the provisions of how much of can be invested in such ventures) - which might buy these up to stifle competition (eg buy up the potential alt energy company just to kill it).

[stevedeshazer]

39. kick

:kick:

[bigtree]

40. Aren't existing providers discouraged from considering alternatives

by restrictions on other investments or outside investments?
Don't the laws discourage them from changing by keeping them from diversifying?

Can there be a level set of regulations which don't disadvantage or discourage the existing providers from considering changing to alternatives? Regs which don't unfairly advantage competing alternative sources? A compromise might lessen the drive for total repeal.

Existing providers can't just be pushed aside because powerplants can also represent a sizeable source of property taxes for some communities, taxes generally based on the plant's book value. A faltering industry might eliminate the benefits a state might realize from the introduction of alternatives. :evilfrown:

[blm]

49. You should

ask the aides in Kerry's SENATE office (not the campaign office). This is an area that they are well-versed and should be able to locate answers for you.

[Robbien]

41. A couple of articles today give an idea of the timetable of this bill

Republicans plan on winding up their secret meetings over the weekend and will release drafts early next week. They want a meeting with the Democratic party at the end of next week to ratify the bill.

From what I can understand the open items of contention are:

1) The energy grid. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is to create super-regional power grids to coordinate electricity flows. The southern states hate this saying it is a federal power grab. Domenici says he put a delay on this until 2007 as a compromise to the southern states. But the south wants the bill to drop mandatory requirements for utilities to join grid groups.

2)MTBE has been widely added to gasoline in an effort to reduce emissions, but it has been found to leak from underground gas tanks. California has called for its elimination there by the end of the year and 16 other states, including New York, are also moving to phase it out. Both the House and Senate energy bills provide millions of dollars to remove underground storage tanks. But Domenici plans to put in the bill a clause granting the MTBE producers protection from suits over costs associated with cleanup of the chemical. But the Senate wants a liability shield only for other renewable fuels not MTBE.

3)An inventory of oil and natural gas resources along the nation's coasts. Opponents of this say this 'inventory' and pre-drilling activity would be the first steps in launching an all-out assault on our coastlines, putting them and thousands of communities at risk of environmental and economic disaster. Boxer (CA), Dole (NC) and Graham (FL) have stated they are against this.

4)ANWR

5)Natural Gas Drilling on federal land in the Rockies.

But, of course all of this is being done in secret, so there may be plenty of surprises. There is also some talk about changing ethanol limit requirements, but I couldn't determine if this is a deal breaker item.

[salin]

42. Great summary.

Hard to keep track of all of these things (especially with it being done in secret) that is what they are counting on - and on pushing the product through very fast before groups have a chance to "SEE" what is contained and react (and possibly stall the efforts yet again).

[Terwilliger]

43. kick

[Robbien]

44. Yay! yay! yay!

Citizen has an action alert up! Its focus is dump the energy bill and to pass an independent electricity transmission reliability bill instead.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/articles.cfm?ID=10479

Could we promote this? I think it is a wonderful plan of action.

[bigtree]

47. There are good summaries on the site

:kick:

[Robbien]

50. But isn't an action alert the end result of this exercise?

Is what we are doing here just an educational exercise, or is the purpose to create a letter to use to send to our congressmen?

[salin]

56. Both and then some

-educational - so we understand the issue
-action oriented - writing letters to Congress (and using PublicCitizen as the vehicle is cool.)

But I would add a third thing -
writing a compelling, understandable item (not sure format) to go to organizations who have not stepped up - but who would be likely to be receptive (or should be)... Have it prepackaged and accessible (eg to go to MoveOn? Sierra Club? Local environmental or consumer groups - etc.

I think that the Public Citizen action is great - but will mostly grab their members and those of us who have started paying attention.

We may be able to draft something that is precanned that can go to other organizations and hopefully be used by them to spur their membership to act - and thus extending the exposure and hopefully increasing the impact (in terms of number of folks who participate).

[Booberdawg]

52. Good news!!

:kick:

[Robbien]

45. The text of Citizen's fax

As the conference committee continues consideration of mortally flawed energy legislation, I am writing to urge you to oppose this anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-taxpayer package of giveaways to lucrative energy industries. Instead, I encourage you to pass an independent electricity reliability bill that includes strong enforcement standards. The blackout of August 2003 should not be exploited to ram through controversial and regressive provisions in the current omnibus energy legislation, all in the name of reliability.

America’s transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large trading of electricity over long distances that occurs under deregulation. The use of the system in this way—as well as the use of the wires by power marketers to increase their own profits regardless of the effects on the grid—are likely culprits of the August blackout. A responsible, stand-alone, mandatory reliability bill is called for now.

Because of the evisceration of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) over the past decade, utilities are no longer required to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission system. PUHCA, which is slated for full repeal in both the House and Senate energy bills, is designed to prevent companies from acquiring too much control over the national electricity grid. Notwithstanding the utter irresponsibility of repealing PUHCA, Congress must act to strengthen electricity reliability standards in independent legislation.

Please support policies that protect consumers and oppose any energy legislation that repeals PUHCA.

then it gives you a chance to add a comment

Our electric utility system was once the best in the world. We now have an electric industry in chaos. Congress should not support an energy bill that benefits only profitable energy industries while ignoring the well being of consumers and the reliability of the electricity system.



Sincerely,

isn't this basically what everyone here is saying so far?

[Booberdawg]

46. I'm still on board

I took a break for a couple days but I'm back on this and reviewing materials again today.

[Chovexani]

48. I will try to help

I'm going to be pretty busy this weekend, but I will try to read as much of the material as possible if you still need people on board with this. After living through the August blackout I'm suddenly a lot more interested in energy issues. :)

[NYC]

51. Public Citizen links to explanatory sites here:

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2003/

Guides

PUHCA for Dummies: An Electricity Blackout and Energy Bill Primer
"Side-by-Side" Comparison of Energy Legislation in the 108th Congress

Fact Sheets/Analyses

Energy Bill Watch List: Spotlight on House-Senate Energy Conference in Wake of Electricity Blackout, Scandals in Energy Industry
Analysis of Impact of Deregulation on Electricity Reliability and Price for Consumers
PUHCA Repeal in H.R.6: Congress Prepares to Abandon Consumer & Investor Protections
Bush Puts FirstEnergy First, Consumers Last
Taxpayer Financing for New Nuclear Power Plants in HR.6: Corporate Welfare for the Commercial Nuclear Industry
Price-Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps
The Advanced Hydrogen Reactor Co-generation Project in HR.6: A Clean Energy Travesty
Drilling for Tax Credits: Runaway Coalbed Methane Development Doesn't Need a Tax Break

All of these are clickable links that can be found at the link posted above.

[dmr]

53. KICK

:kick:

[Mandate My Ass]

54. this is dense stuff

I need someone to dumb down the PUHCA for Dummies for me.


Sounds like all the ugly repuke schemes rolled into one big fat wad, deregulation --> price gouging, privatization, insider trading and zero accountability.

[salin]

58. It is - I will be around this evening - and rereading it

(I just did a skim before). If you are around this evening (or weekend?) we can try to take apart and make sense of the different sections. Kudos for sticking with it - I know that I can tend to back off if something feels too inaccessible.

[Mandate My Ass]

60. I'll go back and read the prior threads about this

repetition is the key to penetrating my skull. :-)

I'll be out tonight but would be glad to spend a chunk of tomorrow reading and digesting between chores.

[Robbien]

55. This is interesting

It seems some representatives are already supporting an alternative to the energy bill. When I used the action alert for my representative, the first paragraph Citizen put in my fax said

I am writing to thank you for co-sponsoring the 'Electric Reliability Improvement Act of 2003' (HR 3004), which offers the reliability section (Subtitle C, Section 16031) of the House energy bill as stand-alone legislation. The blackout of 2003 should not be exploited to ram through controversial and regressive provisions in the current energy legislation, all in the name of reliability. Instead, a reliability bill should be supported on its own merits.

[salin]

57. We need to learn more about that

would be great to know who are the cosponsors.

[Mandate My Ass]

59. JOHN D. DINGELL

Electric Reliability Improvement Act of 2003." Details on the bill can be found at www.house.gov/commerce_democrats. If you require additional information about the bill please contact Sue Sheridan or Bruce Harris of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Democratic staff at ext. 6-3400. To cosponsor the bill, please contact Turney Hall at ext. 6-3400.

http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108dc22.htm

[Chovexani]

61. All the info you could want right here

I turned up this website on Google:
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/electric/elecblackouthome.shtml

The bill was introduced on 9/3/03 and here are the original co-sponsors:
Henry A. Waxman
Edward J. Markey
Rick Boucher
Edolphus Towns
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Sherrod Brown
Bart Gordon
Peter Deutsch
Bobby L. Rush
Anna G. Eshoo
Bart Stupak
Eliot L. Engel
Albert R. Wynn
Karen McCarthy
Ted Strickland
Diana DeGette
Lois Capps
Mike Doyle
Tom Allen
Jim Davis
Jan Schakowsky
Hilda L. Solis

[salin]

62. Did anyone know or see the GAO report in august re: Cheney's task

force's report (the process of how the energy policy was formulated... I think). I know there is still an active suit to get the names of the list participants - but I missed this:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_cheney_gao_aug_2003_rep.pdf (long 31 pages).

The above link reminded me I had meant to go through Waxman's committee on gov reform site - a year a go they were a great source on some of the energy info.

Another thing for me to print up and read.

[Booberdawg]

63. Thanks - will print and read tonight

I am reading HOAX again and will read this next

[Robbien]

64. This is the first article so far that reports

Domenici may not have an easy time passing his energy bill. Appears as if there are some powerful republicans who have different ideas on energy

http://www.hillnews.com/news/092403/energy.aspx

I was so glad to see this article along with the fact that there is the HR3004 proposed bill. From all the silence out there last week it made it seem as if the energy bill would have clear sailing.

I am printing out HR3004 for some late night reading. Will report back with a summary if I can make some sense of it.

[salin]

65. Thanks - good to see some hopeful news

reports when this came back to the fore was that it was all but done - so many goodies for so many folks- with little to stall it as a poison pill - and momentum from the northeast blackout... :( But... sometimes really dense, bad legislation - does end up suffocating itself.

[salin]

66. WTF......... last year (dont know if still is) most of TEXAS is EXEMPT

from the deregulation????? Found this letter on Waxman's site. Wonder if this exemption still exists. If we don't figure it out we should contact his committee (on governmental investigations) and inquire...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_texas_tauzin_barton_let.pdf

exerpts from the letter (it is pdf - so I retyped it - any typos are mine - as is the italics and underline):


As you know, the September 19 (2002) House offer would fundamentally change the nation's elecric utility industry. This proposal is profoundly deregulatory in nature, stripping shareholder and consumer protections that have been law for 70 years. Repealing FERC's merger review and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, for example, would only increase the potential severity of future corporate debacles like Enron.

In other respects, the proposal greatly expands feeral authority at the expense of the states and the cities. This proposal expands FERC's jurisdiction over public power and rural electric cooperatives, and it preempts the states' siting and environmental laws regarding the construction of transmission lines. Each of these provisions is immensely controversial.

During the debate of your proposal, Representative Dingell and I pointed out the irony that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is exempt from its most controversial provisions. As you know, ERCOT encompasses about three-quarters of Texas and serves about 85% of the customer load in the state.

(lists the provisions exempted)

This surprising double-standard has been embraced by sseveral other prominent Texans in addition to Mr. Barton. President Bush, for instance, has supported legislation (H.R. 3406) that radically reshapes federal electricty regulation in each of the contiguous staes but Texas. At FERC, the three non-Texan Commissioners -- Bill Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Nora Meade Brownell -- have all testified that Texas should be under FERC jurisdiction. Only FERC Chairman Pat Woods, a Texan, maintains that FERC jurisdiction should apply everywhere but Texas.

When I offered an amendment to ensure that each of the electricity provisions in the House offer apply to TExas in teh same manner and to the same extent as they apply in the other 48 contiguous states, each of you vigorously opposed my amendment. This was unexpected because my amendment would have treated Texas no differently than you seek to treat the rest of the nation.

(snip)

In short, the claim that ERCOT is not part of an interstate electricity grid is pure fiction.

Mr. Barton's argument that it would be unconstitutional to regulate Texas is also without merit. The Constitution does not contain a clause exempting Texas from federal regulation.

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

At issue is that state public utility commissions lose oversight - instead the whole country is divided into four (or five) sectors - and the only oversight is AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL through FERC. Except - at least in last years bill - for Texas.

[bigtree]

67. groan

should've known. :grr:

[Booberdawg]

68. Well ain't that a crock of shit!

The audacity of these guys just never amazes me. crooks. How can that POSSIBLY pass as is???

BTW, there is a way to copy in pdf, but I tried in that document and it didn't work. Press the first T over on the right side of the toolbar that has a little square under it on the right of it.

I've also read through the Energy Task Force doc you posted above and ugh that is pretty dry reading. What that did for me really is just piss me off again about how arrogant this admin is for insisting energy policy be decided in secret and refusing to hand over any info related to the task force or who was involved in determining policy. But, of course, we know WHY that is - energy policy was set to benefit the industries, not the consumers...

[salin]

69. I am going to skim it tonight

for quotable outrages.

I think to be able to capture the pdf - it has to be in a word type document form in the first place. Since this was on letter head - I think it may be a scanned document (so the computer can't "read" the characters/letters).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Texas is exempt because ERCOT has never fallen under the fed

regulatory system.

[salin]

71. explain please

Waxman challenges their contentions pretty convincingly. How is ERCOT different than other states and why?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. It dates back to WWII..here is an article that explains it

Blackout postmortems have noted that in the continental United States, the electricity system consists of just three regions, the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnection.* Why does the Lone Star State have its own power grid?

Partly because of a historical desire for self-sufficiency and partly because of that famous "Don't Mess With Texas!" attitude. The majority of the state's residents live within the region regulated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, an "island" that generates and supplies all its own electricity—unlike, say, New York City or Detroit, whose residents found out the hard way that lots of their power comes from Canada. (A small sliver of Western Texas gets its juice from the Western Interconnection, while a few customers in the north and the east are hooked into the Eastern Interconnection. Still, ERCOT handles 85 percent of the state's electricity needs.)

The local utilities that comprise ERCOT have pledged not to sell their power to interstate customers. As a result, the interconnection is exempt from most regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Beltway agency that governs the transmission of electricity from state to state—say, by mandating transmission standards, or requiring that prices be listed in public forums. ERCOT's resistance to federal regulation plays well in President Bush's native land, where meddling from Washington, D.C., is generally abhorred.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087133/

[Booberdawg]

73. So Texas has never been regulated in the first place? Or under PUHCA?

[salin]

85. I have to agree with Waxman's letter

the whole point of reorganizing under FERC to Regional Transmition Organizations is an effort (pushed initially by Lay) - to remove oversight from states (sort of like the independence of the texas grid) and put it under a system that is more loosely regulated. FERC's Wood used the California crisis to push the logic that a RTO could have "seen" the manipulation easier (as enron and others shipped power out of state and then sold back in the state at higher - unregulated rates).

The problem is that FERC does not seem capable of this level of oversight. They were unable to detect the manipulation - even after having documents - until well after the state of California's investigations had been going for awhile and was uncovering documentation. Furthermore FERC's "aggressiveness" against power marketers/manipulators is suspect - given the extent to which FERC's rulings severly limited the ability of the state of California to legally recoup losses incurred at the hands of energy companies fraudulent practices and market manipulation.

The desire for slowdown in the south - is related to the concerns of rural electric users. For example there is a concern that their rates will climb to pay for upgrades elsewhere (where money can be made) while their systems further erode.

The push from the Northeastern senators after the blackout - suggest heavy lobbying - as it appears that the problems that caused the blackout would not be addressed by this solution. Meanwhile states lose more authority for oversight.

Back to ERCOT.

Waxman's analysis demonstrates that ERCOT IS a part of the interstate electricity grid. Exempting them from the vagaries that are likely to result from centralizing regulatory power to FERC via RTOs, does appear to suggest that even the Texan's realize that the system of freemarkets for energy with no local control/oversight - is not good for their constituents.

It is interesting to note - that this whole issue is about CENTRALIZING authority, not decentralizing (or deregulating) which is a hallmark cry of the neocons. AND it was introduced and pushed by Ken Lay. WHY would this be done? These are not folks who tend to put consumer interests first. Lay, in particular has demonstrated since the late 1980s a penchant for seeking out ways of making business advantage out of changes in how the federal energy system works. This, along with FERC's abysmal record in the California crisis, suggest that this provision - while packaged in nice language - is not in consumers best interests. Convenient that Texas has a built in explanation for keeping it safe.

[salin]

88. Southern Governors concerns about the RTO plan

Energy bill stirs outcry in the South

By JIM GALLOWAY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Southern governors on Monday criticized a bid to federalize the nation's neglected electricity grid as a power grab by other states that have not made the sacrifices to build enough generators and transmission lines.

The governors said that plans in Congress to install regional watchdogs over electric utility companies would step on the sovereignty of states and could cause higher power bills -- by forcing Southern consumers to pay for the transmission of power to other parts of the nation.

At a three-day meeting of the Southern Governors Association, two Georgia officials were among the most outspoken to provisions contained in the energy bill now before House and Senate negotiators in Washington.

----------snip

Georgia Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise, who also is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, expressed concern that the "ultimate goal" of the federal legislation was to break up such utility companies as Southern Co. Atlanta-based Southern Co. controls both the generation and delivery of electricity in four states.

http//:www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0903/23energy.html

[bigtree]

74. From my industry news source

Here's a view of how one group is attempting to influence the committee as they negotiate behind closed doors. It's headed:
Shelby 'Deal' Will Protect Monopolies Over Improved Reliability

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Members of Business Alliance for Reliable Energy sent a letter today to U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) to encourage his reconsideration of a deal that would halt improvements in the nation's electricity system.
The letter encourages the chairman of the House-Senate conference on the national energy bill to support development of a regional-based system that can better manage the nation's overlapping grids. Some energy companies lobbied for a deal to protect their markets from broader regional systems that would expose them to national standards and new competition.

International Paper, Shell Oil, Smurfit Stone Container Corp., and Walgreens are among the nation's largest users of electricity, and are the first members of the alliance, which was formed after the recent electricity blackouts. They stated in the letter that the blackout "demonstrates the need for a new approach to managing the nation's electricity grids."

Blackouts span state lines and political jurisdictions in a matter of seconds, requiring new cooperative efforts between federal and state regulatory bodies to improve regional planning and oversight. Major energy purchasers prefer regional approaches to manage the flow of electricity across the multiple infrastructures and political jurisdictions that make up the nation's system.

The letter also stated that "Efforts in Congress to delay regional approaches prolong the regulatory uncertainty that constrains private sector investment in the nation's energy infrastructure, prevents greater coordination among states as they plan and manage their energy needs, and leaves businesses with multi-state operations vulnerable to varied standards of reliability."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-25-2003/0002024273&EDATE=

[bigtree]

75. Letters to Dominici

Sept.17. House letter
http://www.reliableenergy.org/PDF/HouseColleague092303.pdf

Sept.22. Signed by a bipartisan group including Kennedy, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Lautenburg, Stabanow and others
http://www.reliableenergy.org/PDF/SenateColleague092203.pdf

Their bottom line appears not to include concern about the repeal of PUHCA. Sarbanes, Mikulski are mine. I'll need what ever appeal comes out of this effort. :hippie:

[Booberdawg]

76. I interpreted those letters:

the first one as being against some aspects of the energy bill

the second letter being for it (looking at my cheat sheet on the legislation - the part about transferring federally owned transmissions to privately owned RTO's) Kennedy signed this letter????

[bigtree]

77. I see the contradictions working their way around these issues

of deregulation.

Industry says throw out the baby, opponents say save the bathwater. :shrug:

[Lorien]

78. kick

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

79. A article against deregulation, other groups against it, and a map

Forum on the blackout: The demon of deregulation

Don't give more freedom to those who have already demonstrated an uncontrollable urge to game regulators and manipulate markets, says David Hughes

Sunday, August 24, 2003

The recent blackout was bound to happen and more are coming. Now it should be clear that the U.S. grid is an antiquated hodgepodge of "arteries" owned by utilities that transport electricity from mostly inefficient, dirty and unsafe base load generating plants to buildings that only waste energy.

This Third World system could have been transformed a long time ago were it not for powerful coal and nuclear interests that use all their might to slow the inevitable change to a 21st-century distributed, renewable energy system that does not rely on 20th-century technology; a technology that is vulnerable to everything from storms and computer glitches to foreign supply/price fluctuations and terrorism.

The solution to our energy problems, however, is not just a matter of building a new national transmission grid. There is a bigger and more long-term issue the American people must understand.

The U.S. nuclear power debacle, where regulators let utilities charge ratepayers for tens of billions of dollars in construction cost overruns, prepared the ground for the free marketeers and their errand boy, George Bush Sr., to deregulate the wholesale electricity industry. Once Bush Sr. signed the Energy Security Act in the last month of his presidency, the big boys, in particular Bush pal Kenneth Lay of Enron, began the campaign to deregulate retail generation markets.


more


A few more consumer groups that oppose deregulation/energy bill

Energy Justice

Consumer Union

Citizen Power


A map of electric industry restructuring in each state.

[T Roosevelt]

81. Here's an analogy that comes to mind (from reading the Dummy article)

Check me on this...

Seems that a holding company with a utility would be similar to an insurance company:

- the insurance company has a constant incoming stream of money from premiums (similar to utility rate payers)

- the insurance company takes its monies and invests in the market

- in order to maintain a constant or increasing earnings per share (EPS), if the market goes down (they lose money), they raise their premiums (similar to what's going on in the industry today)

- along similar lines, if the holding company loses money in the market, they can raise utility rates to make up for them and maintain EPS

- since rates are unregulated, there is no way to prevent them from gouging their customers (unlike insurance where people can change providers)

This is why holding companies can't have other companies along with utilities.

[bigtree]

82. good info

:kick:

[salin]

83. Same scenario - but bigger risk than in the market

try this:

Insurance companies have a set/guaranteed income (if all had to use that insurance company - so that the same amount of income would keep coming (no competition) - regardless of rate hikes).

They buy up risky subsidiaries (direct investment not market) - say some hi-tech in 1999.

Several investments loose the parent company billions.

The parent (insurance) company - in essence used its safe income to back very risky investments.

A) They hike the insurance rate (again presume insurees can't go elsewhere);

and B) they sell off assetts in some of their divisions (eg computer infrastructure to process claims) so that services degrade.

So insurees who are hostage (they have to buy the insurance) have to pay more (to cover the failed investments of the parent company); and have degraded service.


Remember - even in a 'deregulated system' the consumer (individual, citizen rate payer) does not have the ability to shop around. The delivery systems (wire transmissions) make this impossible. Only big electric users (eg in the bay area this might be the huge wind tunnell used to test airplanes) - have the ability to do direct bidding for long-term contracts. The local electric companies are the ones who buy the 'competitive' contracts from wholesalers.

Thing is - without PUHCA - which oversees via SEC the holdings of that company (what they own and who owns them) there is nothing to prevent the local company from owning or being owned in part (or whole) buy a wholesaler who then is deemed to have 'the best market price' even if it is a jacked up price. THis system gives NO incentive for the businesses/utility companies to find the best rate for consumers. The consumers are incidental. We saw that in California - (and, perhaps ORegon) where some of the local utilities participated in the gaming with Enron. Also several ENRON controlled companies (esp Thomas White's EES) sold long-term contracts using providers that were also enron and were at higher rates than other companies (the one and only hearing on the hill where WHITE had to come and answer senators - detailed this clearly - I think with Senator Dorgan presenting the evidence).

[kimchi]

92. This is a good example.

I was getting confused with all the new information, and I'm still confused but I get the gist. I suggest a list somewhere with the acronyms and what each agency does. Concise, condensed, and easy to understand. Definitely need to use Enron in the example to show what happens without the correct oversight. How many pages does this need to be? I understand that this is going to groups, but can we have a lead page that could also be used stand-alone, like to give to people on the street?

BTW: Great job, and kick!

[oasis]

84. kick

[salin]

86. kick

[salin]

87. (not dereg) ... Canadian resistance to provision in energy bill

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/info/business/story.html?id=7A2EC3BC-2198-4C1E-AF10-7CEBAEC3EF80

U.S. unlikely to legislate natural gas floor price

Scott Haggett
CanWest News Service


Saturday, September 27, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


BANFF, Alta. -- Subsidies for a $20-billion US Alaskan natural gas pipeline may be part of a new U.S. national energy bill, but the head of that country's most important energy regulator says it's unlikely a controversial floor price for the gas will be enshrined into law.

Patrick Wood, head of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), told a Global Business Forum the current bill that's now working through the American legislative system may end up offering some incentives to Alaskan gas producers, but shouldn't feature the price supports contemplated in earlier versions of the bill.

Those provisions enraged Ottawa and Canadian gas producers, to the point that Energy Minister Herb Dhaliwal threatened to block the line's passage across the Yukon and Western Canada.

The Canadian gas producers were worried that their Alaskan rivals would be handed a financial advantage over them if gas prices fell below the target level.

more....

[salin]

89. new item on the fight around the FERC provision

FERC hosts meeting on grid groups on Monday
Reuters, 09.26.03, 4:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will host industry talks next week on how to untangle state objections to some utilities' decisions to join regional transmission grid groups.

The meeting comes at a critical time, with state hostility toward FERC's plan in the Southeast mirroring a fight in Congress over energy legislation likely to come to a head next week.

At the heart of the controversy is FERC's "standard market design" proposal, which FERC says will increase supplies and boost grid reliability.

more: http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/09/26/rtr1093070.html

Read this - describes the resistance by southern senators (including Lott!) - the deal/promise to delay (suggests it was White House that cut the deal, not Dominici which is how it has been presented elsewhere) - then lists a number of companies ($$$$$$ donors $$$$$$ who will be there). Very interesting.

[salin]

90. lots of new info kick

:kick:

[bigtree]

91. kick

[Mandate My Ass]

93. Dynegy and Exelon reps will be present

and the FERC chairman Wood was handpicked by Ken Lay. Wood absolved Lay of energy wrongdoing in Cali. If PUHCA is repealed, FERC will be the energy watchdog. Could this be a bailout for Exelon who is being sued by Raytheon?

Raytheon sues Exelon
8/30/2003
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/30/business_in_brief/
Lexington-based Raytheon Co. sued utility Exelon Corp. over an undisclosed amount of money owed for three Boston-area power plants in Weymouth and Everett it built for the company. The contracts have a fixed price of about $1.1 billion, according to documents filed in a Massachusetts court. The purpose of the lawsuit is "to make sure Raytheon will be paid for its work," spokesman James Fetig said. A spokesman for Chicago-based Exelon didn't immediately return calls. (Bloomberg)

http://www.thetip.org/art_Duke__Dynegy__Reliant__Bush_50_icle.html
Energy deregulation in most states was rhetorical cover for a massive bailout of the bad investments of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in nuclear power plants and so-called independent power producers, which are often different subsidiaries of the same parent holding companies. The total bill for this bailout if deregulation is carried through in all the states with nuclear power plants is estimated at $500 billion to $1 trillion, far surpassing the record-breaking savings and loan bailout.

On edit: It appears Exelon was present at tricky dick cheney's super secret energy meetings and is a heavy donor to repukes to the tune of $1 million, from 1999 until the election.

Here's some dirt on Dynegy from its role in Enron:

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=945

According to news reports, Dynegy used $1.5 billion from its part owner, ChevronTexaco(Condi's company), to provide liquidity to Enron after the merger was announced. Now, Dynegy says it plans to claim 100 percent of the equity in Northern Natural Gas, which was used as collateral for the transaction. BusinessWeek recently estimated the pipeline is worth $2.25 billion.

Although the pipeline subsidiary is saddled with debt and recent flat profits, the 16,500 miles of Northern’s pipeline will connect ChevronTexaco’s domestic natural gas production (ChevronTexaco controlled 15 percent of the nation’s natural gas production in 2000) and Dynegy’s electricity generation and power marketing capacity, providing unlimited profiteering opportunities.

"The Dynegy/Enron merger has not collapsed, because Dynegy has gotten the only thing it wanted all along: Enron’s natural gas pipelines," said Tyson Slocum, research director for Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program. "Now ChevronTexaco can connect the dots between its nearly three billion cubic feet of daily domestic natural gas production and Dynegy’s 23,500 megawatts of electricity generation, since two-thirds of its electricity is generated by natural gas. This synergy of collusion will create America’s largest vertically integrated energy company, enabling Dynegy to charge its customers higher prices for natural gas and electricity, and force its power generation competitors to pay monopolistic prices for natural gas."

[salin]

94. Great finds.

Wonder how so many of these companies got into so much financial trouble? Emulating the big Crooked E? And yet we are about to open our systems to them more- give them billions in tax breaks/credits, and trust them to be fair to we the rate payers.

[Mandate My Ass]

95. This is sickening

I wrote my reps to oppose this bill. Ha! Curt Weldon (R-Boeing) never met a taxpayer ripoff he didn't enthusiastically support. OY. :evilfrown:

[blm]

96. This is one of the issues I pointed out last Dec.

when everyone was on the Dump Lott kick.

I warned that Bush WANTED Lott out as majority speaker because of his opposition to deregulating electricity in the south.

[salin]

99. He seems to be relishing finding a 'new' kind of power

where they have to plea with him and deal with him rather than order him around.

Sadly, I think he likes the power and will deal. I don't count on him holding the line on this atrocity.

But it is interesting, isn't it. And - good call - I missed that (your explanation) last December.

[blm]

102. Well, you don't think Bush wanted Lott out because

he's a racist, do you? LOL.

I'm not sure what Lott will do at this time. He's been pushing back at them for so long, I think he may be serious about blocking it all the way. Look at the power he gave up already.

[Mandate My Ass]

97. Monday morning kick

this week is IT!! We must get the word out. Call your reps today to oppose this energy bill.

[Mandate My Ass]

98. The Energy Bill Gets Worse

The Energy Bill Gets Worse

Published: September 29, 2003

This country needs a purposeful long-term energy strategy that reduces its dependence on foreign oil and deals with climate change and all the other air-quality issues that are directly related to the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal. So how has Congress chosen to develop such a strategy? By passing two mediocre energy bills and then handing the task of reconciling them to Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Billy Tauzin, both reliable allies of the fossil fuel industry (although Mr. Domenici is also a big fan of nuclear power) and neither a visionary thinker. Since Labor Day, these two veteran deal makers have been cherry-picking provisions they like, discarding those they don't and for good measure infuriating their colleagues by adding new items of their own...

"This process is undemocratic even by Congress's clubby standards. Even worse is the almost certain outcome: a tired compendium of tax breaks and subsidies for energy producers leavened by a few gestures toward energy efficiency....

"Since the Democrats also benefit from this money, they are unlikely to do the honorable thing, which is to filibuster this bill into extinction."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/opinion/29MON1.html?ex=1065499200&en=964879105163fac0&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[salin]

100. see this thread

I have to leave - but I think this may be what we have to call for - and the leverage points to try to call for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=13761

[bigtree]

101. we can't count on the ranking democrat on the committee, Bingaman

He seems to be selling out on a number of fronts.
This bill looks like it might get out of committee.
If that happens, the Democrats in the Senate will have to fillibuster it.

Here's an excerpt from the ranking Democrat on the energy committee, Bingaman to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Energy Summit about the conference negotiations:
http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=187408

September 24, 2002

"...three of the biggest issues before the conference have been resolved.

-- The first issue is reauthorization of the Price-Anderson nuclear liability act, a key achievement if our future electricity supply picture is to have a strong nuclear component. Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of our electricity generation today, and we should allow for the development of new generations of designs for safer nuclear power plants.

-- The second major issue we have resolved deals with energy transportation–the enactment of strong pipeline safety legislation. This House-Senate compromise that we struck in conference will ensure that the oldest and most risky pipelines get priority attention and inspection, so that our overall pipeline system can enjoy increased public confidence.

-- The third major issue we have resolved involves the efficiency of energy end-use – the enactment of provisions to raise CAFE standards on light-duty trucks. Again, we have reached a House-Senate compromise that found the middle ground on a very divisive issue, although the overall contribution to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is nowhere near as much as I would have preferred.

The success of the conference in striking this balance is illustrated by the agreement that has been reached in 13 other areas that, while not as newsworthy as CAFE standards, are still important to our nation’s energy future."

These bipartisan agreements include the following:

-a major new clean coal R&D program;

-increased and streamlined energy development on Indian lands;

-streamlining the process of siting and building a major new gas pipeline from Alaska;

-permanently authorizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;

-provisions to facilitate the production of nuclear energy;

-new programs to promote rural and remote energy infrastructure

-increased funding for LIHEAP, State Energy Programs, and Weatherization;

-new standards and programs for energy efficiency that have been developed cooperatively with the affected industries;

-increased energy efficiency in public housing;

-studies and assessment on increasing our supply of renewable energy;

-directives to Federal agencies to take the lead in increasing the fuel economy of the automobiles they own; and

-programs to provide the next generation of scientists, engineers, and skilled workers for the energy needs of the country.

"Still ahead of us are a series of tough issues. Some are close to resolution, such as:"

-provisions to revitalize our energy research and development programs, so that the U.S. leads the world in new energy technologies; and

-programs to increase the use of alternative fuels in vehicles, to help counteract our growing dependence on foreign oil.

"Other major issues will require additional hard work to find consensus. One of the most difficult and controversial will be electricity reform, where we need to provide order and certainty to a key energy sector that is currently very troubled

Most Americans think that we aren’t doing enough to give renewable electricity generation a chance to contribute to our energy mix. Doing so would help us buy some insurance against future electricity price spikes.

The conference will also look for ways to stimulate our production of domestic oil and gas. My approach, and that of the Senate when it passed its version of the energy bill, has been to look to the other areas around the country where oil production is not controversial, including the major oil deposits in Alaska outside of the Arctic Refuge.

A final area in which I think the conference has a big opportunity to make a difference is in the area of climate change. ... the Administration has not shown much leadership or strategic vision."

"The progress in the energy conference so far has been good, and we are headed towards an overall conference report that I think will command broad bipartisan support."

"Chairman Tauzin and I are committed to trying to get an energy bill done in this Congress."


This rag is going to make it out of conference. We've got to get busy!

[salin]

103. No telling where he stands today - this item is from 2002 - different bill

pending. They are throwing in goodies for various people - but also have crammed in a lot of ugly industry goodies.

Bingamen was refering to a bill that ended up dying a year ago. Lets hope that it meets the same fate this time around.

[bigtree]

104. kinda spookily similar to this year's effort though

isn't it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. Kick!

It's GOOD!

[DemBones DemBones]

106. We need to keep this up on the first page so

here's a KICK :kick: :kick: :kick:

[kimchi]

107. Kick!

Alright, I admit, you've lost me. Is there supposed to be a packet involved here for organizations? Will it be paper or online? I'm missing something I think.

[bigtree]

108. Find salin's mailbox

Find out where she's going on this.
She posted a couple others on this issue.

[oasis]

109. kick

[bigtree]

110. Republican Conferees on Energy Bill Folding on FERC

Wednesday, October 1
http://www.slb.com/ba.cfm?baid=4&storyid=607946

The wide-ranging Energy legislation is also expected to include billions of dollars in incentives for oil and gas drilling, coal-fired power plants, nuclear energy and ethanol-blended motor fuel.

Senate Energy bill negotiators appeared to be softening their insistence on barring FERC from proceeding with any of its standard market design rules until the end of 2006.

The FERC last year proposed a set of rules that would require utilities to combine their grids into super-regional networks operated by independent third parties. FERC envisioned the regional grids as a way to promote competition and police market abuses.

A tentative electricity section of the energy bill could include a "savings clause" that would exempt regions that object to FERC's plan - mainly the Southeast, Lott said. Lott and Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama are among those that have attacked FERC's plan as a federal power grab and a threat to the region's cheap power supplies. Lott said Mississippi has seen a construction boom for power plants and transmission lines, which out-of-state companies want to use to sap his state's cheap power.

To convince Shelby and other Southern senators to support a Democrat-written energy bill in July, the Bush administration agreed to support a delay in FERC's plan until the end of 2006.

Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, Domenici's House counterpart, has indicated that he supports allowing FERC to proceed with a limited, voluntary version of its rules. Tauzin on Tuesday said he is closing in on a deal with Domenici on the FERC plan, but refused to elaborate. Republicans could release their electricity plan later on Tuesday, he said.