Please see the following articles:

Sac Bee, Thurs, 3/29:  "State seeks more money for power buys"
Updated, 4:41pm

Sac Bee, Fri, 3/30:  "Guess again: Rate hike impact underestimated"

Sac Bee, Fri, 3/30:  "Bush says energy is paramount concern"

San Diego Union, Thurs, 3/29:  "California pulls out the stops to attract 
power plants"
San Diego Union, Thurs, 3/29: " California utility must say where blackouts 
will happen" 

LA Times, Fri, 3/30:  "Raft of Bills Aimed at Energy Conservation"

LA Times, Fri, 3/30:  "2 Firms Start Repaying State for Power Buys" 

LA Times, Fri, 3/30:  "Ads Support Davis Actions, Legislature in Power Crisis 
"

LA Times, Fri, 3/30:  "Take-Charge Governor Forfeits on Energy "              
  (Commentary)

SF Chron, Fri, 3/30:  "Blackout Warnings For Police 
PG&E giving notice to ease traffic jams "

SF Chron, Fri, 3/30:  "Energy Crisis Dogs State Democrats 
Conventioneers likely to discuss Davis' troubles "

SF Chron, Fri, 3/30:  "Canada seeks to grab bigger role as U.S. energy 
supplier "

Mercury News, Thurs, 3/29:  "Police unsure how to enforce lights-out rule"

Mercury News, Fri, 3/30:  "PG&E ordered to share details about blackouts"

Mercury News, Fri, 3/30:  "We need power -- in our back yard "

Orange County, Fri, 3/30:  " 'Interruptible' penalites may be revived"

Orange County, Fri, 3/30:  "2 cities to be warned if blackout is imminent"

Individual.com, Fri, 3/30:  "Energy crisis could cost billions, says 
California's controller"

Individual.com, Fri, 3/30:  "[B] FULL/ Edison Intl unit pays $43.5 mln to 
water resources dept"

Individual.com, Fri, 3/30:  "EPRIsolutions Tackles California Power Problems"


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

State seeks more money for power buys


Updated: March 29, 2001 - 4:41 p.m. 
Gov. Gray Davis on Thursday asked lawmakers to approve spending $500 million 
more to buy power for two struggling utilities as Republicans escalated their 
criticism of the Democrat's handling of the energy crisis. 

Davis' request, expected to win approval from the Legislature's majority 
Democrats, would bring the state's power purchases on behalf of credit-poor 
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric to $4.7 billion since 
the buying started in early January. 

Both utilities said they are starting to pay the state back for the previous 
power purchases, complying with an order Tuesday by the state Public 
Utilities Commission. 

Edison paid the state $43 million and PG&E paid $65.2 million for power 
purchased by the state in January and February. 

Republicans stepped up their criticism of Davis and his fellow Democrats 
during an Assembly session Thursday morning. 

It was the first legislative session since Assembly Republicans chose a new 
minority leader this week, Assemblyman Dave Cox of Fair Oaks, who pledged to 
take a harder line on energy negotiations. 

Assemblyman Jay La Suer, R-La Mesa, ridiculed Davis' offer of 20 percent rate 
cuts for consumers who cut their electricity use 20 percent from last summer. 

"My people can't save 20 percent. They've already cut to the bone," La Suer 
said. 

He and others blamed Davis for record rate increases of up to 46 percent the 
PUC ordered this week for Edison and PG&E customers. 

Republicans noted that the PUC is dominated by Davis appointees. Davis has 
denied any influence and criticized the rate hike as premature. 

Eleven Assembly Republicans filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court 
asking the court to order Davis to provide more details on the state's power 
purchases, saying they need the information for state budget decisions. 

"Governor Davis has an information gray-out," said Assemblyman Tony 
Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, who led the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit, similar to one filed last week by The Associated Press and 
several newspapers, seeks details on long-term power contracts the state has 
signed and the short-term purchases it is making for Edison and PG&E 
customers. 

Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio accused Republicans of engaging in political 
"bomb-throwing and obstructionism," saying the information they want to make 
public would help power suppliers get higher prices from the state. 

He joined Assembly Democrats in accusing the Republican Bush administration 
and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of not doing enough to rein in 
soaring wholesale electricity costs. 

"When are we going to realize that we've gotten FERCed?" quipped 
Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, D-Davis. 

She said Californians are hearing "a giant sucking sound" as their electric 
payments flow to out-of-state electricity generators. 

Maviglio said the crisis is the product of the 1996 deregulation law signed 
by then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. 

"To think Governor Davis can clean up this mess in a matter of months is just 
ludicrous," Maviglio said. 

Cox invited Davis to attend a GOP caucus to discuss energy. Davis spent two 
hours briefing Democrats on Wednesday. 

Also Thursday, the Assembly resumed hearings in its investigation into 
California's highest-in-the-nation natural gas prices. 

Southern California Gas Co. Vice President Rick Morrow vehemently denied 
allegations in a Los Angeles lawsuit that his company conspired with El Paso 
Gas Co. at a 1996 hotel meeting to drive up California natural gas prices. 

"That allegation is absolutely absurd," Morrow told two Assembly 
subcommittees investigating the gas price-spike. 

The companies are defendants in a lawsuit filed last week by the city of Los 
Angeles. 

Chris Garner, director of Long Beach Energy, said the spike has cost his 
customers between $25 million and $30 million. Long Beach gas prices are tied 
to the cost of gas at the California border, which peaked this winter with 
costs up to six times as high as in neighboring states. 

California has struggled with soaring natural gas prices, rising electricity 
costs and a tight power supply for months. 

The state was under a Stage 1 power alert Thursday, with reserves approaching 
7 percent.

-- Associated Press
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Guess again: Rate hike impact underestimated
By Carrie Peyton
Bee Staff Writer
(Published March 30, 2001) 
Whoops. 
More Californians than anyone first guessed will probably see their electric 
bills go up within weeks. 
They will be feeling the brunt of price increases that utility regulators 
said Thursday will soon give California the highest electric rates in the 
continental United States. 
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District 
have revised their projections about how many customers will probably be 
paying higher prices for electricity in May. 
For PG&E, hundreds of thousands more households could be affected, and for 
SMUD, a proposed surcharge could hit every one of its 525,000 ratepayers. 
PG&E, which in January told lawmakers that pending legislation would protect 
42 percent of its residential customers from rate hikes, now says that 69 
percent will face an increase. 
The shifting numbers are "amazing," said Paul Clanon, energy division 
director at the state Public Utilities Commission. "We're still trying to get 
to the bottom of it." 
The PUC said PG&E and Southern California Edison had told it that more than 
40 percent of their residential customers would feel no impact from rate 
hikes if the PUC followed a state law passed in February. That law required 
rates to stay level for thrifty households -- those that use less than 130 
percent of baseline amounts. 
"Those were estimates. Now we've had more time to refine the estimates," PG&E 
spokesman John Nelson said Thursday. 
While only 31 percent of PG&E's 4.6 million customers use less than 130 
percent of the baseline amounts, another 13 percent use a little more. They 
would escape higher rates if they conserve by 5 percent, he said. 
Edison said Thursday it still believes about 45 percent of its residential 
customers will feel no rate hikes. 
"We don't have any reason to believe there is a problem with our numbers," 
company spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow said. 
Wall Street and power sellers have consistently hammered California for 
charging too little. But the rate hikes approved this week by the PUC will 
drive average power costs statewide to about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, the 
California Energy Commission estimated Thursday. 
With that, California will surpass New York, at 11.2 cents and holding, and 
New Hampshire, which is at 11.6 cents but about to drop, according to utility 
regulators in those states. Except for Hawaii, at 13.9 cents, no other state 
comes close to California's new rate, according to October statistics 
complied by the federal Energy Information Administration. 
"If there was any doubt in any state's mind that the California deregulation 
experiment was an ugly one, this should remove that," said Michael Shames, 
head of the Utility Consumers Action Network. 
California rates had been among the 10 highest in America when big businesses 
began calling for deregulation, saying it would force prices down, he said. 
The high wholesale power costs that are driving PG&E and Edison rates up also 
continue to eat away at SMUD. 
The ratepayer-owned utility district has concluded that rainfall this year 
was so light that every SMUD customer should have to pay a special surcharge, 
which it estimates will add $2 a month to a typical household electric bill. 
That will come on top of a $5 monthly "customer charge" to be added to every 
standard household bill. Low-income households will see a $3 customer charge. 
SMUD directors won't vote on a proposed hike until next month, but when the 
plan was first unveiled, the utility estimated about 70 percent of households 
use so little power that they would face no increase. Later, it said only 
half the households would see no hike. 
And now, SMUD officials are proposing that every customer pay roughly an 
extra 3 percent for the next year -- one-quarter cent for every kilowatt-hour 
they use -- because power production will dwindle at its hydroelectric plants 
on the upper American River. 
That decision came "about when I was able to go out and play tennis for the 
third weekend in a row in March," said Jim Tracy, SMUD planning director, 
referring to the unusually dry month. The surcharge will raise about $24 
million and should expire in 12 months, he said. 
Altogether, SMUD is now forecasting that an average household bill of $67 
would increase to $78 beginning in May. 
If the current rate proposals are approved by directors at their April 19 
meeting, even those with small SMUD bills who do everything they can to 
conserve would pay at least an extra $3 to $5 per month, and probably more. 
"I'm comfortable with that," said SMUD board President Larry Carr. "There is 
a cost associated with serving each customer, (even) if they never turn on 
their electricity." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Bush says energy is paramount concern

Bee Staff and News Services
(Published March 30, 2001) 
WASHINGTON -- Declaring that "we are now in an energy crisis," President Bush 
on Thursday defended his decision to roll back environmental measures 
proposed by the Clinton administration and to reject a treaty designed to 
inhibit global warming. 
"I'm worried about the economy; I'm worried about the lack of an energy 
policy; I'm worried about rolling blackouts in California," he said. "It's in 
our national interests that we develop a strong energy policy with realistic, 
common-sense environmental policy." 
The administration's rebuff of the international agreement on climate change, 
a centerpiece of the Clinton administration's environmental agenda, brought 
sharp criticism from European countries, environmentalists and church groups. 
Negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement has not been ratified by 
the Senate. International efforts last November to work out issues 
surrounding the treaty failed because of a rift between the United States and 
Europe. 
On another environmental matter, the president conceded for the first time 
that he may not be able to persuade Congress to open the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. 
"I think it's important for us to open up ANWR. Whether or not the Congress 
sees it that way is another matter," Bush said. 
"I think it would be a mistake not to," he added. "We've got a shortage of 
energy in America. It doesn't matter to me where the gas comes from in the 
long run, so long as we get gas moving into the country." 
He also said he expects to tighten the arsenic standard for drinking water, 
but won't do so until further scientific studies are completed. Bush recently 
withdrew new arsenic regulations issued by the Clinton administration. 
Bush said he remains open-minded and willing to consult with other nations on 
how to address climate change, but he made clear that the mandatory 
greenhouse-gas reductions stipulated in the Kyoto accord were off the table. 
"We will not do anything that harms our economy," declared Bush, again citing 
concerns about soaring natural gas prices and power shortages in the West. 
"We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases. But I will not 
accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers," said 
Bush. 
Later, he expressed a similar view in a meeting with German Chancellor 
Gerhard Schroeder, who told reporters afterward that he continues to hope the 
United States would participate in climate negotiations scheduled this summer 
in Bonn, Germany. 
"We agreed on practically everything, except ... the Kyoto protocol," 
Schroeder told reporters during a joint press conference with Bush, 
acknowledging the issue had put some strain on U.S.-German relations. 
Response has been more heated in other foreign capitals. 
"This isn't some marginal environmental issue to be ignored or played down," 
said Margot Wallstroem, the European Union's environmental minister, at a 
news conference in Brussels, Belgium. 
She left open the possibility of retaliation against the United States. 
British Environmental Minister Michael Meacher called Bush's views 
"exceptionally serious," while Sweden's environmental minister, Kjell 
Larsson, said Bush's plan "sabotages many years of hard work" on one of the 
world's most pressing environmental concerns. 
Criticism also came Thursday from a broad coalition of U.S. religious groups. 
Alarmed by Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto treaty, they urged the 
president to reconsider his approach or risk alienating a growing faith-based 
movement committed to protecting the environment. 
Leaders of the inter-denominational groups challenged Bush's decision on 
religious and moral grounds as well as on scientific evidence that Earth's 
temperature is rising and could trigger catastrophic climate and weather 
changes. 
"If credible evidence exists to indicate our present course could threaten 
the quality of life for God's creation and God's children, this becomes an 
issue of paramount moral concern," the leaders said in a letter to Bush. 
The letter from seven religious leaders is significant because of the 
influence faith-based groups are exercising on the Bush administration and on 
Republican congressional leaders. Last year, for example, GOP leaders dropped 
their opposition to a Clinton administration plan to write off loans to 30 of 
the world's poorest countries under pressure from Pope John Paul II and an 
international network of religious groups. 
The letter to Bush was signed by leaders of the National Council of Churches 
of Christ in the USA, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the African 
Methodist Episcopal Church, the Metropolitan Orthodox Church in America and 
the Jewish Theological Seminary. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs wrote 
separately to voice its concerns. 
The Kyoto agreement calls on industrial countries to cut greenhouse 
emissions, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, to below 1990 
levels by 2012. Critics have argued that would mean dramatic and costly 
changes in how the United States generates energy. 
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, attending a meeting of environmental 
ministers in Montreal, said Thursday that while the Kyoto accord is "deeply 
flawed," the president remains "absolutely committed" to being fully engaged 
with the international community on the issue. 
Muriel Dobbin of The Bee Washington Bureau, the Associated Press and the 
Washington Post contributed to this report. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------


California pulls out the stops to attract power plants 




By Don Thompson
ASSOCIATED PRESS 
March 29, 2001 
SACRAMENTO ) California has jettisoned its normal air and water pollution 
controls in a desperate dash to build enough power plants to keep the lights 
on this summer. 
With little notice, communities could soon find themselves home to small 
"peaking plants" ) typically natural gas-fired jet engines built on concrete 
pads that will roar into use when power supplies run low. 
Generators that promise to provide power by the end of summer can skip usual 
environmental restrictions and reviews, win permit approval in days instead 
of months, and qualify for low-interest state loans and $30 million in 
bonuses. 
So many developers are eager to take advantage of the temporary shortcuts 
that state regulators are inviting them to workshops around the state 
featuring refreshments and promises of quick approval. 
"Believe it or not, government's here to help you," Christine Kinne, the 
California Environmental Protection Agency's assistant secretary for permit 
assistance, told several hundred developers who attended a recent workshop in 
Sacramento. 
Gov. Gray Davis wants to attract enough peaking plants ) which typically 
produce 50 megawatts or less each ) to gain 1,000 megawatts this summer. 
That's enough power for roughly 750,000 homes. 
Some Californians question whether the benefits of swift plant approval are 
worth what they see as potential long-term costs. 
Carl Zichella of the Sierra Club said regulators should take time to consider 
the impact on water and air quality, the state's growing population, and 
danger from earthquakes. 
"These are certainly things we need to think about before we start plopping 
power plants across the landscape," said Zichella, the group's regional 
director. "People are going to suffer if we relax these standards." 
The American Lung Association of California and others want lawmakers to 
encourage the use of renewable energy and conservation rather than relax 
environmental standards to build new power plants. 
"We can't afford to relax our air quality regulations and our public health 
standards," said Paul Knepprath, the Lung Association's vice president for 
government relations. 
California is struggling with a tight power supply caused in part by scarce 
hydroelectricity in the Pacific Northwest, high natural gas prices, 
California plant shutdowns for maintenance, and construction of few plants in 
the state over the past decade. 
The state has had widespread blackouts four times this year, including twice 
last week. 
Power regulators fear rolling blackouts will become common this summer, when 
demand rises sharply as Californians crank their air conditioners. 
To try to get new power plants online, regulators are crunching what once 
were yearlong reviews into as little as 21 days for peaker plants and four 
months for larger facilities. 
The environmental portion of the reviews for peaker plants now takes just 
seven days, and the normal requirements of the California Environmental 
Quality Act have been lifted by Davis under an emergency order. 
Davis originally said only generators that have new plants online by July 31 
could take advantage of the speedy review. He moved the deadline to Sept. 30 
because few could meet the earlier one, said Roger Johnson, siting office 
manager for the California Energy Commission. 
Winston Hickox, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, 
said state officials are "biting our fingernails about whether we can make 
it," but still hope to have enough electricity this summer. 
"We're truncating the process. We're being as user-friendly to producers of 
new energy as we can, but we are not abandoning our standards," said Hickox, 
whose role has shifted from environmental watchdog to "permitting czar" at 
Davis' direction. 
Under the previous process, the state Energy Commission took a full year and 
held 13 public hearings before granting a license to Riverside County's 
Blythe Energy power plant. Residents were given at least 10 days' notice of 
hearings through newspaper ads. 
Under the accelerated review, communities can get as little as three days' 
notice of public hearings on plant proposals. 
San Diego news media were told on a Monday that there would be a single 
public hearing, three days later, on the proposed Larkspur Energy peaking 
plant. The commission posted the hearing on its Web site, but otherwise 
counted on the media to let residents know. 
The California Air Resources Board says it will overrule local air quality 
boards that take too long to grant permits and air pollution waivers. 
Davis used an executive order to remove restrictions on when peaker plants 
can run so the state can call on them as needed, day or night. 
The plants also will be allowed to exceed pollution standards by buying 
"emissions credits" ) $6,000 per ton of pollutants, which buys them a waiver 
for three years. The ARB says the plants could emit a combined 3 to 10 tons 
of smog-producing nitrogen oxide each day, triggering complaints from the 
Lung Association that children and the elderly will suffer. 
Davis also ordered the state Water Resources Control Board to remove limits 
on heated power plant discharge water that would prevent the plants from 
operating. 
The state will buy the natural gas to fire up peaking plants, and guarantee 
owners a "reasonable profit" on their plants' operation, said Viju Patel, 
executive manager of the Department of Water Resources. The state will save 
money with long-term gas contracts, he said, while saving operators the risk 
of fluctuating gas prices. 
The peaking plants likely to be approved most swiftly are ones without 
apparent social or environmental problems, the Energy Commission's Johnson 
said. 
"It can't go in next to a school or hospital," Johnson said. 
The best sites are polluted commercial land with a gasline and a transmission 
station next door, he said. 
The Sierra Club's Zichella predicts many of the plants will be built in poor 
industrial communities. 
"These peaking plants aren't going to be built on Nob Hill," he said. "These 
communities need to have a say in what's going to affect their air 
pollution." 
Seyed Sadredin, permit director for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 
Control District, said the gas turbines are 200 to 300 percent cleaner than 
similar-sized diesel generators. 
Engineers have found ways to cut the noise and vibration below that of a jet 
engine mounted on an airplane, though "it's not something you can put in your 
backyard and sleep at night," he said. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----


Raft of Bills Aimed at Energy Conservation 

Power: Lawmakers propose everything from loans for schools to free insulation 
in bid to reduce consumption this summer. 

By JENIFER WARREN and CARL INGRAM, Times Staff Writers 

?????SACRAMENTO--In their quest to cut energy use so Californians can keep 
their ovens and air-conditioners humming this summer, state officials have 
turned to a time-tested strategy: the good ol' carrot and stick.
?????The Public Utilities Commission took care of the stick earlier this 
week, approving a record increase in electricity rates. Now the Legislature 
is working feverishly on the carrot.
?????More than 190 bills springing from the power crisis are buzzing around 
the Capitol, and a good number aim to coax or bribe us onto a low-watt diet. 
If we resist, state forecasters warn, summer blackouts are inevitable.
?????To ease the pain, lawmakers are proposing loans, tax credits, 
refrigerator rebates, free insulation for low-income homeowners--even $40 
million for a "mobile efficiency brigade" to deliver power-saving lightbulbs 
to poor people and businesses.
?????Some measures had been stalled as legislators focused on the financial 
crisis afflicting the state's debt-ridden private utilities, which say they 
are on the verge of bankruptcy. But the rate increase stabilized the 
financial outlook a bit, and now the focus is back on Sacramento.
?????Displaying newfound pep, lawmakers are shaping and blending bills in 
hopes that the governor can sign them by the end of next week--which also 
marks the start of the Legislature's spring break.
?????Energy specialists say there is not a moment to spare. Last week--a time 
when temperatures were mild and energy demand was half that of summer--the 
state suffered back-to-back blackouts. Hot weather is fast approaching, and 
some conservation measures take time to put in place and sell to consumers.
?????One estimate by the California Energy Commission says that for every day 
the Legislature delays passage of the biggest conservation bill--the sweeping 
SB 5X--the state misses the chance to save 20 megawatts of energy, enough to 
power about 15,000 homes.
?????"It's extremely urgent," said the bill's author, state Sen. Byron Sher 
(D-Stanford). "All the experts agree that reducing demand through 
conservation is the least expensive, most effective way we can get control 
quickly over the energy market."
?????While the conservation measures are the priority, dozens of other bills 
addressing some dimension of the energy mess are piling up.
?????One assemblyman wants to make looting during blackouts a crime, and 
require that law enforcement officials get a warning before blackouts are 
ordered. Another bill would expedite the approval process for new power 
plants.
?????Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) wants to ensure that 
operators of new California power plants are forced to offer their 
electricity for sale within the state before marketing it elsewhere.
?????"This is about giving California the right of first refusal," Hertzberg 
said before his Assembly colleagues approved the bill, AB 60X, and sent it to 
the Senate. Without such a requirement, Hertzberg said, California would 
suffer air pollution and other costs of hosting plants but reap no benefit.
?????That theme--giving California more control over the power supply--also 
runs through a measure sponsored by Senate leader John Burton (D-San 
Francisco). His bill, SB 6X, would put the state in the business of building, 
financing, acquiring and owning its own power plants.
?????Burton says the bill would enable California to control its own "energy 
destiny," as other states do, including New York. But Republicans warn that 
it would create a vast new bureaucracy and say that making and selling power 
is best done by private industry.
?????Burton's bill has passed the Senate and awaits action in the Assembly. 
But next week's priority, legislators say, will be passing two gargantuan 
conservation bills considered vital to helping California survive summer 
without widespread power outages.
?????Analysts say the bills--Sher's and a measure by Assemblywoman Christine 
Kehoe (D-San Diego)--would allocate about $1 billion to programs that could 
reduce summer demand by as much as 4,000 megawatts--the equivalent of what 
eight average-size power plants produce.
?????Forecasts of a summer power shortfall range from 2,500 to 5,000 
megawatts, said Ralph Cavanagh, an energy expert for the Natural Resources 
Defense Council: "So these bills could really be decisive."
?????And although $1 billion may seem like a sizable investment for appliance 
rebates, home weatherization, free lightbulbs and other conservation 
measures, it's peanuts compared to the exorbitant price--close to $4 billion 
in the last three months--the state is paying to buy energy on the spot 
market, Cavanagh said.
?????Experts say the conservation proposals--many of which Gov. Gray Davis 
made in February--have a good chance of success because they build on 
existing programs with track records. While there are "probably lots of 
great, innovative new ideas out there, we stuck with proven programs because 
we need certainty for this summer," said Claudia Chandler, assistant 
executive director of the California Energy Commission, headquarters for many 
of the conservation efforts.
?????Cavanagh said the two bills, if signed by Davis, would roughly double 
what California has been spending on conservation. A spokesman for Davis said 
the governor would support the $500-million worth of programs he proposed in 
February, but could not predict the fate of the other $500-million worth of 
proposals likely to arrive on his desk.
?????"As the governor has said, conservation is our ace in the hole and a 
powerful tool to help us avoid blackouts," said the spokesman, Roger Salazar. 
"We think the half-billion dollars in proposals the governor has put forth 
are prudent and will help us get through summer."
?????Among the proposals in pending legislation are:
?????* $280 million to help low-income families with everything from paying 
their energy bills to installing insulation, double-paned windows and 
efficient air-conditioners. 
?????* $170 million to help businesses install power-saving lighting and 
air-conditioning systems.
?????* $15 million for energy-efficient traffic signals.
?????* $7 million for a school-based campaign, tentatively called "Kids 
Count," to teach children about energy conservation.
?????* $25 million in loans to schools to help them cut energy consumption.
?????* $10 million to the state Department of Consumer Affairs for a public 
outreach campaign about the need for conservation.
?????* $132 million in loans and rebates for residents and business owners 
who buy new appliances and air-conditioners or upgrade old systems.
--- 
?????Times staff writer Miguel Bustillo contributed to this story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
2 Firms Start Repaying State for Power Buys 

Electricity: Edison and PG&E give $105 million for energy supplied between 
Jan. 19 and Feb. 11. Also, a state agency predicts a 7% shortfall this 
summer. 

By MIGUEL BUSTILLO and JULIE TAMAKI, Times Staff Writers 

?????SACRAMENTO--For the first time since California began buying electricity 
in mid-January on behalf of the state's two biggest utilities, money is 
coming back to the state.
?????Under order by state regulators, Southern California Edison and Pacific 
Gas & Electric began making payments this week to reimburse the state for the 
billions it has spent on power. Edison paid $43.5 million and PG&E paid $61.8 
million for electricity supplied between Jan. 19 and Feb. 11, with more money 
on the way, officials said Thursday.
?????California taxpayers became the biggest buyers of power in the West 
after electricity suppliers began refusing to sell to the utilities, which 
had depleted their cash reserves and tarnished their credit ratings when the 
cost of electricity soared above their selling price last year.
?????Since then, the state has spent or appropriated $3.8 billion on behalf 
of the utilities, which together serve 24 million people. The repayments 
began Wednesday, the day after the state Public Utilities Commission approved 
consumer rate hikes of as much as 46%.
?????While the PUC action was intended to put the brakes on a runaway energy 
crisis, there were new signs of disarray Thursday.
?????A group of Republican lawmakers sued Gov. Gray Davis for keeping secret 
the details of long-term power contracts signed by the state.
?????One of the largest alternative power producers in the West went to court 
to suspend its contract with Edison.
?????And operators of the state's electricity grid predicted that in June, 
California could fall 7% short of the power it needs to avoid blackouts.
?????"California is facing an electricity shortage of unprecedented 
proportions," wrote the staff of the California Independent System Operator 
in an assessment of summer power supplies.
?????The court action against Edison came from Carson-based Watson 
Cogeneration Co., one of nearly 700 firms contracted to supply electricity to 
the state's private utilities. Watson filed a complaint in Los Angeles County 
Superior Court seeking to suspend its contract.
?????Watson has not been paid by Edison since November and is at least the 
third company seeking court release from its utility contract. One such firm, 
geothermal producer CalEnergy, was granted the right to sell its power on the 
open market.
?????Watson's complaint comes on the heels of an order by the PUC earlier 
this week that Edison and PG&E begin fully paying small alternative energy 
producers, which together supply more than a quarter of the electricity used 
by California consumers. Shutdowns by some of these small producers 
contributed to the state's blackouts last week.
?????Tom Lu, Watson's executive director, said the PUC order failed to 
provide the assurances his company needs that it will get paid. Many small 
producers have complained that the order slashes the rates that utilities 
must pay the producers to a level that makes it impossible for them to turn a 
profit.
?????"What we're looking for is the capability to be able to sell to a third 
party so that we can get paid for our power deliveries," Lu said.
?????Edison sent a letter to the small producers Thursday, promising to begin 
paying them by April 16 for power supplied in April. The utility added that 
it expects all the alternative generators that shut down their operations to 
resume deliveries by Sunday. 
?????The lawsuit filed by the GOP legislators demanding that Davis open the 
books on the state's long-term energy contracts came on the heels of a 
similar suit filed last week by a coalition of news organizations, including 
The Times.
?????Led by Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark), the suit argues that 
under the California Public Records Act, the details of the power buys should 
be made public.
?????Republican lawmakers, who plan to raise money to finance their suit, 
said Davis' withholding of the information prevented them from voting 
responsibly on the state budget and other important financial matters. 
California is spending between $45 million and $55 million a day on 
electricity on the expensive wholesale spot market.
?????"The governor is asking the people in this building to drive down a dark 
tunnel with the lights off," Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine) said in a 
news conference outside the Capitol.
?????Davis administration officials contend that release of the information 
now would jeopardize their efforts to enter into inexpensive, long-term 
contracts to purchase electricity because bidders would know what their 
counterparts were offering, and would not offer a lower price. They say they 
will release the information at a future date.
?????The administration position received a boost this week when Atty. Gen. 
Bill Lockyer issued a legal opinion saying that maintaining the integrity of 
power-buying negotiations outweighed public disclosure.
?????In other developments Thursday:
?????* U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met in Washington, D.C., with 
power suppliers to discuss ways to help California avert blackouts this 
summer.
?????Abraham asked the energy companies to prepare a list of potential 
problems, including maintenance schedules for generating units, that could 
reduce electricity supplies this summer, an administration official said.
?????* A state energy panel recommended the speedy restart of two gas-fired 
generators owned by AES Corp. in Huntington Beach, on several conditions. 
Power would have to be sold in California, and the company would have to pay 
$1 million for an independent study into whether its plant is causing ocean 
and beach pollution.
?????The generators could be online by July, according to California Energy 
Commission staff, but area residents would have to endure construction noise 
20 hours a day. The Energy Commission must still vote on the recommendations.
?????* An executive with Southern California Gas Co. adamantly denied 
explosive allegations, contained in a series of lawsuits, that it conspired 
with a Texas energy firm to limit natural gas deliveries to California.
?????Testifying before an Assembly oversight committee in Sacramento, Rick 
Morrow, a vice president with the gas company, said "there was absolutely no 
mystery" to a meeting at which several of Morrow's employees and 
representatives of El Paso Natural Gas Co. are alleged to have struck an 
anti-competitive deal.
?????The two companies are alleged to have violated the state's anti-trust 
law, and caused prices to spike, by agreeing not to compete with one another 
on pipeline projects that would have brought additional natural gas supplies 
into California.
?????Most power plants in California consume natural gas, and the cost of the 
fuel accounts for as much as 60% of the cost of electricity.
?????* In an analysis of summer power supplies, state grid operators forecast 
that imports to California from the Pacific Northwest will be halved because 
severe drought has stressed the region's ability to supply even its own needs 
from hydroelectric reservoirs.
?????The report, to be reviewed by the Cal-ISO board of governors today, 
warns that the state's most severe shortfall of power could occur in June, 
before several new power plants are expected to begin operation in July and 
August.
--- 
?????Times staff writers Richard Simon, Nancy Vogel and Christine Hanley 
contributed to this story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Ads Support Davis Actions, Legislature in Power Crisis 

By DAN MORAIN, Times Staff Writer 

?????SACRAMENTO--Backers of Gov. Gray Davis are airing radio ads saying the 
governor and Legislature are working hard to solve California's energy 
crisis, in what could be the beginnings of a campaign against an initiative 
that doesn't yet exist.
?????The ads, airing in Los Angeles and elsewhere, also offer a boost to 
Davis, at a time when private polls suggest voter skepticism that he is 
solving the energy crisis.
?????Backers of the ad campaign, funded with a relatively modest $100,000, 
say the spots were not intended to help the governor.
?????"The story here is that this group would like to see partisan politics 
stay out of it," said campaign consultant Rick Claussen of Goddard-Claussen, 
who specializes in initiative campaigns and produced the spots. "We need to 
keep people focused on the solutions."
?????Claussen said the group, called Energy for California, could become a 
political organization that would counter initiatives aimed at undoing 
whatever solution Davis and lawmakers come up with.
?????At least one and possibly more initiatives related to the energy crisis 
will probably be on statewide ballots in 2002. Consumer activist Harvey 
Rosenfield of Santa Monica, who has promoted several initiatives, says he is 
considering entering the fray.
?????"I'm flattered," Rosenfield said. "This has to be a first: an ad 
campaign against an initiative that hasn't been drafted."
?????The sponsoring group includes Silicon Valley venture capitalist John 
Doerr and entrepreneur Reed Hastings, both of whom have donated $25,000 to 
Davis' 2002 reelection effort and were major backers of an initiative that 
the governor promoted last year to ease approval of local school construction 
bonds.
?????Chris Townsend, who hosted a fund-raiser for Davis in Orange County 
earlier this year, also is involved, as is Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group 
director Carl Guardino, a Davis appointee to the California Independent 
System Operator, which oversees the state's power system.
?????The group also includes William Hauck of the California Business 
Roundtable and Daniel Case of the San Francisco investment bank Hambrecht and 
Quist.
?????The ads open with voices saying there is no crisis, then switch to an 
announcer who says the crisis is real and that "California faces even more 
energy shortages and blackouts this summer if we don't all do our part."
?????"Working together, we can have adequate supplies and a secure energy 
future. That's what Gov. Gray Davis, the Legislature, business and community 
leaders are working to do."
?????The ad refers to steps being taken in Sacramento, including "historic 
statewide conservation programs like the governor's 20/20 program." Although 
it is not final, that proposal promises to give people 20% rebates on the 
remainder of their electricity bills if they cut use by 20% between June and 
September.
?????"They're not political ads," said Garry South, Davis' chief political 
advisor, who was involved in the planning. "They don't say, 'Vote for Gray 
Davis.' They're about the energy crisis."
?????The ads are designed to "reassure people and calm people down," said 
Darry Sragow, a political consultant who works for the state Assembly's 
majority Democrats.
?????"It is a critical and dicey time for [Davis] politically," Sragow said. 
"It's not something from which he cannot recover. But he shouldn't be feeling 
comfortable."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Friday, March 30, 2001 
Take-Charge Governor Forfeits on Energy 
By DAN SCHNUR


?????Where was Gray Davis when the lights went out? 
?????Where was the governor when the rates went up, when the bonds to pay for 
electricity came up short, when the latest round of blackouts swept across 
California? 
?????He was doing what he does best. He was raising money for his reelection 
campaign. 
?????While Davis' hand-picked chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission, 
former campaign aide Loretta Lynch, was preparing to announce rate increases 
of up to 40% for some of California's energy consumers, the governor himself 
was busy hitting up lobbyists for campaign contributions at a Palm Springs 
golf tournament. In Gray's world, when the going gets tough, the tough go 
country-clubbing. 
?????When it became known that Lynch was considering approving a rate 
increase, Davis immediately tried to distance himself from her. Only a year 
ago, Davis had appointed Lynch, a San Francisco trial lawyer and longtime 
Democratic campaign staffer, as the state's top energy official. Throughout 
the crisis, his aides had been meeting with her on a regular basis, while 
portraying Davis himself as being the key player to all energy related 
deliberations. But when Lynch stepped up to take the heat, the governor was 
strangely passive and distant. 
?????"I can't order or direct an independent body," he told reporters. "I've 
not given any advice to them on the subject of a rate increase." 
?????For the last several months, Davis had made it clear that a rate boost 
was unacceptable. When the utilities requested an increase last fall, he 
publicly argued against it. In recent weeks, when state legislators and even 
his own advisors began to come to terms with the need for a rate hike, Davis 
said no. But as the crisis worsened, and the options narrowed, he grew 
silent. Suddenly Lynch, who is destined to go down in California political 
history as the Rose Bird of electricity, was in command. And Davis was a mere 
spectator. 
?????Where was the governor who announced in the first days of his 
administration that his appointees would not speak publicly or announce 
policy without his permission? Where was the governor who stated that it was 
the job of the independently elected state Legislature to implement his 
vision? The governor who claimed it was the responsibility of California's 
judges to reflect the views he expressed in his own election? The governor 
who has done everything but rip the tongues out of the mouths of advisors who 
have strayed even slightly from the company line? 
?????It's difficult for longtime Davis watchers to reconcile such autocratic 
tendencies with this new image of the governor tied to the political railroad 
tracks while the evil commissioners ignore his pleas for mercy. Yet when the 
full PUC prepared to vote on Lynch's proposal, Davis did not even attend the 
meeting. He did not, at least publicly, urge the commissioners to reject the 
rate hike. He certainly did not take to the airwaves calling for Californians 
to join him in opposition. He has therefore forfeited his right to rail 
against the fates when his own appointees go ahead and pass a rate increase. 
?????As Davis prepares to seek reelection, he already has about $28 million 
in the bank, and he has strong Democratic majorities in the state 
Legislature. But he also has a state full of voters who have just been told 
that their power bills are going to increase by thousands of dollars each 
year. 
?????What's a poor governor to do? 
?????When faced with angry voters, a political leader has two choices. He can 
talk to them honestly and directly, explain that difficult choices must be 
made and take responsibility for the course of action he has charted. Or he 
can blame their problems on someone else and go to the golf course with his 
contributors. 
?????Voters will forgive honest policy differences, especially if their 
leaders have the courage to confront them with difficult truths. They are 
much less likely to forgive politicians who can't, or won't, lead. 
?????If Davis continues to play the part of victim, Californians will look 
elsewhere for a genuine leader in 2002. 
- - -

Dan Schnur, Director of Communications During Gov. Pete Wilson's First Term, 
Is a Visiting Instructor at the Institute of Government Studies at Uc Berkeley
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackout Warnings For Police 
PG&E giving notice to ease traffic jams 
Bernadette Tansey, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 30, 2001 
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle 
URL: 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/30/M
N188438.DTL 
San Francisco authorities who have been caught flat-footed by rolling 
blackouts will get detailed information in advance from PG&E on which blocks 
will lose their lights during any future outages. 
Responding to San Francisco's plea for better notice to avoid dangerous 
traffic jams, Public Utilities Commissioner Carl Wood has ordered Pacific Gas 
and Electric Co. to share a map of its circuitry with the mayor's Office of 
Emergency Services. 
The information will help police officers find out more quickly which 
intersections will go dark. Traffic signal outages create backups and 
potential dangers to pedestrians and motorists, said Lucien Canton, director 
of emergency services. 
Police now get only sketchy information from PG&E about the blocks where 
power might go out, Canton said. 
"It's vague almost to the point of being useless," Canton said. "When the 
lights go out, we have to go looking for the intersections ourselves." 
In an order made public yesterday, Wood told PG&E to give as much advance 
warning as possible when outages are imminent. Wood also directed Southern 
California Edison to meet with Huntington Beach officials to work out a plan 
to address that city's request for such information. 
But Wood said he was not inclined to issue a global order for the utilities 
to provide detailed information on their circuits with all cities in their 
coverage areas. 
A broader notification plan may still be in the works, however. The 
Independent System Operator, which runs the state's grid, will consider a 
proposal today for an "e-notification" system to help customers and 
businesses prepare before the lights go out. 
Under the plan by Carl Guardino, a member of the ISO's governing board and 
president of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, utility customers and 
public agencies that wanted the warnings could submit their e-mail addresses 
to the ISO. The ISO would advise them whenever a blackout was possible that 
day and identify the outage blocks that would be affected. 
PG&E has been reluctant to publicize the exact borders of rolling outage 
blocks, saying it was concerned that criminals would head to an area where 
they knew the power was going to go out. 
To limit the number of people who learn about the outages, Wood told PG&E to 
submit the block information to the PUC. The commission will then transmit it 
to the San Francisco emergency services division, with strict limits on its 
distribution. 
The utility must also tell city officials which essential customers, such as 
hospitals, are exempt from rolling blackouts and which are not. Canton said 
that list will help the city handle emergencies at nonexempt sites and to 
push exemptions for services that now could lose power. 
PG&E spokesman John Nelson said the utility will comply with any order the 
commission issues. 
But he said PG&E does not have circuit maps down to the level of specific 
intersections. 
"Those maps could be developed," Nelson said. "It would certainly be very 
labor intensive." 
The outage blocks are also constantly changing, he said, and are modified to 
take into account different usage patterns between summer and winter. 
Providing detailed circuit maps to all California cities would be "a most 
involved undertaking," Nelson said. 
PG&E serves 49 of California's 58 counties, including hundreds of cities. 
Nelson said PG&E alerts cities to the possibility of outages as soon as 
possible, but often gets little advance warning itself from the ISO. 
The utility has also taken flak from cities that were warned of a possible 
outage, only to have it averted by last-minute power purchases. Some cities 
have threatened to sue PG&E for the extra cost of sending out public safety 
officers who proved not to be needed, Nelson said. 
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 21 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Energy Crisis Dogs State Democrats 
Conventioneers likely to discuss Davis' troubles 
Carla Marinucci, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers
Friday, March 30, 2001 
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle 
URL: 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/30/M
N74478.DTL 
It has been this kind of month for Gov. Gray Davis: Seeking to welcome 
Democratic delegates to the annual state convention this weekend, he 
announced a "Hollywood pictures"-style shindig at the new Disney California 
Adventure theme park. Then, Disney announced 4,000 layoffs. 
In California, where residents are enduring rolling blackouts and whopping 
energy bill increases, Davis and Democrats are hoping for a break -- and 
better luck -- as they gather in Anaheim, Orange County, to plan for two 
brutal years of electioneering ahead. 
The Democrats' goal is to develop strategies that help them contain the 
energy crisis, showcase national party leaders like House Minority Leader 
Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Democratic National Committee Chair Terry 
McAuliffe and pump up the party faithful for coming campaigns. 
But the three-day convention that begins today will spotlight Davis, whose 
political problems have prompted reporters to reach for such "Jaws"-like 
descriptions as "sharks circling" and "blood in the water." 
THE POLITICS OF POWER OUTAGES
The convention will give the governor the chance to beat back the growing 
perception that he is increasingly vulnerable to power outages and political 
turmoil: He is scheduled to deliver tomorrow his first major address since 
Californians learned their energy bills will be hiked as much as 46 percent. 
But Davis, while still high on the list of Democratic 2004 presidential 
prospects, faces challenges on a variety of fronts. Consumer groups are 
howling, TV pundits are criticizing, and some of his party faithful have 
begun backbiting -- albeit still mostly off the record -- about his cautious 
handling of the energy situation. 
"This is going to be a difficult several months for Gray Davis," said author 
Mark Baldassare, a pollster for the San Francisco-based Public Policy 
Institute of California. Besides energy woes, a worsening economy and dot-com 
collapses have "dramatically" changed the political landscape, "and this has 
given a lot of people second thoughts about whether there's an opportunity to 
make a run against Davis," Baldassare said. 
Davis' problems, however, are coming at a high point for California 
Democrats. Unlike state Republicans, who have been battered by internal 
squabbling and a string of election losses, Democrats hold all but one of 
California's statewide offices, control the Legislature and took four 
congressional seats from Republicans in November. 
OPTIMISTIC IN ORANGE COUNTY
Their confidence is reflected in their choice of convention location. Orange 
County, for decades a Republican Party stronghold, is now home to a growing, 
Democratic-leaning Latino population. 
"We've made amazing gains in Orange County in recent years," said Bob 
Mulholland, a party strategist. "Holding the convention in Orange County 
shows the party's commitment to reaching everyone in the state." 
Still, there's an uneasiness among Democrats regarding Davis' handling of the 
power crunch. If the 2002 election becomes a referendum on the way 
politicians have dealt with energy deregulation, plenty of other Democrats 
could get burned, and those who voted for the 1996 deregulation plan are 
especially nervous. 
Republicans -- emboldened -- have intensified their criticism of the governor 
and, in the case of Secretary of State Bill Jones, declared themselves ready 
for a 2002 run against Davis. 
Democratic faithful note that Davis may have suffered some rocky times in 
recent weeks, but they also admire his status as the ultimate political 
survivor. 
"I don't think the governor is going to have any primary challenge. A lot of 
people are talking, but I don't think anyone has the courage to face him 
down," said Democratic political consultant Robert Barnes of San Francisco. 
"Gray is smart and calculating and knows politics. . . . He won the last 
election when everybody said he was roadkill. He is never to be 
underestimated. " 
And, he's got what insiders say it takes to beat any comers: an astonishing 
$26 million already collected for his next race. 
UPBEAT REPUBLICANS
But Republicans are feeling better than they have in years. 
"I'm loving every second of (Davis' troubles)," said a high-level GOP 
operative, who didn't want to be quoted by name. "It gives us a light at the 
end of the tunnel." 
Suddenly Davis' $26 million campaign fund isn't looking insurmountable, he 
said, because "$25.5 million will have to go to explaining the energy 
crisis." 
GOP state party Secretary Shannon Reeves, who was invited to the White House 
this week to talk with President Bush, said, "The biggest problem for the 
Democrats right now is . . . we're the most unified we've been in probably a 
decade. And we have a president who has California on the (front burner)." 
What Republicans don't have is a slam-dunk candidate for governor. Jones 
starts with less than $120,000 for his campaign, and actor Arnold 
Schwarzenegger and wealthy businessman Bill Simon are longshots. 
"Despite all their carping and gloating, you'll notice that not a single one 
of (the Republicans) has put a viable plan on the table to solve the (energy) 
problem," said Garry South, Davis' senior political strategist. "They can try 
to make hay, but they have exactly one statewide elected official. . . . If 
they're breaking out the champagne, more power to them." 
Still, pollsters say the energy crisis has affected Davis' standing with 
voters. 
The governor's vulnerability stems from his "very public stance" against 
utility rate increases, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the statewide Field 
Poll. 
"It was one of the reasons he was viewed positively, while everyone else was 
negatively perceived," he said. "Now that his position doesn't seem to be 
holding, (the approval ratings) are bound to wear off." 
Alfred Balitzer, political science professor at the Claremont McKenna 
Colleges, said the Democrats may have to worry about themselves, as much as 
Davis. 
"A power crisis involves the average Californian . . . and that will hit home 
in a special way," he said. "The governor tried to blame it on (former Gov.) 
Pete Wilson -- but the fact is, it's his watch." 
If the Democratics who control the Legislature perceive Davis as increasingly 
unpopular, "they will run for cover . . . (because) he hasn't involved them 
like he should have," Balitzer said. "The strains of one-party rule are 
beginning to show, and the question is: Can the Republicans take advantage of 
it?" 
E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com and John Wildermuth at 
jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com 
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Canada seeks to grab bigger role as U.S. energy supplier 
TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, March 30, 2001 
,2001 Associated Press 
URL: 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/03/30/intern
ational0216EST0449.DTL 
(03-30) 02:16 EST TORONTO (AP) -- As President Bush struggles with the U.S. 
energy crisis, Canada said it is ready to increase the amount of oil and 
natural gas it provides to the United States. 
In the past, it has been too costly to tap abundant oil reserves in northern 
Alberta and natural gas in the Northwest Territories. But accessing those 
supplies is now economically feasible because of new technology and rising 
energy prices south of the border. 
``Canada has an abundance of energy and we remain the best option as a 
supplier for the United States,'' said Prime Minister Jean Chretien's 
spokesman, Duncan Fulton. 
That offer looks tempting to President Bush, who said Thursday the United 
States would look to Canada if Congress prevents drilling for oil and natural 
gas in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
Canada opposes U.S. drilling in Alaska, saying it would endanger a 
significant porcupine caribou herd that migrates through the reserve. But a 
bigger reason could be the desire to export fuel to the ``lower 48.'' 
``It's important for us to explore and encourage exploration, and work with 
the Canadians to get pipelines coming out of the Northwest Territories to the 
United States,'' Bush told reporters Thursday in Washington when asked about 
expected opposition in Congress to drilling in the Alaska reserve. 
``There's gas in our hemisphere,'' he said later. ``And the fundamental 
question is, where is it going to come from? I'd like it to be American gas. 
But if the Congress decides not to have exploration in (Alaska), we'll work 
with the Canadians.'' 
Chretien discussed energy issues with Bush during their meeting in Washington 
on Feb. 5, Fulton said. 
A National Energy Board report last year that assessed supplies and demand to 
2025 put known natural gas reserves in Canada's ``northern frontier'' at 24 
trillion cubic feet with estimated reserves at almost 170 trillion cubic 
feet. 
The United States now consumes about 21.5 trillion cubic feet of gas per 
year, with demand expected to grow by about 2 percent annually for the next 
20 years. 
Bush administration officials announced Wednesday that they would not 
implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under which countries agreed to legally 
binding targets for curbing heat-trapping ``greenhouse'' gases, which 
contribute to global warming. 
On Thursday, Bush called natural gas a clean energy source that could help 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The problem, he said, was too little supply 
and a lack of pipelines to transport it. He said that was why he favored 
looking in Alaska, despite opposition from environmentalists to drilling in 
the wilderness refuge. 
Two major pipeline projects that would transport natural gas from northern 
Alaska and Arctic Canada to Alberta have been discussed for years. 
The Alaska Highway project would build a pipeline from the North Slope near 
Prudhoe Bay to Alberta, following the Alaska Highway part of the way. 
The Mackenzie Delta project -- which is shorter and would cost less -- would 
involve a pipeline from the river valley in the Northwest Territories 
producing a projected 1.2 billion cubic feet a day. 
Because it would require extensive negotiations to obtain all the necessary 
approval, the project would take at least seven years to get started, two 
more than the Alaska Highway project, said Glenn Herchak of TransCanada 
PipeLines of Calgary, a major backer of the Alaska Highway project. 
The National Energy Board report also spoke of ``accelerated growth'' in the 
Alberta oil industry from sand-based deposits now accessible due to new 
technology. Major industry players including Shell, Exxon Mobil, Gulf Oil and 
Chevron are investing in exploiting reserves believed by the energy board to 
exceed the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. 
,2001 Associated Press ? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------




Police unsure how to enforce lights-out rule 
Posted at 10:18 p.m. PST Thursday, March 29, 2001 
BY DANA HULL 

Mercury News 


Two weeks after Gov. Gray Davis ordered businesses to sharply reduce their 
outdoor lighting or face a fine of up to $1,000, police and sheriff's 
departments across the state say they haven't written a single ticket. 
The reason: Almost no one has complained about energy hogs, and law 
enforcement authorities say the governor's outdoor-lighting order is too 
vague to enforce. They aren't being pushed particularly hard by state 
officials, either. 
The governor's executive order required shopping malls, auto dealers and big 
retailers to reduce their outdoor lighting by at least 50 percent, starting 
March 15. 
``How many tickets have been issued? None. And that doesn't surprise me,'' 
said Redding Police Chief Bob Blakenship, president of the California Police 
Chiefs Association. ``There is a lot of confusion as to how to enforce the 
order. How do you measure what is too much light?'' 
Though the state is desperately scrambling to stabilize power supplies and 
rolling blackouts will likely hit with more frequency this summer, most 
police departments have chosen to take a ``walk and talk'' approach. They 
remind businesses of the need to reduce energy use when out on patrol, but 
don't seek out or write up offenders. 
``We're not using any type of heavy-handed approach, that's for sure,'' said 
Lt. Rod Romano of the Union City Police Department. ``We're trying to get 
compliance.'' 
Many local businesses say they are conserving, and are as worried about 
skyrocketing bills as homeowners. But they readily admit that they leave 
lights on if they feel they need to, and have not received any complaints or 
words of warning about it. 
``We're turning them down, but we don't turn all of them off,'' said Art 
Wicker, general manager of Piercey Toyota in San Jose. ``We close at 9 p.m., 
and at 10 some of them go off. We've been under the impression that this was 
voluntary.'' 
State officials agree that the executive order has created a great deal of 
confusion, and say they regularly field calls from law enforcement officers 
unclear about what they are supposed to do. But they stress that the 
intention of Davis' executive order was never to hit businesses across 
California with hundreds of misdemeanor citations. 
``The intent of this was never to generate prosecutions,'' said Mike Guerin, 
chief of law enforcement at the state's Office of Emergency Services. ``The 
intent was to encourage conservation.'' 
Thursday, state officials and law enforcement officers gathered at a Wal-Mart 
store in Bakersfield to remind businesses about the order and encourage 
compliance. Business support is considered crucial if the state is to have 
enough power for the summer. And state officials say they never expected 
full-blown energy patrols. 
``Nobody wants San Jose P.D. officers to take time away from solving violent 
crimes to tell people about lighting conservation,'' said Guerin. ``But we do 
need to get the message out. Fines are in the toolbox any time an executive 
order is issued.'' 
Though consumers grumble about shopping centers that leave their lights on, 
few take the time to call either the store or police with complaints. But 
that could change in the coming months, as the energy crisis becomes more 
severe. Pressure may build for law enforcement to play a more active role. 
``The proof of the pudding will be this summer, when the need for 
conservation goes up,'' said officer Don Cox, a press officer for the Los 
Angeles Police Department. ``But we haven't even really developed a policy 
yet about how we will do it. The governor mandated this thing, but wasn't 
specific on how it should be done.'' 
Stanislaus County Sheriff Les Weidman, president of the California State 
Sheriffs' Association, met with the governor's staff when the outdoor 
lighting order was first being drafted, and supports the massive conservation 
effort. But he made it clear that his membership is already stretched thin. 
If rolling blackouts become more frequent, sheriffs will need to respond to 
any safety problems or accidents that arise. 
``I don't have the resources to divert my sheriffs to running around trading 
in pistols for an electric meter,'' said Weidman. ``But by the same token, I 
think the public is real concerned about someone who is wasteful. Ultimately, 
if there are a lot of complaints, they may get a ticket.'' 
Weidman also worries about the potential for an increase in crime in darkened 
alleys or parking lots. The order allows businesses to keep lights on for 
safety reasons, but police say it's difficult to determine when outdoor 
lights are excessive or crucial: It's subjective. 
``For years we've told people to turn the lights on to protect themselves, 
and now we're asking them to turn them down,'' said Weidman. ``So we have to 
be careful. We don't want people to jeopardize their safety.'' 
Though many businesses in the region appear to be complying with the lighting 
edict, some say that it's not enough. 
``Turning down the lights late at night is not going to be the solution to 
rolling blackouts,'' said Assistant Sheriff Bob Maginnis of Alameda County. 
``People are going to have to do other things. If I were in the driver's 
seat, I'd do scheduled blackouts.'' 


Contact Dana Hull at dhull@sjmercury.com or (510) 790-7311. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------



PG&E ordered to share details about blackouts 
Published Friday, March 30, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News 
BY KIM VO 

Mercury News 


Say you're in charge during rolling blackouts and you have 10 minutes' 
warning that an outage will hit the Mission district. Should you send a 
traffic cop to 16th and Valencia? Or Folsom and Cesar Chavez? Which light 
might go out? 
Such decisions can make the difference between inconvenience and chaos, said 
Lucien Canton, director of San Francisco's Office of Emergency Services. And 
that is why his office had been pressing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to share 
detailed information about which streets and buildings would be affected 
during rolling blackouts. 
State Public Utilities Commissioner Carl Wood this week ordered PG&E to give 
the information to San Francisco so it can better prepare for the blackouts, 
which are expected to continue through summer. 
``It is difficult to provide adequate emergency response protection for 
citizens without knowing, with great specificity, which customers will be 
affected,'' Wood wrote in his opinion. He also instructed Southern California 
Edison to provide the city of Huntington Beach with similar information. 
San Francisco first requested the information last summer, Canton said. PG&E 
was reluctant to provide street-by-street details, citing confidentiality. 
``If someone said Block 12 is out and it includes this street, this street 
and that street, you'll be letting criminals know where the power's out, 
where the burglar alarms are off,'' said Ron Low, a PG&E spokesman. 
Wood has ordered San Francisco to share the information on a ``need-to-know'' 
basis. PG&E must submit the information to the PUC within five days. The 
state regulatory agency will review it before passing it along to San 
Francisco. 
Canton dismissed Low's concerns about lawlessness, saying there has been no 
looting during the power outages. Indeed, the biggest problem is traffic 
backups as drivers negotiate intersections with signals out. 
If Canton knows exactly which signals are on the circuits affected, he can 
send traffic officers to those intersections -- perhaps even before the power 
goes out. He wants to avoid a repeat of a citywide blackout in the winter of 
1998 during which a pedestrian was killed on Van Ness Avenue. 
While he can't say the power outage caused the death, orderly traffic might 
have prevented it, Canton said. 
A team will review the information and craft new emergency response plans, 
such as how to warn schools and nursing homes in advance of a blackout. 


Contact Kim Vo at kvo@sjmercury.com or (415) 477-2518. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------







We need power -- in our back yard 
Published Friday, March 30, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News 
THE San Jose City Council, which unanimously opposed a major power plant in 
Coyote Valley, is poised to approve an Internet server farm that will 
eventually consume as much electricity as 180,000 homes. 
This does not compute. 
San Jose cannot aspire to be at the center of e-commerce, home to the 
computers that are its heart, without supplying more of the electrons that 
are its lifeblood. Only a tenth of the energy consumed in Silicon Valley is 
generated here. 
The 600-megawatt Metcalf generating plant, fought by Mayor Ron Gonzales and 
the council, would provide enough power for 600,000 homes, using some of the 
cleanest technology available. Located within the Bay Area distribution grid, 
it would enhance the reliability of the power supply. 
Instead, Gonzales is hoping to find numerous sites throughout Silicon Valley 
for smaller power plants. Some proposals have surfaced. Santa Clara is 
looking to build four new new plants. The mayor of Gilroy hopes a large power 
plant can be built there. Still, Gonzales's plan has not progressed much 
beyond the idea stage. 
Tuesday, the council will consider the application of U.S. DataPort to build 
a server farm along Highway 237 in Alviso. It demonstrates that compensating 
for the lack of an assured power supply in the region could be worse for air 
quality than a major power plant, unless the city and Bay Area air regulators 
are vigilant. 
U.S. DataPort plans to grow in stages over five years, ultimately needing 180 
megawatts of power. It will generate 50 megawatts with a natural gas power 
plant on site. No problem there. 
When the facility outgrows that plant, however, and relies on the regional 
grid as well, it plans diesel generators as a backup. Diesel is much dirtier 
than natural gas. 
There's reason to hope diesels will not be needed. Better technology could 
reach the market soon. In addition, the siting process for larger power 
plants has been streamlined since U.S. DataPort first designed its facility. 
Far better than diesels would be a gas-fired plant sufficient for all U.S. 
DataPort's needs. 
The city and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District should cut the 
company absolutely no slack on exceeding strict pollution limits on operating 
diesels, in the event of blackouts. The company knows perfectly well the 
uncertainty of the power supply. 
Electricity is not the sole issue. The council should also insist on a layout 
of the buildings that preserves a third of the land for open space and 
habitat for burrowing owls. 
The electricity drought should pass in a couple years. San Jose need not shut 
down in the meantime. But it can't act as if the juice to power Silicon 
Valley will always come from someplace else. The Metcalf plant is needed, as 
well as on-site power for U.S. DataPort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------







'Interruptible' penalties may be revived 
PUC to weigh reinstating fines under the conservation pact. 
March 30, 2001 
By ANNE C. MULKERN
The Orange County Register 
To help prevent rolling blackouts this summer, state regulators want to give 
businesses a powerful financial incentive to turn off their electricity in an 
energy emergency. 
The Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday will consider reinstating Southern 
California Edison's right to levy huge fines against companies that don't 
unplug when asked. 
Those financial penalties - which totaled $200 million from November through 
late January -- were suspended Jan. 26 after businesses were asked to 
disconnect 37 times in 10 months. 
If the penalties are reinstated, it likely will mean millions in new costs 
for Orange County companies in the program. 
Businesses not only face fines when they don't unplug, they also lose 
productivity when they do. 
And fines for not interrupting in the future will come on top of the higher 
electricity rates businesses will be paying. Some of those costs could be 
passed on to consumers. 
"In this fragile economy and stock market, a company's operational losses 
cannot simply be absorbed," Julie Puentes, spokeswoman for the Orange County 
Business Council, said in a protest letter to the PUC. 
"If this crisis is not managed properly, there will be job layoffs, employee 
work furloughs, salary cuts, spending cutbacks and companies curtailing 
investment in California," Puente said. 
Prior to last fall, companies in the interruptibles program were allowed to 
exit during a 30-day window each November. But after the energy crisis 
escalated last summer, the PUC in October barred companies from leaving the 
program. Interruptibles contracts expire Sunday, and the PUC wants to have 
new contracts quickly in place. 
The exact penalties and how the program will be structured have not been 
determined. The PUC released a draft laying out some proposed changes. But 
revisions to that were being made Thursday and today to address some of the 
comments made by businesses. 
The draft decision proposes letting customers out of the program under 
certain conditions, but those conditions are too oppressive for most 
businesses, Puentes said. 
Businesses would have to either pay back the discounts they received in 2000 
and 2001 with interest; install energy-efficient equipment equal in price to 
the total discount they received during that same period; or join a voluntary 
interruption program in which they cut power just as much, but with 
more-flexible timing. Under that plan, they'd interrupt but get no rate 
discounts. 
"Getting out is extremely punitive to the companies," Puentes said. "If you 
opt out, you're really paying twice. You pay back the discounts, and you 
still pay the penalties (you've already paid)." 
Under the plan, public schools, universities, hospitals and prisons could opt 
out without any repayment obligation. 
Businesses say they need more options. 
"You need reliability, and you need flexibility because, frankly, people's 
livelihoods depend on this," said Andrew De Cicco, vice president of ITT 
Industries, a Santa Ana electronics maker. The interruptibles program, which 
began in the mid-1980s, gives some 1,500 large businesses discounts of 15 
percent to 20 percent off their power bills for agreeing to cut off power 
when asked. 
In the program's first 13 years, companies unplugged just once. But in 2000, 
they were asked to unplug some 24 times. In January alone, they faced 13 
interruptions including two in the same day. Many complained that the 
interruptions and fines were significantly hurting their businesses. 
Astech Manufacturing Inc. of Santa Ana said it lost $480,000 in productivity 
during the late fall and winter interruptions. 
ITT Industries shut down four days in January rather than face penalties of 
$700,000 per day. The company said it lost an additional $2 million in 
revenue in one week. 
A state lawmaker has proposed forcing Edison to repay or forgive those fines. 
That bill passed the Assembly but has not yet been scheduled for Senate 
committee hearings. 
With those onerous financial penalties intact, the interruptibles program was 
a key tool for preventing blackouts last summer and through the fall. If all 
the businesses in the program shut off power, they save enough electricity to 
power 1.5 million homes. 
Without the fines, businesses have lacked any strong incentive to cut power. 
Though they were asked to unplug voluntarily when the state reached a new 
crisis level last week, most did not. That made rolling blackouts necessary. 
"The participation without the penalties was certainly much less," Edison 
spokesman Steve Conroy said. "It was only about 5 percent (of the customers 
in the program)." 
That unfairly shifts the burden of blackouts to all other customers who have 
not benefited from reduced rates, Commissioner Carl Wood said. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------







2 cities to be warned if blackout is imminent 
Huntington Beach and San Francisco sought details. 
March 30, 2001 
By KATE BERRY
The Orange County Register 
In a ruling that could open the door for advance notification of where 
blackouts could strike, the Public Utilities Commission ordered two utilities 
to give detailed information to Huntington Beach and the city and county of 
San Francisco, so police, fire and medical workers can prepare for 
power-related emergencies. 
The utilities affected, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & 
Electric, already have systems in place to automatically notify cities when 
blackouts occur. 
But San Francisco and Huntington Beach requested more-detailed information, 
such as specific city blocks that would be affected and names and addresses 
of customers who depend on life- support systems in their homes. 
Edison was ordered to meet with Huntington Beach officials and PG&E to meet 
with city and county officials in San Francisco in the next 15 days to 
resolve the information requests. The cities and county would be required to 
sign confidentiality agreements to keep the information from being publicly 
disclosed. 
The commission said disclosure "can be accomplished with necessary protection 
of confidential data." 
The PUC confined its order, issued Wednesday, to the two cities and county 
that requested the information. It said releasing the information to all the 
cities in California would be "unreasonably burdensome" to the utilities. 
In the past six weeks, both Edison and PG&E have briefed emergency service 
officials at cities in their territories on steps they can take to improve 
safety in case of an outage. 
But cities don't get much advance notice. Because electricity is produced and 
delivered instantaneously (it cannot be stored), the utilities have only 10 
minutes' warning from the state's grid operator before imposing rotating 
blackouts. 
As a result, it is difficult for cities to prepare ahead of time, said Steve 
Conroy, an Edison spokesman. 
"Ideally, we would like to give the cities as much notification as possible," 
he said. "We also don't want the information to fall into the wrong hands." 
Edison also is considering notifying customers of the group number for their 
areas. The utility, based in Rosemead, has divided its territory into more 
than 110 groups. Under the proposal, it would broadcast prior to an outage 
the group numbers that would be affected, so that consumers could prepare for 
a blackout. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy crisis could cost billions, says California's controller



By STEVE LAWRENCE
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) via NewsEdge Corporation  -
Even with customers paying up to
46 percent more for electricity, California's financial controller
says the state faces a dlrs 7.4 billion shortfall over the next 18
months if it keeps buying power.


But a state Department of Finance spokesman dismissed Kathleen
Connell's dire financial projection, saying it doesn't take into
account the governor's efforts to reduce electricity costs by
signing long-term purchasing contracts with power wholesalers.


Connell estimated California will spend dlrs 26.8 billion buying
electricity the next 18 months for the state's two largest
utilities, which are on the brink of bankruptcy.


Despite the rate increase approved this week and the dlrs 12.4
billion the state is authorized to sell in bonds, she said
Wednesday that California would find itself billions of dollars in
debt by October 2002.


Connell said the problem is that Gov. Gray Davis and lawmakers
failed to examine the state's ledgers before buying power for
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.


``We must all work together so the left hand knows what the
right hand is doing. You have to look at the books before
attempting to solve the energy crisis,'' she said.


Department of Finance spokesman Sandy Harrison said California
normally has cash flow problems in October because most of the
state's revenue comes in April.


Just how much California's energy crisis will cost the state has
been hotly debated by state officials, financial experts and
business people. Some predict the power crisis and rolling
blackouts will have a ripple effect through all segments of the
state's economy and even into neighboring states.


``Remember that trends start in California,'' said Jack Kyser,
chief economist for the Los Angeles Economic Development
Corporation. ``I think this is definitely going to create
inflationary pressures, and that is something the Federal Reserve
Bank can't do anything about.''


California's dlrs 1.3 trillion economy accounts for 13 percent
of the nation's gross domestic product and 16 percent of U.S.
consumer demand.


The energy crisis has been blamed mainly on California's 1996
deregulation law, which forced the state's investor-owned utilities
to shed their power plants and buy electricity from wholesalers
while capping the rates they could charge consumers.


SoCal Edison and PG&amp;E say that forced them to the brink of
bankruptcy when energy prices spiraled upward over the past year.
The two utilities say they owe nearly dlrs 13 billion to power
wholesalers who have shut off their credit, forcing the state to
step in and buy electricity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[B] FULL/ Edison Intl unit pays $43.5 mln to water resources dept





New York, March 29 (BridgeNews) - Edison International's Southern

California Edison unit paid $43.5 million to the California Department of 
Water
Resources, pursuant to a California Public Utilities Commission order. This
payment is for power purchased by the agency for Southern California customers
from Jan. 19, 2001 through Feb. 11, 2001.


--Sanjib Dutta, BridgeNews




*              *              *



The following is the text of today's announcement, with emphasis added by
BridgeNews. BridgeStation links to company data have been inserted at the end:




Southern California Edison Makes Payment to California DWR




ROSEMEAD, CALIF., MARCH 29 /PRNEWSWIRE/ -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE)
ANNOUNCED THAT, PURSUANT TO A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)
ORDER ADOPTED YESTERDAY, A PAYMENT OF $43.5 MILLION WAS MADE TO THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (CDWR). THIS PAYMENT IS FOR POWER PURCHASED BY
THE AGENCY FOR SCE CUSTOMERS FOR THE PERIOD JAN. 19, 2001 THROUGH FEB. 11,
2001.


BASED ON THE CPUC'S ORDER, THE RATE APPLIED TO PURCHASES BETWEEN JAN. 19
AND JAN. 31 IS 6.277 CENTS PER KILOWATT-HOUR. FOR THE PERIOD OF FEB. 1 THROUGH
FEB. 11, THE RATE APPLIED IS 7.277 CENTS PER KWH. THE CPUC ORDER ALSO REQUIRES
SCE TO MAKE DAILY PAYMENTS TO THE CDWR GOING FORWARD FOR POWER PURCHASED FOR
SCE CUSTOMERS. PAYMENTS WILL BE FOR POWER PURCHASED 45 DAYS PRIOR TO PAYMENT
AND WILL BE BASED ON THE 7.277 CENTS PER KWH RATE AND ACTUAL DELIVERIES.



An Edison International (NYSE: EIX) company, Southern California Edison is
one of the nation's largest electric utilities, serving more than 11 million
people in a 50,000-square-mile area within central, coastal and Southern
California.


SOURCE: Southern California Edison


CONTACT: Corporate Communications of Southern California Edison, 626-302-2255


Web site: http://www.edisonnews.com


End
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

EPRIsolutions Tackles California Power Problems



PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 29, 2001 via NewsEdge Corporation  -
Power
companies and their business customers need reliable electricity right
now, and Palo Alto-based EPRIsolutions is helping them assess their
options.


A subsidiary of the renowned Electric Power Research Institute,
EPRIsolutions is in a unique position to offer its services to
stakeholders in the California power crisis.


The year-old company takes advantage of the strides made by its
parent company in developing technologies to solve domestic and global
energy problems for electric and gas utility clients.


"We help clients understand the pros and cons of advanced large
central station power systems; we analyze transmission and
distribution bottlenecks; and we offer an assessment of new options
like distributed generation, co-generation, energy efficiency, and
micro-grids," explains EPRIsolutions' CEO, Philip Curtis.


EPRIsolutions' work takes them to all parts of the country, but
California's energy supply and delivery issues provide fertile ground
for their expertise. The state's energy consumers are looking for
answers to their immediate concerns about reliability and premium
power. Distributed generation (DG) -- the siting of small power
systems within cities or near industrial and commercial sites or at
critical load centers -- is a popular suggestion.


"We can provide an objective assessment of all distributed
generation options, including small gas turbines, microturbines,
diesel generators, and fuel cell systems," says Dan Rastler, area
manager for distributed resources. "With our supporting analysis, we
can also help local power providers target the best sites and evaluate
interconnection requirements and power flow impacts."


Rastler believes that DG solutions are here today and can
complement California's plans to invest in large central power
stations. Cities, municipal power systems, and industrial and
commercial companies interested in learning more about EPRIsolutions
services are encouraged to contact Dan Rastler, 650/855-2521 or e-mail
drastler@epri.com.


EPRIsolutions, a subsidiary of EPRI, the collaborative science and
technology organization for the power industry, provides application
and consulting services in the areas of generation, transmission,
distribution, energy efficiency and distributed resources.



CONTACT: EPRI |              Christine Hopf-Lovette, 650/855-2733 | 
chopf@epri.com