Today's IEP news...

Thanks,
Jean

Calif Controller To Release Power Supply Contract Details - Dow Jones [PRESS 
CONFERENCE today at 11AM PST @ Controllers office, 300 Capitol Mall]

CBS News Transcripts, CBS MORNING NEWS (6:30 AM ET), May 18, 2001, Friday,
????386 words, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR THREATENS TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN 
HANDS
????IF THE GOVERNMENT OFFERS NO RELIEF FOR THE STATE'S ENERGY CRISIS, JULIE 
CHEN
????, BILL WHITAKER [Smutny interviewed on behalf of IEP]
 
National Public Radio (NPR), MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM ET), May 18, 2001,
????Friday, 619 words, CALIFORNIA'S POWER PLAN, ALEX CHADWICK, ELAINE KORRY ?
??????[Smutny interviewed on behalf of IEP]
 
CBS News Transcripts, CBS EVENING NEWS (6:30 PM ET), May 17, 2001, Thursday
????, 430 words, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR THREATENS TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN
????HANDS IF THE GOVERNMENT OFFERS NO RELIEF FOR THE STATE'S ENERGY CRISIS, 
DAN
????RATHER, BILL WHITAKER ?[Smutny interviewed on behalf of IEP]

Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2001 Saturday, Home Edition, Page 1, 704 words,
????PUC Allegations Detailed; Hearing: The commission president tells a Senate
????panel that maintenance records show no valid reason for generators to cut
????power production., ROBERT J. LOPEZ, RICH CONNELL, TIMES STAFF WRITERS 
???[Jean quoted on behalf of IEP]

Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2001 Monday, Home Edition, Page 7, 782 words,
????The State; ; Davis Says Bad Guys Went Thataway, to Texas, GEORGE SKELTON

Chicago Tribune, May 21, 2001 Monday, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION, Business;
????Pg. 3; ZONE: CN; INSIDE TECHNOLOGY., 758 words, Power demands set stage 
for
????boom in backup systems, BY JON VAN.

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle,
????8:34 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 273 words, New poll suggests
????Californians haven't been this gloomy for years, SAN FRANCISCO

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle,
????6:43 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 901 words, 'Baseline' becoming 
key
????word for electric customers, By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer, 
SAN
????FRANCISCO

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle,
????4:03 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 720 words, Grid officials, 
others
????studying planned blackouts, By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer,
????SACRAMENTO

Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 21, 709 words,
????THE NATION; ; As Energy Prices Rise, So Does the Rancor; Politics: Gov.
????Davis says power plan comes at the expense of consumers. Bush blames
????Democrats for environmental curbs., EDMUND SANDERS, TIMES STAFF WRITER,
????WASHINGTON

Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 16, 930 words,
????THE NATION; ; Spencer Abraham Is Running on Energy, Not Charisma; 
?Profile:
????Charged with selling Bush's initiative, 'workhorse' new to the field is
????facing a hard row., FAYE FIORE, TIMES STAFF WRITER, WASHINGTON

Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 3, 407 words,
????Los Angeles; ; Davis Launches Conservation Campaign; Electricity: Governor
????hands out fluorescent lightbulbs in his effort to get Californians to save
????power this summer., DALONDO MOULTRIE, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Sacramento Bee, May 20, 2001, Sunday, Pg. A3;, 704 words, One year later,
????we know it wasn't just a simple game of golf, Dan Walters

The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;,
????Pg. A5, 1030 words, ENERGY CRUNCH; ???Investigations; ???Power firms 
fueled
????by greed, Lockyer says; ???Out-of-state generators face multiple probes,
????Greg Lucas, Sacramento

The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;,
????Pg. A1, 1932 words, Power juggling ramped up price; ???Insiders say
????manipulation also strained equipment, Christian Berthelsen, Scott Winokur

The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY,, FINAL EDITION,
????EDITORIAL;, Pg. C6;, 984 words, EDITORIAL; ???On energy; ???Conservation's
????value: It's not all sacrifice





Calif Controller To Release Power Supply Contract Details  ????
Updated: Monday, May 21, 2001 09:40 AM?ET ?????
?
LOS ANGELES (Dow Jones)--California state Controller Kathleen Connell will 
release details of the state's long-term power supply contracts, including 
the cost per megawatt-hour, during a news conference Monday morning, 
according to her office. 

Connell will also discuss property taxation of utilities and possible 
anticipation of revenues in 2002 at the 2 p.m. EST news conference in 
Sacramento. 

Connell, a Democrat, has said the $13.4 billion in revenue bonds the state 
plans to sell in August to pay for electricity will last through early 2002, 
if power prices are about $195 a megawatt-hour in the summer. However, she 
said she fears prices will be much higher and the bonds will be exhausted 
sooner. 

Connell attempted to release details in February and March on the price the 
state paid to secure long-term power supply contracts, but was told by Gov. 
Gray Davis' administration that if she released the information it could 
jeopardize the deals because of its competitiveness. 

Connell has said the state should immediately stop buying power because of 
the impact it is having on the state's budget and the likelihood that other 
state-funded programs will be cut. 

-By Jason Leopold; Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3874; 
jason.leopold@dowjones.com 

SHOW: CBS MORNING NEWS (6:30 AM ET)


?May 18, 2001, Friday

TYPE: Newscast

LENGTH: 386 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR THREATENS TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS IF
THE GOVERNMENT OFFERS NO RELIEF FOR THE STATE'S ENERGY CRISIS

ANCHORS: JULIE CHEN

REPORTERS: BILL WHITAKER

BODY:

??JULIE CHEN, anchor:

??In energy-starved California, ground zero of the power crisis, the Bush plan
faces sharp criticism. ?Bill Whitaker has that.

??BILL WHITAKER reporting:

??Six times this year lights have gone out in parts of California when heat
triggered a surge in demand. ?Governor Gray Davis deflected the political 
heat,
blasting the Bush energy plan as inadequate.

??Governor GRAY DAVIS (Democrat, California): I fault the president for not
providing California with any immediate relief.

??WHITAKER: In a major power play of his own, Davis has threatened to seize 
the
facilities of Reliant Energy, a Texas-based supplier and major Bush 
contributor,
if Reliant doesn't cut prices.

??Gov. DAVIS: But I told the generators face to face, I said, 'Your fate is in
your hands. ?If you don't help me get through this summer with a minimum of
disruptions, then you leave me no choice but to sign a windfall profits tax 
and
to seize plants.'

??WHITAKER: All five of Reliant's Southern California plants are natural gas
powered, supplying electricity to three million houses. ?Davis has called
Reliant the greediest of all the out-of-state suppliers. ?Reliant wouldn't
comment on camera, but the industry says takeover talk is more political than
economic.

??Mr. JAN SMUTNY-JONES (Independent Energy Producers Association): Seizing
private property didn't work in Cuba and it's not going to work in California,
either.

??WHITAKER: A state takeover of Reliant could backfire, scaring off other
out-of-state generators. ?But analysts say California, which already uses less
energy per capita than any other state, has few options.

??Mr. MARK BERNSTEIN (Energy Analyst, Rand Corp.): The only other thing that
can happen is for the federal government to take action to moderate prices. 
And
if the gov--federal government doesn't take those actions, the governor may 
not
have any choice.

??WHITAKER: Some California legislators suggest creating a buyers' cartel with
Washington and Oregon to jointly muscle down prices and even risk blackouts if
suppliers won't comply. ?So far Oregon and Washington aren't convinced, but
California must do something. ?Last year, electricity cost 400 percent more 
than
the year before. ?And this year, prices are rising still. ?Bill Whitaker, CBS
News, Los Angeles.

LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2001

???????????????????????????????2 of 3 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 2001 National Public Radio (R). ?All rights reserved. No quotes from
?the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution 
to
??National Public Radio. ?This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in
part without prior written permission. ?For further information, please 
contact
????????????????NPR's Permissions Coordinator at (202) 513-2000.

?????????????????????????National Public Radio (NPR)

?????????????????????SHOW: MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM ET)

?????????????????????????????May 18, 2001, Friday

LENGTH: 619 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA'S POWER PLAN

ANCHORS: ALEX CHADWICK

REPORTERS: ELAINE KORRY

BODY:

??ALEX CHADWICK, host:

??California's rushing to get new power plants up and running. ?In January,
Governor Gray Davis used emergency powers to speed the permit process. There 
has
been progress, but NPR's Elaine Korry reports probably not enough to avoid 
more
blackouts this summer.

??ELAINE KORRY reporting:

??Since January, California energy regulators have been slashing red tape to
speed new power plants online. ?Their tracking 180 separate projects. Bob
Thurkelsen, who overseas permitting at the California Energy Commission, says
the governor's emergency directive has already paid off.

??Mr. BOB THURKELSEN (California Energy Commission): And that has allowed us
to, so far, permit 450 megawatts of new generation in a 21-day period.

??KORRY: In a few cases, even quicker than that. ?Jim Michael is the president
of Alliance Power, based in Denver, which sprinted through its permit process 
in
under three weeks.

??Mr. JIM MICHAEL (Alliance Power): Well, we're pouring concrete. ?We're on
schedule, so we're gonna have power plants operating this summer.

??KORRY: Alliance is building two small generators in Southern California.
Michael says permitting projects that used to take months were, instead,
completed in a day or two, allowing the company to meet critical deadlines.

??Mr. MICHAEL: It was essential. ?Without that streamlining, these projects
would have gone away. ?The turbines would have been sold to other projects
outside of California and so we would have essentially failed.

??KORRY: Yet there's still a major hitch. ?Despite the speedup in permitting,
California will still fall far short of the governor's initial goal. ?He 
wanted
5,000 new megawatts of electricity, enough to power five million homes, to 
come
online by July 1st. ?In a worst-case scenario, that's how much additional 
supply
the state would need to keep the lights on this summer. ?Yet only half that
amount, 2,500 megawatts, will be up and running by July. ?Jan Smutny-Jones 
heads
the industry lobbying group the Independent Energy Producers Association. 
?He's
not surprised by the shortfall.

??Mr. JAN SMUTNY-JONES (Independent Energy Producers Association): We said at
the time that was a very ambitious goal. ?And we'll see how it plays out.

??KORRY: Smutny-Jones says blackouts are a near certainty this summer. Their
severity will depend on a number of unknowns. ?How hot will it get this 
summer?
How much more can Californian's skimp on electricity? And how much wattage 
will
the power wholesalers themselves take off line? Power producers have been
charged with deliberately shutting down plants to keep prices high. 
Smutny-Jones
has a different explanation for the down time.

??Mr. SMUTNY-JONES: California's electric power system is rapidly aging. We
have not built a power plant of an appreciable amount in over a decade. ?And
there--while there's power plants being built now, the average age of these
power plants is in excess of 36 years old. ?That's the average age, which 
means
that a significant amount of the fleet is older than that. ?They break down.

??KORRY: The industry, itself, is partly to blame for the aging fleet. The
Energy Commission did license small generators during the 1990s. ?And if 
bigger
ones weren't built, it's largely because the energy producers, themselves,
balked at building them. ?Chris Seiple, with RDI Consulting, says construction
slowed everywhere; that is, until last year. ?Since 2000, he says, 90,000 new
megawatts of energy have come online nationwide. ?That's more capacity in two
years than was built during all of the 1990s. ?And now comes the Bush national
energy policy, urging even greater production. ?According to Seiple, we could
wind up with too much of a good thing.

??Mr. CHRIS SEIPLE (RDI Consulting): So we really expect that in--What?--50
markets we will go from a situation of having shortages to having too much
supply.

??KORRY: In yesterday's speech, President Bush repeated the
administration's claim that the nation will need at least 1,300 additional 
power
plants over the next two decades. ?Seiple says an over supply would drive down
prices, hurting the power wholesalers, but lower energy costs would suit most
ratepayers just fine. ?Elaine Korry, NPR News, San Francisco.

??CHADWICK: It's 19 minutes past the hour.

LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2001

???????????????????????????????3 of 3 DOCUMENTS

????????????????Copyright 2001 Burrelle's Information Services

?????????????????????????????CBS News Transcripts

?????????????????????SHOW: CBS EVENING NEWS (6:30 PM ET)

????????????????????????????May 17, 2001, Thursday

TYPE: Newscast

LENGTH: 430 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR THREATENS TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS IF
THE GOVERNMENT OFFERS NO RELIEF FOR THE STATE'S ENERGY CRISIS

ANCHORS: DAN RATHER

REPORTERS: BILL WHITAKER

BODY:

??DAN RATHER, anchor:

??There was another blackout in Minnesota just today. ?The power company 
pulled
the plug again on some businesses there, and in Iowa and Illinois, because 
there
just wasn't enough supply to meet the demand. ?The supply problem is even 
worse
in California, and with little or no immediate help coming from the president,
CBS' Bill Whitaker reports the governor is threatening fast, dramatic action.

??BILL WHITAKER reporting:

??Six times this year lights have gone out in parts of California when heat
triggered a surge in demand. ?Today, Governor Gray Davis deflected the 
political
heat, blasting the Bush energy plan as inadequate.

??Governor GRAY DAVIS (Democrat, California): I fault the president for not
providing California with any immediate relief.

??WHITAKER: In a major power play of his own, Davis has threatened to seize 
the
facilities of Reliant Energy, a Texas-based supplier and major Bush 
contributor,
if Reliant doesn't cut prices.

??But I told the generators face to face, I said, 'Your fate is in your hands.
If you don't help me get through this summer with a minimum of disruptions, 
then
you leave me no choice but to sign a windfall profits tax and to seize 
plants.'

??WHITAKER: All five of Reliant's Southern California plants are natural gas
powered, supplying electricity to three million houses. ?Davis has called
Reliant the greediest of all the out-of-state suppliers. ?Reliant wouldn't
comment on camera, but the industry says takeover talk is more political than
economic.

??Mr. JAN SMUTNY-JONES (Independent Energy Producers Association): Seizing
private property didn't work in Cuba and it's not going to work in California,
either.

??WHITAKER: A state takeover of Reliant could backfire, scaring off other
out-of-state generators. ?But analysts say California, which already uses less
energy per capita than any other state, has few options.

??Mr. MARK BERNSTEIN (Energy Analyst, Rand Corp.): The only other thing that
can happen is for the federal government to take action to moderate prices. 
And
if the gov--federal government doesn't take those actions, the governor may 
not
have any choice.

??WHITAKER: Some California legislators suggest creating a buyers' cartel with
Washington and Oregon to jointly muscle down prices and even risk blackouts if
suppliers won't comply. ?So far Oregon and Washington aren't convinced, but
California must do something. ?Last year, electricity cost 400 percent more 
than
the year before. ?And this year, prices are rising still. ?Bill Whitaker, CBS
News, Los Angeles.

LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2001







Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

?????????????????????May 19, 2001 Saturday ?Home Edition

SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 1; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 704 words

HEADLINE: PUC Allegations Detailed;
Hearing: The commission president tells a Senate panel that maintenance 
records
show no valid reason for generators to cut power production.

BYLINE: ROBERT J. LOPEZ, RICH CONNELL, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

BODY:

??The head of the California Public Utilities Commission Friday provided fresh
details showing that power generators scaled back electricity production and
then benefited from the resulting high prices.

??In sworn testimony before a state Senate committee, PUC President Loretta
Lynch said the companies' behavior helped drain so much electricity from the
state's grid that officials were forced to declare emergency alerts.

??Lynch's testimony followed her comments Thursday to The Times that state
investigators have found evidence of power plants being shut down 
unnecessarily
to create "artificial shortages," often when the state was most desperate for
electricity.

??During her testimony Friday, Lynch went beyond her assertions about
unnecessary plant shutdowns and accused generators of also needlessly 
throttling
back generation.

??The PUC and state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer are jointly investigating the
exorbitant wholesale power prices that have cost California billions and 
brought
major utilities to financial ruin.

??Generators have said they never engaged in any conduct intended to 
manipulate
wholesale electricity prices, including unnecessarily shutting down their 
plants
or reducing supply. The facilities, they say, are aging and have run so hard
during the state's crisis that they often require extensive maintenance.

??But the details released by Friday by Lynch added to the questions
surrounding the generators' activities.

??Lynch displayed charts that track electricity prices and power generation at
three plants on a single day last November. After the plants reduced 
production
during the middle of the day, the graphs show, the state was forced to declare
two separate power emergencies because electricity reserves had fallen 
seriously
low.

??The shortfall in supply helped cause a spike in prices. With that, the
companies operating the three plants suddenly increased their electricity
production to almost full capacity, allowing them to capitalize on the much
higher rates.

??"We certainly see a pattern," Lynch told the committee, which is
investigating alleged manipulation of the state's wholesale power market by
energy suppliers. "Many generators are playing on their experience and 
playing,
to an extent, California."

??Maintenance records reviewed by investigators show that there were no valid
reasons for the plants to cut back production, Lynch said. She declined to
identify the power plants involved, saying only that they are owned by at 
least
two companies.

??Sen. Joseph Dunn (D-Santa Ana), who heads the special committee 
investigating
alleged market manipulation, said Lynch's information, on its face, is "very
damning."

??He said his committee has uncovered additional preliminary evidence showing
that several power companies have allegedly engaged in similar behavior.

??"We are looking at data that is suspicious," Dunn said.

??During a break in Friday's hearing, a spokeswoman for a trade group of major
power suppliers said there have been no coordinated efforts to shrink supplies
to increase profits.

??"There has been no collusion," said Jean Munoz of the Independent Energy 
Producers Assn.

??She said many of the plants bought by out-of-state generators under
California's flawed deregulation plan are more than 30 years old. The plants
have been running at high levels to help the state with its energy crunch, she
said.

??Munoz told reporters that the plants owned by out-of-state companies last
year produced 60% more electricity than the previous year.

??Although no firm has been singled out by the PUC or the attorney general's
office, Atlanta-based Mirant Corp. said inspectors have visited company plants
more than 100 times this year and have found no wrongdoing. "Mirant has run 
its
plants voluntarily and continually throughout the crisis," the company said 
in a
statement Friday.

??But Lynch said Friday that visits to more than 80 plants by PUC 
investigators
since December show that generators are not always producing all the power 
they
can.

??"It appears that there have been numerous instances within the past 
half-year
where generation units were not producing the amount of electricity that they
were capable of producing," Lynch said.

LOAD-DATE: May 19, 2001

Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????May 21, 2001 Monday ?Home Edition

SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 7; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 782 words

HEADLINE: The State;
;
Davis Says Bad Guys Went Thataway, to Texas

BYLINE: GEORGE SKELTON

BODY:

??When the lights go dark, this is what Gov. Gray Davis wants us to see:
President Bush and V.P. Dick Cheney smirking as their Texas pals make off with
our money.

??Shutting down power and killing jobs on their way out the door.

??This is pre-summer, a time for creating images that will stay with us 
through
the blackout season and into next year's elections.

??The image Davis is trying to implant in our senses is that of the president
and the power profiteers in collusion. Texans in cahoots. Bush and the 
bullies.

??Actually, it's an easy portrait to paint--an oil landscape with these scenes
reflecting reality:

??Bush and Cheney come from Texas oil backgrounds. Texas energy companies
bankroll Bush running for president. The companies hit a gusher in 
California's
botched deregulation. Our electricity costs soar from $7 billion in 1999 to 
$27
billion in 2000 and may top $60 billion this year. Supply and demand? Demand
increased less than 4% last year.

??Davis pleads for temporary wholesale price caps. Bush and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission won't hear of it. They also ignore California's findings
of $6.3 billion in gouging.

??Davis has been drawing this picture with increasing fervor--in a Washington
Post op-ed piece, in Saturday's official Democratic response to the 
president's
weekly radio address, in Q&As:

??"Where is that money going? Simply put, into the pockets of the generators
and marketers . . . many of them located in Texas. . . .

??"Mr. President, with all due respect, I urge you to stand up to your friends
in the energy business and exercise the federal government's exclusive
responsibility to ensure energy prices are reasonable. . . .

??"Californians want to know whether you're going to be on their side. . . .
You're allowing the price-gouging energy companies to get away with murder."

??Independent pollster Mark Baldassare puts it in context: "We're at the point
in this crisis where people soon will begin to reassign blame."

??Until now, fingers have been pointed at past actors--former Gov. Pete 
Wilson,
the 1996 Legislature, the private utilities. Now, present performances are 
being
scrutinized--not only Bush's, but especially Davis'. He's vulnerable for 
having
reacted slowly to the emerging crisis last summer.

??A new Baldassare poll being released today by the Public Policy Institute of
California tells the story: The familiar utilities, Wilson and the old
Legislature are blamed by 58% of Californians for the current mess. Davis and
the present Legislature, the enigmatic power generators and the Bush
administration are blamed by only 28%.

??"People are going to stop thinking about what happened five years ago and
start focusing on what's happening this year," Baldassare says. "How will 
those
58% get reallocated? Their attitudes are going to be shaped in the next month 
or
so. That's what all the political maneuvering is about right now."

??It's why Davis is starting to name generators--like Houston-based Reliant 
Energy--and tie them to the president from Texas. It's why he keeps repeating:
"Mr. President, you didn't create this problem. But you are the only one who 
can
solve it."

??Davis also thinks it's conceivable a pressured president will reverse 
himself
and support temporary price caps. If not that, some "creative price relief." 
One
option, he says, is for FERC to acknowledge the massive gouging and order huge
refunds.

??Until lately, Davis had been deferential toward the new president.

??"Initially, the governor felt he could reason with the Bush administration,"
says Garry South, his political advisor. "But he really got ticked off when it
became clear that not only was the administration unsympathetic, but most 
likely
was hanging us out to dry. Especially galling were Cheney's inaccurate and
irresponsible--not to mention haughty--comments about California."

??Cheney recently told The Times he'd oppose price caps even if runaway energy
costs threatened the nation's economy.

??Baldassare's poll shows the political volatility. Davis' job rating has
dropped significantly since January--down from 63% approval then to 46% now,
with 41% disapproval. Only 29% approve of the way he's handling electricity; 
60%
disapprove.

??Bush's job rating is high--57% to 36%--but only 33% approve of his
performance on electricity; 56% disapprove.

??People are focused on this debacle--82% following it "closely" in the news.
Opinions are shifting. Images are being shaped.

??If Bush could open his mind, broaden his ideology and provide price relief--
truly be a compassionate conservative--maybe he'd be a hero.

??If not, Davis will be painting that Texas landscape all summer long.

LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????12 of 207 DOCUMENTS

????????????????????Copyright 2001 Chicago Tribune Company

???????????????????????????????Chicago Tribune

???????????????May 21, 2001 Monday, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION

SECTION: Business; Pg. 3; ZONE: CN; INSIDE TECHNOLOGY.

LENGTH: 758 words

HEADLINE: Power demands set stage for boom in backup systems

BYLINE: BY JON VAN.

BODY:

??Electricity deregulation is just one trend that's putting a big smile on the
faces of folks at Schneider Electric's North American division in Palatine 
these
days.

??There's also the rapid growth of electronic gear that requires electric
current that flows without interruption or variation, and the concern over
reliability of the public power grid.

??The new complexity is pushing electrical power from commodity status into a
new category as a resource that requires a lot of expertise, and Schneider
executives are devising strategies to take advantage of the new situation.

??Schneider, parent to the Square D brand of electrical control products, is
telling customers that it's short-sighted of them to buy transducers, circuit
breakers and the like from the lowest bidder. Instead, goes this argument, 
they
need to turn over their electrical needs to Schneider to provide an end 
solution
instead of a lot of piecemeal products.

??"We're saying you have to spend money to save money," said Amelia 
Huntington,
Schneider's strategic accounts vice president.

??California's electrical outages and the problems of Chicago's Commonwealth
Edison a few years ago have convinced many business managers of the wisdom of
having a back-up supply of electrical power for when the grid goes dead, she
said.

??Schneider hopes to enter some agreements with customers to own and maintain
electrical infrastructure on their premises in a fee-for-service arrangement
that goes beyond the traditional deal where Schneider sells equipment that a
customer then owns, operates and maintains.

??So far the firm hasn't sealed such a deal, but it has had talks with
customers along those lines, Huntington said. It does have several customers
that have moved away from traditional open bidding relationships with multiple
vendors.

??An example is an IBM plant that uses 130 kilovolts to fabricate computer
chips around the clock seven days a week. Any loss of power, even for a 
fraction
of a second, could cost the plant millions of dollars, Huntington said.

??"Electrical power used to be something that was a given, and manufacturers
didn't think about it much," Huntington said. "But that's changing fast, and 
it
provides us with a marvelous opportunity. We are telling our customers that we
want to be their mini-powerhouse."

??Aflutter over fiber: The upgrade of its phone networks that SBC
Communications Inc. has dubbed Project Pronto is at something of an impasse in
Illinois, but the phone giant is moving ahead with it in Texas and California.

??Executives at Ameritech claim that requirements imposed by the Illinois
Commerce Commission, which call for upgraded network facilities to be shared
with competitors, are unworkable. Consequently, they have declined to use 
Pronto
upgrades to expand the number of customers who can get high-speed Internet DSL
service.

??Elsewhere in SBC territory, the Pronto upgrades are being extended to offer
direct fiber connections to some small businesses. Plans call for SBC to offer
fiber to consumers' homes in the near future.

??While telecom strategists have talked about fiber to the home for about a
decade, SBC's plans mark the most aggressive implementation in recent memory.
Fiber provides so much information-carrying capacity that a single strand of
glass can carry TV programs, high-speed Internet and Napster music downloads
with excess capacity to spare.

??But it may not get much beyond the experimental stage, suggests a local
consultant. Scott Bender, a Chicago-based vice president of Bain & Co., said
that despite the technology lure of bringing fiber to residences, the economic
feasibility of fiber to the home remains elusive.

??The problem, Bender said, is the cost of the equipment that converts the
photons of light that travel on optical fiber into electrons that make
computers, televisions and phones work.

??"Why spend hundreds of dollars for electronics at every home?" Bender asked.
"Instead you can bring fiber into a neighborhood and have one set of 
electronics
handle many customers, using copper wire to make the connection for the last 
few
hundred feet.

??"The fact is that copper can provide all the bandwidth that any home-based
application requires."

??Even though Bender is skeptical that the market is ready for fiber to the
home just yet, he doesn't criticize SBC management for trying it.

??"Every major carrier probably should do experiments like this every few
years," he said. "That way they won't get caught flat-footed when something 
new
finally sticks."

Business. Technology.

LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????13 of 207 DOCUMENTS

???????????????????The Associated Press State & Local Wire

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

????????????????????????May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????8:34 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 273 words

HEADLINE: New poll suggests Californians haven't been this gloomy for years

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:

??Not since the mid-'90s have more Californians believed the state is headed 
in
the wrong direction.

??And it may get worse. ?Nearly 60 percent of state residents expect the
economy to worsen in the next year, while about 40 percent see a brighter
horizon, according to a new poll.

??The telephone survey of 2,001 adult Californians was done over eight days in
early May by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. The poll 
was
conducted in English and Spanish.

??The twin culprits were the souring economy and the electricity crisis.

??"Californians clearly see the electricity crisis as a harbinger of other
growth-related problems," said Mark Baldassare, the research institute's 
survey
director. "This crisis and general economic uncertainty have severely 
undermined
public confidence in California's future and in its leaders."

??Change has come swiftly.

??In January, 62 percent of state residents said California was headed in the
right direction, compared to 48 percent this month.

??Other key findings include:

??-82 percent of respondents said population growth over the next 20 years 
will
make California a less desirable place to live.

??-86 percent of respondents said the electricity crisis will hurt the state's
economy.

??-43 percent of respondents favor building more power plants, up from 32
percent in January. The second most popular solution, re-regulating the
electricity industry, was the favored solution in January.

??-Traffic congestion, affordable housing, air pollution and a shortage of 
good
jobs top the list of negative consequences respondents foresee from the 
state's
population growth.

LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????14 of 207 DOCUMENTS

???????????????????The Associated Press State & Local Wire

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

????????????????????????May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????6:43 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 901 words

HEADLINE: 'Baseline' becoming key word for electric customers

BYLINE: By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:

??A little calculation on electric bills is fast becoming a big concern for
millions of residential customers of California's two largest utilities.

??Sitting near the top of Southern California Edison electric bills, and near
the bottom of the last page of Pacific Gas and Electric bills, is a number
called baseline, which guarantees a certain amount of electricity at the 
lowest
price utilities charge.

??This number, which differs from customer to customer based on a host of
factors, is the benchmark for determining how much more residents will pay for
electricity come June - when the largest rate hikes in California history 
start
showing up on bills.

??"Now with deregulation and prices being so much higher, it's going to 
require
that people educate themselves about their bills the same way they had to do
when long distance telephone service was deregulated," said Commissioner Carl
Wood of the Public Utilities Commission.

??Under a rate-hike allocation plan approved Tuesday by the PUC, everyone who
exceeds baseline by more than 30 percent will pay progressively more for that
additional electricity - with the heaviest residential users facing a 37 
percent
average hike on their overall bill, translating to an increase of roughly $85 
a
month.

??State law ensures that residential customers who don't use more than 30
percent above baseline will not face the rate hikes. The PUC figures around 
half
of PG&E and Edison customers now fall into that category.

??But consumer rights groups, and even the utilities, think the PUC is
underestimating residential electric use, given the recent proliferation of 
home
computers, cell phone chargers and the like.

??They think baseline is set too low for many customers, and say families and
people who work at home will pay more than their fair share of the rate hikes.

??"It's an anti-family action. People with kids have a hard time staying 
within
baseline," said Mike Florio, senior attorney with The Utility Reform Network. 
"A
rate hike of 30 to 40 percent could be 100 percent for people with large
households."

??Since 1982, when lawmakers created baseline - given in cents per kilowatt
hour per month - to ensure a minimum amount of affordable power and encourage
conservation, the PUC has determined baseline by dividing the state into
climatic and geographic regions.

??PG&E has 10 such regions within its service territory in northern and 
central
California; Edison has six in central and southern California. 

??The PUC then finds the average amount of electricity use for customers 
within
each region. The baseline quantity is 50 percent to 60 percent of that amount,
and up to 70 percent of that amount during the winter months if a customer 
uses
only one type of energy (electricity or natural gas).

??Customers who depend on electronic medical equipment such as suction,
breathing and dialysis machines, can apply for a slightly higher baseline.

??A family living in the scorching hot Coachella Valley would have a larger
allotment of lower-priced electricity than a family living in breezy Monterey,
given that air conditioning for the former is necessary to survival.

??Since baseline is based on averages, a single apartment dweller and a family
of four who live in the same region could have the same baseline. That makes 
it
more likely for the family to get hit with rate hikes and less likely,
economists fear, that the apartment dweller has a financial incentive to
conserve.

??"Where it is imperfect is that it has no ability to make any adjustments for
the size of the family," said John Nelson, a PG&E spokesman.

??Focusing baseline on household size gets complicated, Florio said. "Does 
PG&E
come by and do bed checks?"

??Along with raising $5.7 billion to replenish the state's general fund for
power buys since January, the rate hikes approved March 27 by the PUC and
allocated on Tuesday were also meant to trigger conservation that could help
avoid rolling blackouts this summer.

??Baseline has not been reassessed since the early 1990s. PUC president 
Loretta
Lynch and fellow commissioner Wood say they may hold hearings as early as this
coming week on possible inequities and ways to update the system.

??"There was plenty of testimony at public hearings that people suspect that
baselines are not appropriate or are not calculated right," Wood said.

??Wood said when baseline first was created nearly 20 years ago, houses were
smaller and many lacked central air conditioning.

??Though the PUC has updated baseline amounts through the years, "living
standards have changed, housing standards have changed and it may be that
average usage is different from what it was," Wood said.

??Florio said giving baselines a second look could go either way for 
consumers.
There are typically more electronic gadgets in homes these days, but many of
those gadgets and appliances are more energy efficient than their ancestors.

??Add that to increased conservation statewide, Florio said, and there's a 
slim
chance baselines could actually go down and expose more customers to rate 
hikes.

??"It's a percentage of average use historically, and people have used energy
more efficiently," through the years, Florio said.

??---


??On the Net:

??California Public Utilities Commission: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov
 
??Pacific Gas and Electric Co.: http://www.pge.com
 
??Southern California Edison Co.: http://www.sce.com
 
LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????15 of 207 DOCUMENTS

???????????????????The Associated Press State & Local Wire

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

????????????????????????May 21, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????4:03 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 720 words

HEADLINE: Grid officials, others studying planned blackouts

BYLINE: By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SACRAMENTO

BODY:

??Could Californians be waking up to hear a weather report, a pollen count and
an electricity blackout forecast?

??It's not out of the question, say some lawmakers.

??"I actually think it's a thoughtful plan ... to give folks an opportunity to
understand the likelihood of blackouts on a daily basis," Assemblyman Fred
Keeley, D-Boulder Creek, the Assembly's point man on energy.

??Keeley compared it to "weather forecasting, to be able to look at the next
three or four days, have a percentile about the likelihood of blackouts."

??The Independent System Operator, keeper of the state's power grid, is
expected to release a report Monday detailing how such a plan would work.

??The idea is "to provide a lot of information so people can make choices to
live with blackouts on a temporary basis this summer," Keeley said.

??Peter Navarro, a University of California, Irvine, economics professor,
released a report last month with a consumer group that recommends the state 
set
a price limit on what they'll pay for power. And if generators don't lower the
price, the state should schedule blackouts to cut consumption, he said.

??The report by Navarro and the Utility Consumers' Action Network says the
state's current method of "highly disruptive random rolling blackouts" needs 
to
be revamped.

??UCAN suggests that the state be divided into blackout zones that utilities
could notify ahead of time that power would be cut at a specific time and for 
a
certain duration.

??Scheduling blackouts could attract criminals to outage areas, Keeley
acknowledged, and possibly could subject the state to legal liability for
traffic accidents or other incidents if power is deliberately shut off.

??"That is a genuine problem and genuine concern," Keeley said. "I think we
would have to work with local governments so they could have a sufficient
advance notice to be able to foresee that and try to deploy their resources
appropriately."

??Critics of the planned blackouts said power producers simply could sell 
their
unused electricity to other states, or trim back production to keep supplies
short.

??Assemblyman Mike Briggs, R-Fresno, plans to introduce a bill this week that
would have the Public Utilities Commission notify businesses and homeowners as
much as one month ahead of time when they would have their power cut.

??"We owe the people of this state some kind of schedule," Briggs said. "If
businesses and individuals knew what days their power could potentially be 
shut
off or blacked out, they could plan for that blackout accordingly."

??The Central Valley Republican said the ability to plan for outages would be
especially benefit farmers, who need power to irrigate their crops.

??Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, who convened a special subcommittee on
blackouts, has also suggested the state should consider scheduling daily
blackouts to cut the state's power use and drive down prices. Democratic
Assembly members plan to introduce their own version of a blackout plan.

??Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, has said she envisions giving consumers
three to five days notice that their power will be cut during a particular
period, so businesses could opt to shut down or shift their operations to
nonpeak hours such as nights and weekends.

??And by treating blackouts as a first option rather than a last resort, the
state could cut its peak power needs and drive down prices, Bowen said.
California power consumers would in essence form "a reverse cartel to stop the
market manipulation and the price gouging," she said.

??The planned blackout suggestions come as state officials grow increasingly
concerned that power prices will keep rising this summer, even beyond the
extraordinary levels the state already has been paying on behalf of three
cash-strapped privately owned utilities.

??Gov. Gray Davis said the state paid $1,900 per megawatt hour at one point
last week.

??The state has dedicated $6.7 billion since mid-January to purchase power for
Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and
Electric. 

??Those expenditures will be repaid this summer when the state issues $13.4
billion in revenue bonds. The bonds will be repaid by ratepayers over 15 
years.



??---

??On the Net:

??California Independent System Operator: http://www.caiso.com/
 
LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????27 of 207 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????May 20, 2001 Sunday ?Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 21; National Desk

LENGTH: 709 words

HEADLINE: THE NATION;
;
As Energy Prices Rise, So Does the Rancor;
Politics: Gov. Davis says power plan comes at the expense of consumers. Bush
blames Democrats for environmental curbs.

BYLINE: EDMUND SANDERS, TIMES STAFF WRITER

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

??President Bush and Democratic leaders decried the rising cost of energy
Saturday, but Bush implicitly blamed Democrats for outmoded environmental
restrictions while Democrats explicitly blamed Bush for favoring the energy
industry over consumers.

??Speaking for Democrats, California Gov. Gray Davis said the energy plan that
the president unveiled Tuesday would do nothing to alleviate the immediate
threats of rising gasoline prices and blackouts in California.

??The president's plan "simply favors more energy production at the expense of
everything else," said Davis, who has unsuccessfully lobbied the Bush
administration to temporarily cap wholesale prices until new power plants can 
be
brought on line.

??Davis, whose popularity has sunk during the crisis, noted that companies 
from
Bush's home state of Texas were the targets of most allegations of 
price-gouging
in California by out-of-state energy suppliers.

??"Mr. President, runaway energy prices are not just a California problem,"
Davis said. "With all due respect, I urge you to stand up to your friends in 
the
energy business and exercise the federal government's exclusive responsibility
to ensure that energy prices are reasonable."

??Bush so far has tried to stay above the fray, letting his aides respond to
criticisms. "It's time to leave behind rancorous old arguments and build a
positive new consensus," the president said Saturday in his weekly radio
address.

??But the rancor is certain to continue. The Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee on Saturday announced the launch of a monthlong radio and television
advertising campaign targeting Republican lawmakers whom they blame for not
doing enough to ease the energy crunch.

??The campaign specifically criticizes Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Long Beach) for
opposing a temporary cap on electricity prices. It is scheduled to start 
Monday
with a 30-second spot that ends with a message urging viewers to call Horn's
offices for immediate action.

??"California's energy crisis is deepening, with summer blackouts predicted 
and
rate hikes of up to 80%," the ad states. "Yet President Bush has offered no
relief to hard-pressed ratepayers. . . . Our representative, Steve Horn, has
joined with Bush in opposing a temporary cap on electricity prices. Call Horn
and tell him we need action now."

??Mark Nevins, a committee spokesman, said the ad campaign is part of an 
effort
to hold Horn and fellow Republicans accountable for lack of leadership on the
energy issue.

??"Horn's party controls the House, the Senate and the White House--and they
have yet to do a thing to provide some immediate relief to California's
families," Nevins said.

??House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) called on Bush on Saturday
to endorse temporary price caps to stop what he termed 10- and even 20-fold
increases in Californians' energy bills.

??Appearing on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields," Gephardt also said Bush
should have included his tax incentives for energy conservation in the giant 
tax
cut bill that is moving through Congress.

??"The good parts of his plan are not in his budget and not in his tax bill,
which really makes a mockery of what he's really suggesting," Gephardt said.
"We're putting through this week, supposedly, a $1.3-trillion tax 
cut--probably
the biggest tax cut in our history. And there's not a penny in it for the 
energy
stuff that he suggested this week."

??The president's energy plan calls for greater production of power and fuel,
tax breaks for conservation and construction of new nuclear plants.

??Two of its most controversial elements are opening Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for drilling and giving federal agencies power to force
landowners to sell property needed for new electricity transmission lines.

??Responding to growing complaints from environmentalists, Bush insisted that
new technologies would enable the nation to boost energy production without
hurting the environment.

??"Too often, Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and
environmental protection," Bush said. "The truth is, energy production and
environmental protection are not competing."

??*

??Times staff writer Robert Marosi in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001

?????????????????????????????28 of 207 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????May 20, 2001 Sunday ?Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 16; National Desk

LENGTH: 930 words

HEADLINE: THE NATION;
;
Spencer Abraham Is Running on Energy, Not Charisma;
Profile: Charged with selling Bush's initiative, 'workhorse' new to the field 
is
facing a hard row.

BYLINE: FAYE FIORE, TIMES STAFF WRITER

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

??Now that President Bush's energy plan has been pondered, penned and rolled
out, the task of selling it to the American people falls in large part to a
48-year-old father of three who drives a green Chrysler minivan and jokes of
having "a face made for radio."

??Spencer Abraham, the man who accepted the job of Energy secretary knowing
precious little about energy, takes his place as promoter in chief for the 
plan
designed to "finally put America on the right course," as he likes to put it.

??It was Vice President Dick Cheney who conceived the 105-point blueprint,
engineered over pots of coffee at an ornate 19th century table in his office.
Now Cheney cedes the spotlight to Abraham, a self-described "workhorse, not 
show
horse" whose admitted lack of charisma helped cost him his Senate seat last 
year
after just one term as a Michigan congressman.

??Abraham, the grandson of Lebanese immigrants, wears his shoes until they 
wear
out and gets haircuts when his staff reminds him. His idea of a good time is 
hot
dogs with his wife, son and twin daughters in the food court of a Virginia
shopping mall.

??"It's not a charismatic plan, so it doesn't require a charismatic guy," said
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine who 
served
with Abraham on former Vice President Dan Quayle's staff. "He is of
working-class origins; not a glib talker. He'll have a shrewd sense of how to
sell this plan, as well as a real understanding of it."

??On the eve of the energy plan's unveiling Thursday, Abraham was the only
administration spokesman trotted out for the network news. Friday he made the
rounds of morning TV news shows, delivering the party line that conservation
alone will not solve the problem, that more energy sources must be generated.

??And on the Op-ed pages of Friday's Wall Street Journal, he sought to counter
complaints that the plan is anti-environment and would only help big business.

??"Americans love and want an unlimited supply of affordable energy, but they
don't like virtually each of the sources that provide it," Abraham said in a
recent interview. "Coal is too dirty, nuclear isn't safe, hydropower kills 
fish,
windmills threaten birds."

??His mission is to persuade the people otherwise. It is a job that comes with
little power and lots of room for blame.

??The Department of Energy, which then-Sen. Abraham sought to abolish in 1999,
shares splintered authority with several other agencies. What it does command 
is
often controversial: the nuclear weapon labs that came under scrutiny after
security breaches at its Los Alamos, N.M., facility and oversight of the
nation's aging nuclear arsenal.

??But his greatest challenge is likely to come this summer in California, when
anticipated electricity shortages will cause the lights to go out, air
conditioners to shut down and whopping utility bills to arrive in the mail.

??Then Abraham is poised to become California's pinata, the federal official
who gets the stick because, Bush administration critics will argue, the 
federal
government has failed to deliver the caps on wholesale power rates that Gov. 
Gray Davis and others have sought.

??"The public is getting ready to be hit with a rate increase, and they are
going to be mad as the devil," said a former member of Congress familiar with
energy policy who declined to be identified to avoid offending the
administration.

??Critics point to Abraham's lack of energy background as his greatest
weakness. But what Abraham brought to his post--and what should serve him
well--is political savvy, his supporters say. He headed the Michigan state
Republican Party during most of the 1980s and joined Quayle's staff in 1990. 
He
returned to Michigan to launch his Senate bid in 1993 and rode 1994's 
nationwide
GOP tide into office.

??Abraham's voting record generally reflected the GOP congressional agenda: He
loyally opposed abortion rights and favored free trade; his environmental 
record
earned him the Sierra Club's lowest rating. But he made his mark by 
successfully
challenging party leaders when they sought to reduce legal immigration to the
United States.

??He spent more time working in the back rooms of Congress than in its
limelight. He likes to tell the story of one early turn presiding over the
Senate when he forgot about the live microphone and was caught on C-SPAN 
humming
the children's song, "Do You Know the Muffin Man?"

??His supporters note he's a quick study, a Harvard-educated lawyer who has
mastered the subject of energy in mere weeks. He starts work early and stays
late, presenting his staff with checklists of things to do and ideas to 
explore.
He has a knack for distilling an arcane science into language the public can
understand.

??He may need all the communication skills he can muster to confront one of 
his
most awkward tasks: telling the nation's most populous state it must solve its
energy problem largely on its own.

??"California keeps saying, 'Why won't Washington do something?' " Abraham
said, reiterating his opposition to electricity price caps he believes will 
only
prolong the crisis. But he added: "The first call I made as secretary of 
Energy
was to Gov. Davis. . . . We're not leaving any stones unturned."

??If Abraham was not practiced in front of the camera in his early career, he
seems to be now. His performance has earned high marks at the White House, 
aides
said.

??Not much briefing was required before he traveled with Bush to Minnesota for
the energy plan's debut. He already knew the material, a staff member said. 
And
he had gotten a haircut.

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001

?????????????????????????????30 of 207 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????May 20, 2001 Sunday ?Home Edition

SECTION: California; Part 2; Page 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 407 words

HEADLINE: Los Angeles;
;
Davis Launches Conservation Campaign;
Electricity: Governor hands out fluorescent lightbulbs in his effort to get
Californians to save power this summer.

BYLINE: DALONDO MOULTRIE, TIMES STAFF WRITER

BODY:

??Gov. Gray Davis' visit to Estella Burnett's Venice home Saturday had nothing
to do with her steps at conserving energy. She was already doing her part.

??But Davis asked her to do more.

??The governor stopped at one other home in Burnett's neighborhood to help
distribute compact fluorescent lightbulbs as part of the kickoff of 
"PowerWalk,"
a program designed to encourage California residents to conserve electricity 
during the state's energy-strapped summer.

??Members of the California Conservation Corps began distributing the energy
efficient bulbs across the state Saturday. The plan is to deliver 1.5 million 
of
them door-to-door in the next 17 weeks.

??The effort was welcomed at homes in Venice but residents, including Burnett,
said more needs to be done.

??"I think the lightbulbs might help, but it's up to us to conserve," Burnett
said after Davis left her home, adding that the Legislature can also do more.
"They can build more power plants so we don't have to take up their slack."

??Conservation Corps members also visited the home of Owen Thomas, 25.

??The idea of handing out the bulbs struck Thomas as a novel, proactive way to
spread the message of energy conservation, he said.

??To maximize his energy conservation efforts, Thomas limits his use of 
lights,
he said. But he said still more needs to be done.

??"I doubt that's how people use [the bulk of] their energy," Thomas said.

??He said he cuts back on use of lights and his computer and doesn't use his
air conditioners.

??Davis also paid a visit to the home of John Ghanie, 58, who lives across the
street from Burnett.

??Ghanie said Davis' PowerWalk campaign is a good idea but he, too, believes
other steps must be taken.

??"I think he is trying to do something," Ghanie said. "It should have been
done years ago. The lightbulbs are good, but we need [power] plants. This is
like a Band-Aid. We need a cure."

??Davis said he is committed to providing more energy to the state by
authorizing construction of 15 plants, 10 of which are being built.

??He said California legislators are doing all they can to fight the energy
battle.

??President Bush needs to step in and help California deal with the crisis,
Davis said.

??Burnett, 66, said she is happy to help in attempts at conservation. "I wash
clothes at night," she said. "We very seldom turn on the television; only to
turn on the news. I use the dishwasher maybe once every other week."

GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Gov. Gray Davis gives energy efficient fluorescent lightbulbs 
to
Venice resident Estella Burnett. The California Conservation Corps will 
deliver
1.5 million of them door-to-door in the next 17 weeks. PHOTOGRAPHER: STEFANO
PALTERA / For The Times

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001

?????????????????????????????40 of 207 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????Copyright 2001 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.

????????????????????????????????Sacramento Bee

???????????????????May 20, 2001, Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

SECTION: MAIN NEWS; Pg. A3; CAPITOL & CALIFORNIA

LENGTH: 704 words

HEADLINE: One year later, we know it wasn't just a simple game of golf

BYLINE: Dan Walters

BODY:

??California will mark - but certainly not celebrate - an anniversary this
week. It was exactly one year ago that a late spring heat wave swept over San
Diego, and as air conditioners began drawing heavy amounts of power, San Diego
Gas & Electric Co. began charging its customers high, market-oriented rates 
for
juice.

??It was the beginning of the California energy crisis, or at least of public
and political awareness that something was wrong. And a year later, every 
aspect
of the crisis continues to grow worse. We are paying 10 times as much for 
power
as we were two years ago. We have amassed more than $20 billion in private and
public debt that will grow even with sharp increases in consumer power rates.
And we face potentially life-threatening summer blackouts.

??Certainly the roots of the crisis extend much further than one year. They go
back to decisions in the 1970s to stop major power plant construction and rely
on conservation and alternative generating sources. And they include a 
momentous
decision in the mid-1990s to adopt a "deregulation" plan that was an 
unworkable
hybrid of open markets and price controls that left us at the mercy of
out-of-state generators. Of more currency is what was and wasn't done in the
last 12 months to fan that spark into a uncontrolled, and perhaps
uncontrollable, firestorm.

??Gov. Gray Davis once said that he was approaching energy just as he plays
golf, "one hole at a time." Unfortunately for Davis, and for the state, it was
not a golf game, but one of three-dimensional, and perhaps four-dimensional,
chess. To manage the crisis effectively, the Democratic governor needed the
ability, either personally or through trusted aides, to pull together its
disparate elements into a cohesive whole.

??The golfing approach was evident from the beginning, as Davis dealt with 
only
the most immediate aspects of the situation as they evolved, rather than
embracing it wholly and actively. Private and public energy experts warned 
that
what was happening in San Diego was a harbinger of a larger crisis and 
proposed
that the 1996 "deregulation" be suspended, that rates be raised slightly and
that private utilities be given broad authority to enter into long-term supply
contracts to stabilize the market. But Davis and his handpicked state Public
Utilities Commission president, Loretta Lynch, stalled for time.

??Less than a month after the crisis first surfaced, the PUC voted 3-2 to
authorize long-term supply contracts at about 5 cents a kilowatt-hour - 
slightly
higher than wholesale prices had been, but ridiculously cheap by contemporary
standards. Publicly owned utilities saw the looming price escalation and 
quickly
locked up long-term supplies, but Lynch denounced the commission action as "a
wrong turn" that could lead to higher consumer bills, and within days it was
scuttled in legislation signed by Davis.

??Rather than face the issue comprehensively and proactively, Davis, Lynch and
the Legislature opted for an expedient fix in San Diego, rolling back retail
rates without addressing either supply or cost issues. Within weeks, private
utilities were beginning to take on billions of dollars in debt as wholesale
costs skyrocketed.

??Last summer's failure to act was compounded by other errors of judgment. 
It's
clear now, for example, that it was a mistake for the state to continue buying
power at sky-high rates when the utilities had exhausted their credit. Having 
a
new deep pocket encouraged the generators to charge whatever the market would
bear.

??A year after he could have nipped the crisis in the bud, but didn't, Davis 
is
busily rewriting history and blaming others, principally Republicans, for the
dilemma. But the governor cannot, or should not, escape the responsibility for
approaching this very complex situation like a game of golf, or like some
routine political dispute, and thus failing to apply the aggressive and
sophisticated managerial touch that this crisis demanded from the onset.

??As Gen. George McClellan discovered at the Battle of Antietam during the
Civil War, the unwillingness to take risk often leads to greater carnage.

??* * *

??The Bee's Dan Walters can be reached at (916) 321-1195 or
dwalters@sacbee.com.

LOAD-DATE: May 21, 2001

?????????????????????????????42 of 207 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.

?????????????????????????The San Francisco Chronicle

?????????????????????MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A5

LENGTH: 1030 words

HEADLINE: ENERGY CRUNCH;

Investigations;

Power firms fueled by greed, Lockyer says;

Out-of-state generators face multiple probes

SOURCE: Sacramento Bureau Chief

BYLINE: Greg Lucas

DATELINE: Sacramento

BODY:
Up the road in Folsom, at the nondescript headquarters of the Independent 
System
Operator -- monitor-in-chief of California's energy grid -- they have a new 
job:
responding to more than 40 detailed subpoenas.

???The data the ISO keeps on electricity transactions are central to the
half-dozen investigations initiated by state and federal agencies into various
parts of the state's energy mess, including possible criminal activity by 
power
generators.

???"They're asking for everything and then some," a spokeswoman for the ISO,
Stephanie McCorkle, said, sighing.

???The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the state Public Utilities
Commission, the Assembly, the Senate, the state attorney general and a phalanx
of state and federal auditors all are boring into California's energy mess.

???The main thrust of the most significant investigations is the conduct of
power generators that have reaped record profits selling electricity to the
electron-starved state.

???Although most investigators say the ISO's logs and bid records show the
various generators used their market share to drive up prices, the issue is
whether they did so acting collaboratively, either directly or indirectly.

???Generators deny any manipulation of the market. They say their prices 
simply
reflect a lack of supply, plant breakdowns and the high cost of natural gas.

???But that hasn't stopped the state from trying to prove them wrong.

???Attorney General Bill Lockyer has been probing the actions of the 
generators
since August to see if they manipulated the market or engaged in unfair 
business
practices or if their executives engaged in criminal behavior.

???"We all feel we've been taken advantage of, been gouged," Lockyer said. 
"The
question is whether it's legal greed or illegal greed. There's no question 
it's
greed."

???Lockyer is in court fighting energy companies like Reliant Energy Inc. and
Dynegy, which have refused to disclose internal company information that 
Lockyer
subpoenaed Feb. 15.

???The power companies say they are not receiving assurances the documents
Lockyer wants will be kept confidential.

???Lockyer said he hopes to complete his spadework on the generators this
summer.

???The PUC also is probing whether generators timed maintenance and shutdowns
to drive up prices.

???On Thursday, PUC President Loretta Lynch said investigators found patterns
of plant shutdowns that created "artificial shortages."

???Lockyer insisted that "no one yet has sufficient evidence to win a civil or
criminal suit. But we're probably further along than any other investigative
effort."

???Generators say they are cooperating with the investigations -- except for
worries about proprietary information becoming public -- and flatly reject the
notion they have been gaming the market or acting in concert.

???"We naturally would take serious issue with some of those allegations," 
said
Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Reliant Energy in Houston. "It doesn't 
compute
because we all compete against each other. We don't cooperate, share 
information
or anything of that nature. It's not only illegal but unethical to do so."

???Said Chuck Griffin, a Mirant Corp. spokesman: "Any patterns would exist
because of the rules they established long before Mirant was in California."

???A new investigation of the generators is being done also by the aptly named
Senate Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation in the Wholesale
Energy Market. It too is meeting resistance from generators in handing over
documents they consider confidential.

???"Discussions thus far in that regard have been disturbing, and right now
we're at an impasse," said Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, the committee's 
chairman.

???Dunn's committee can only gather facts and make recommendations on new laws
if it uncovers some kind of anti-competitive activity not already covered by 
the
law.

???So far, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the only entity to
impose any economic pain on generators.

???After a probe of California's power market last summer, the commission
issued an order in December that created a mechanism by which generators would
have to justify prices above a certain level determined by the commission.

???In March, the commission said generators had to justify $124 million in
charges -- or reimburse the money.

???It also reached an $8 million settlement with AES Southland and Williams
Energy Marketing & Trading over power plants that were supposed to be running
but weren't.

???Critics, from Gov. Gray Davis down, say that generators owe many millions
more in refunds.

???Several other investigations are either under way or completed.

???The PUC is investigating whether the holding companies of Pacific Gas and
Electric, Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy in San Diego violated 
the
requirement that the utility be their first spending priority.

???The investigation came after discoveries that while PG&E and Edison were
accumulating huge debts buying power, they were also transferring hundreds of
millions to their parent companies.

??--------------------------------------------------------------------------

???Probes sparked by power crisis

???Here's a look at some of the investigations California's power crisis has
sparked and their status:

???Market manipulation by power generators -- The Public Utilities Commission,
attorney general and a special Senate committee are all investigating
allegations.

???High prices charged by generators -- The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission said in March that generators must justify $124 million in possible
overcharges or refund the money. The investigation is still open.

???Investor-owned utilities transferring large sums to their holding companies
-- The PUC is examining whether any regulations were violated.

???The flaws of electrical deregulation -- The state auditor general completed
a report in March.

???Audits of the utilities -- A report concluding utilities transferred
millions to parent companies was released in January by the PUC.

???Price spikes in natural gas -- An Assembly committee issued its report last
week, saying El Paso Corp. manipulated the market.E-mail Greg Lucas at
glucas@sfchronicle.com.

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001

?????????????????????????????44 of 207 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.

?????????????????????????The San Francisco Chronicle

?????????????????????MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1

LENGTH: 1932 words

HEADLINE: Power juggling ramped up price;

Insiders say manipulation also strained equipment

SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writers

BYLINE: Christian Berthelsen, Scott Winokur

BODY:
Large power companies have driven up electricity prices in California by
throttling their generators up and down to create artificial shortages,
according to dozens of interviews with regulators, lawyers and energy industry
workers.

???Those sources say the unusual maneuvers not only jacked up prices but also
wore down equipment and contributed to the record levels of plant shutdowns 
that
are depriving the state of much-needed electricity. The accounts are supported
by an independent review of shutdown data by The Chronicle.

???The California Energy Commission calculates that an average of 14,990
megawatts of generating capacity, nearly a third of the state's total, was
unavailable each day in April because of plant shutdowns, more than four times
as much as a year ago.

???Such shutdowns are the subject of increasing scrutiny as California enters
another period of high demand, the warm spring and summer months of May to
September, when electricity usage normally grows by a third.

???Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, 
said
last week the agency has found considerable evidence of suspicious plant
shutdowns. And the California Independent System Operator, which manages the
state's power grid, says plant shutdowns have now become the primary means of
constricting supply.

???But an extensive investigation by The Chronicle has found that not only 
were
generators shut down to boost prices but these "gaming" tactics contributed to
the plants' deteriorating condition.

???"We suspected it," said Jim MacIntosh, the manager of grid operations for
the ISO. "It was a sure factor in driving up prices." Such swings in unit
output, he said, "would only make sense in a scenario when they're trying to
game something. Otherwise, why would they do that? They're tearing their units
up."

???Unusual phone calls

???Operators at a San Bernardino County power plant owned by Reliant Energy
Inc. say a complex plan to manipulate the California energy market began early
last year with a series of unusual telephone calls from the company's
headquarters in Houston.

???According to the accounts of three plant operators, Reliant's operations
schedulers on the energy trading floor ordered them to repeatedly decrease, 
then
increase output at the 1,046-megawatt Etiwanda plant. This happened as many as
four or five times an hour. Each time the units were ramped down and 
electricity
production fell, plant employees watched on a control room computer screen as
spot market energy prices rose. Then came the phone call to ramp the units 
back
up.

???"They would tell us what to do, and we would do it," said one of the men,
who only agreed to speak on condition they not be identified because they fear
being fired. "Afterward, we would just sit there and watch the market change."

???The workers said frequent and large swings in electricity output began at a
number of California power plants just as the state's power crisis began in
earnest. The workers and state power authorities assert the swings were one of
the primary means of gaming the wholesale energy market.

???"It appears the control rooms are responsive to direction from the trading
floors in Houston, rather than the reliability needs of the ISO," said Carl
Wood, a commissioner with the utilities commission who is overseeing that
agency's investigation into plant outages. "Instead of being responsive to
demands for reliability, they're responsive to demands for profitability."

???Corporate denial

???Reliant officials adamantly deny using this tactic or any other mechanism 
to
game the California energy market. They and other power companies, including 
AES
Corp. and a partnership between NRG Energy Inc. and Dynegy Inc., have asserted
that skyrocketing electricity demand forced them to run aging, decrepit power
plants harder than ever to meet California's needs.

???While acknowledging that the company issued changes in output levels as
frequently as every 10 minutes, company officials said it was done at the
instructions of the ISO to maintain supply-demand balance.

???"As a part of routinely doing business within California and the California
market design, we are required to do that," said Kevin Frankeny, an operations
official with Reliant. "When the ISO (issues dispatch orders), they dispatch 
on
a 10-minute basis. It can go up and down many times within an hour."

???Frankeny said he was not aware of any instances in which Reliant schedulers
in Houston ordered dispatch changes without the ISO directing them to do it
first.

???The ISO refused to comment on operations at any specific facility, but
Stephanie McCorkle, an ISO spokeswoman, said the ramping tactics were used
beyond dispatch instructions during periods of tight supply. And one of the
plant operators said the orders to vary output came independently of the grid
managers. "ISO was not calling Reliant every 10 minutes for that," said one of
the operators. "Not for an individual unit."

???Officials with the California attorney general's office declined to comment
on the legality of the ramping practice, citing a continuing investigation 
into
whether wholesale energy prices are being manipulated. One source familiar 
with
the state of various inquiries said the ramping, if proved to have been done 
to
drive up prices, could violate the state's unfair business practices laws.

???Invisible practice

???How could companies such as Reliant tinker with output and not get caught?

???One of the plant workers said the practice was designed to be virtually
invisible to regulators and grid operators.

???When power companies bid on hourly contracts, they agree to produce a
certain amount of electricity over the given hour. Generators are paid based 
on
an average of the spot market prices for that hour. By driving up the spot
price, they can increase their hourly profits and still produce the total 
amount
of energy required.

???The plant worker said the units would be ramped down immediately after 
their
output measurement, which was performed at the top of each hour by the ISO.
Then, he said, it was brought back up as the spot market price of electricity
rose in response to the reduced output. By the time the ISO measured again, 
the
output was back at the expected level.

???Another operator said the units were not always ramped up and down - that 
if
the price reached a satisfactory level, generators would raise output and 
remain
at that level as long as the price was right. Other times, if the price was 
low,
output was brought down and kept down.

???The same operator said the amount of ramping appeared to be a matter of
individual will of the company schedulers in Houston, with some being more
aggressive than others.

???"What they would do, especially late at night, is if the price tanked, they
would undergenerate," an operator said. "Then, mysteriously, the price would 
go
up.

???"Then, if the schedule was at 70 (required megawatt hours of output), 
they'd
say, 'Go up to 90.' That would cause the price to tank. And they'd say, 'Bring
it down again.' "

???Rapid changes

???These fluctuations occurred within time spans of as little as 10 to 15
minutes, the operators said. But acceptable rates for bringing a unit from
minimum to maximum levels when the plant was owned by Southern California 
Edison
were more like 80 minutes, to avoid stressing the machinery, one of the 
workers
said. Moreover, they were typically run at constant levels, which also reduced
wear and tear.

???"They were basically ramping up as fast as they can, and then slamming the
brakes on," said one of the operators. "They were increasing the fatigue on 
the
units."

???ISO officials say they changed market operations last fall to crack down on
gaming tactics, including instituting a so-called 10-minute market, rather 
than
the hourly market, so that it could be more easily detected when companies 
were
withholding power.

???But the ISO says generator outages have now become the primary tactic in
driving up energy prices.

???A computer analysis by The Chronicle of shutdown data over a recent 39-day
period shows Reliant and three other generating companies topped the list of
plant shutdowns. Reliant also represented the largest amount of wattage lost
among those companies.

???Plants owned by Reliant, AES, Mirant Corp. and Duke Energy Inc. accounted
for more than half of the state's unplanned shutdowns, even though their
generating capacity was no more than 25 percent of the state's total capacity
from all sources.

???Reliant, one of California's largest and most profitable out-of-state
generators, reported 319 shutdowns during the period in March and April. It 
was
followed by Mirant Corp. of Atlanta (310), AES Corp. of Arlington, Va. (278) 
and
Duke Energy North America of Charlotte, N.C. (261).

???Reliant's unplanned shutdowns deprived the system of more than 53,000
megawatts over the 40-day period, an average of 1,368 per day - enough power 
for
1.4 million homes for one hour.

???Its Ormond Beach plant in Oxnard, with one generating unit down for 26 
days,
accounted for more than 30,000 of those missed megawatts. However, an operator
who worked in that plant said the outages there appeared to be the result of
legitimate equipment failures.

???Reliant says there are valid reasons for its plants now to be in need of
repair. They are old: At 48, Etiwanda is the oldest of Reliant's five 
California
plants. And the company says routine maintenance was deferred so the plants
could remain in service during times of high summer demand.

???But the operators said the issue is not so clear-cut. One problem at
Etiwanda, a tube leak, had been present for about a month and was previously
reported to management, they said, but it had not deteriorated much, it was
operating at full capacity and there was no immediate need to take the unit
offline because of the problem.

???Moreover, at the time of the shutdown, the ISO had expressly asked Reliant 
to keep the unit online, the operators said. Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for
Reliant, denied that any Reliant unit was taken offline for unnecessary
maintenance.

???Ramping may be rampant

???Sources say Reliant was not alone in using the ramping practice. A source
familiar with the state utilities commission investigation said output logs
obtained from AES' Alamitos plant also reflected production fluctuations. And 
an
operator who has worked at the El Segundo plant co-owned by NRG and Dynegy 
said
the practice was used there, although less frequently. The scheduling calls 
came
from Dynegy's trading floor in Houston, rather than NRG in Minneapolis, he 
said.

???Steve Stengel, a spokesman for Dynegy, said changes in output at El Segundo
were a normal function of changing demand levels throughout the day, and 
denied
the company was engaged in gaming the California market.

???In a May 2000 report, the California Energy Commission cited Reliant's 
Etiwanda plant, as well as the Alamitos and El Segundo plants, as some of the
"major beneficiaries of high real-time prices" that spring.

???One way to obtain those high prices, the plant workers said, was the simple
method of demanding a sky-high price and refusing to deliver power if that 
price
was not met.

???On one occasion, one operator said, Reliant ordered a unit at Etiwanda to 
be
shut off because the ISO would not meet the price of $1,000 per megawatt hour,
even though the legal price cap at the time was $750.

???"The operator said, 'It's our unit, shut it off,' " the source said.



??E-mail Christian Berthelsen at cberthelsen@sfchronicle.com and Scott Winokur
at swinokur@sfchronicle.com.

GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, John Blanchard / The Chronicle

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001

?????????????????????????????46 of 207 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????Copyright 2001 The Chronicle Publishing Co.

?????????????????????????The San Francisco Chronicle

?????????????????????MAY 20, 2001, SUNDAY, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. C6; EDITORIALS

LENGTH: 984 words

HEADLINE: EDITORIAL;

On energy;

Conservation's value: It's not all sacrifice

BODY:
IN ENERGY-SPEAK, conservation can be a dangerous word. The White House 
point-man
on energy, Vice President Dick Cheney, demonizes the term to heap scorn on
anything short of more drilling and mining.

???For Gov. Gray Davis, conservation also gets special handling. Too much
emphasis on lower thermostats and higher gas mileage and voters start thinking
painful sacrifice and a lower standard of living. The image of President 
Carter
swaddled in a cardigan, talking up frugal consumption was a political disaster
for Democrats.

???Small wonder that neither party is enthusiastic about conservation. But
saving energy -- electricity, natural gas and oil -- has never been more
necessary and obtainable.

???Thrift, efficiency and innovation aren't threats to the economy or anyone's
lifestyle. Conservation needs serious advocacy, not lipservice.

???There is no better place to boost energy savings than in California, the
cynosure of the power crisis. The shortage has the potential to direct
California toward power efficiency on an even greater scale. Generation,
transmission and pricing are all under the microscope.

???Already, this state is a leader, with the second-lowest per capita use of
energy in the nation, thanks to building and lighting guidelines pioneered 
over
the last several decades. California now has no choice but to stay out front.

???Appliances, industrial and farming equipment, transportation and building
codes were revolutionized by the oil shortages of the 1970s. The state drew up
car manufacturing guidelines mandating alternative fuels to boost mileage and
cut tailpipe smog. Jobs were created.

???The efficiencies were partly dictated by price, as consumer costs surged
during the Arab oil embargo and then the Iranian revolution. Buyers wanted
products with smaller energy appetites and manufacturers responded.

???But government also played a major role. The state set up rules to spur
industry to squeeze more results out of less energy. These directives worked: 
a
soda can is just as cold in a new refrigerator using a third of the juice of a
'70s era model. Mandated insulation, fluorescent lighting and
weatherstripping pay off. There's no sacrifice in comfort or performance.

???Amid the current power shortage, this message is only partially sinking in.
For months, Sacramento has dithered through a debate that has rung up a $6
billion price tag, the sum paid out by the state to buy power. None of this
money has gone to conservation.

???This week, higher rates were approved by state regulators to repay the
enormous outlays in energy buys and also to send a price signal to users. 
Higher
rates should be a strong impetus to conserve.

???But bigger bills aren't the total solution. For one thing, the rates were
reworked to favor industrial users, the same group that pushed the state's
disastrous deregulation plan that underlies the shortage. For this group to
receive special treatment is unconscionable.

???At best, the money buys time to get California through a blackout-prone
summer. Up to a dozen new power plants are under construction, with the hope
that by next year supply will be in balance with daily demand. Plainly, the
state badly needs to find new power and its power infrastructure should be
updated.

???But the mad scramble for electrons risks missing out on a larger 
opportunity
to devise rules, require new equipment and encourage methods that conserve
power. A long-term initiative to build-in conservation is missing. The Bush
energy plan does little on this score.

???Instead, conservation is being treated tentatively. Gov. Gray Davis has
directed $800 million toward nearly a dozen energy-saving programs. These
include buybacks of inefficient refrigerators and air conditioners, 
replacement
of older agricultural water pumps and weatherizing upgrades for low-income
homes.

???These are reasonable steps to soften an immediate crisis. Already the
state's energy use has dropped by 7-to-9 percent through public awareness of 
the
power shortage.

???But conservation needs a more vigorous push from Davis and Bush. What's
missing is long-range thinking, a willingness to legislate changes and 
political
courage.

???Consider the "qualifying facilities," or small, independent power plants
that feed into the state's market. For months, these generators -- many using
alternative methods such as wood waste, wind or small gas turbines -- have 
been
stiffed by cash-poor big utilities. The small suppliers have largely shut 
down,
worsening the statewide shortage and crimping an industry competing with big
generators. Davis should make every effort to restore the small producers to
financial health.

???Another opportunity is technology. For decades, the homely electric meter
has stayed pretty much the same, measuring the monthly energy use of homes and
businesses. What if this caveman gizmo were modernized and could give users an
hour-by-hour picture of energy habits?

???On a grander scale, gas mileage needs re-thinking. The Bush energy package
steered attention to its subsidies for alternative-fuel cars, but ignored the
biggest challenge: plugging loopholes that allow SUV's and light trucks to 
burn
more gas than cars.

???Research and governmental directives have made vehicles safer and more
thrifty to operate. A continued push from Washington could innovate even
further, if the president was genuinely concerned about conservation.

???Ending the energy crisis will likely take a batch of ingredients. In
predicting the future, many analysts bank on a mix of solutions: new power
plants, higher rates, state bonds to spread out $13 billion in power buys, 
and,
finally, conservation. It's a term that usually comes last.

???But a longe-range strategy needs devising that will enable California's
homes, factories and farms to conserve on power use. The state has faced the
challenge before and triumphed. It's time to try again.

GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Tim Brinton/Special to The Chronicle

LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2001