AP Online, April 20, 2001; Friday, 7:57 AM, Eastern Time, Financial pages,
????238 words, Power Co. Executives Lose Bonuses, LOS ANGELES

Contra Costa Times, April 20, 2001, Friday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, K560,
????460 words, Energy officials accused of manipulating natural gas market
????defend actions, By Andrew La Mar

Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2001, Friday,, Home Edition, Page 3, 715 words
????, CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST; ??A U-TURN ON CAR TAX REBATES; ??LEGISLATION:
????STARTING JULY 1, FEE REDUCTION WILL BE FIGURED DIRECTLY INTO VEHICLE
????REGISTRATION BILLS, NOT REFUNDED BY MAIL., CARL INGRAM, TIMES STAFF 
WRITER,
????SACRAMENTO

Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2001, Friday,, Home Edition, Page 3, 453 words
????, CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST; ??LOCKYER ASKS JUDGE TO ORDER FIRMS TO RELEASE
????RECORDS, ROBERT J. LOPEZ and RICH CONNELL, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2001, Friday,, Home Edition, Page 3, 1426
????words, CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST; ??LEGISLATORS UNITE OVER ENERGY PRICE 
ISSUE;
????POWER: BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION CALLED TOGETHER BY DAVIS SAYS 
U.
????S. MUST STEP IN TO PROTECT STATE FROM MANIPULATION BY SUPPLIERS., MITCHELL
????LANDSBERG and MIGUEL BUSTILLO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

The Orange County Register, April 20, 2001, Friday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS
????, K497, 846 words, Federal energy commission considers price fix for state
????energy market, By Dena Bunis

San Jose Mercury News, April 20, 2001, Friday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS,
????K512, 696 words, In response to power woes, rating agencies have 
California
????on credit watch, By Jennifer Bjorhus

San Jose Mercury News, April 20, 2001, Friday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS,
????K520, 1069 words, Issues still remain on what power consumers will
????eventually pay, By John Woolfolk and Michael Bazeley

The San Francisco Chronicle, APRIL 20, 2001, FRIDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;,
????Pg. A4, 765 words, Edison pushes lawmakers to accept deal, David Lazarus

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 20, 2001, Friday, BC cycle,
????7:04 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 438 words, Most Edison 
executives
????going without bonuses, By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer, LOS ANGELES

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle
????, State and Regional, 901 words, Top political aide discusses Bush's 
low-key
????style, By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent, WASHINGTON

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle
????, State and Regional, 727 words, Utility commission staff says parent
????company profiting from energy sales, BOISE, Idaho

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle
????, State and Regional, 820 words, Legislators probe possible power, natural
????gas collusion, By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer, SACRAMENTO


Copyright 2001 Associated Press
AP Online
April 20, 2001; Friday 7:57 AM, Eastern Time

SECTION: Financial pages

LENGTH: 238 words

HEADLINE: ?Power Co. Executives Lose Bonuses

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

BODY:

???Senior executives at Southern California Edison and its parent company went
without hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses in 2000 because of
California's power crisis.

??Edison International's chairman and chief executive, John Bryson, was paid
$950,000 in 2000, compared with salary and bonus totaling $2.16 million in 
1999.

??Stephen Frank, the chairman and chief executive at Southern California
Edison, was paid $617,000 in 2000, compared with salary and bonus totaling 
$1.3
million in 1999, according to the company's proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

??The company also said Thursday it would not award merit increases to
executives in 2001 because of the continuing crisis.

??In a similar statement released Tuesday, Pacific Gas and Electric Corp.
revealed it also withheld bonuses for its top two executives, although they 
did
receive raises.

??Edison and PG&E say they have lost nearly $14 billion since June to high
wholesale prices that the state's electricity deregulation law bars them from
passing on to consumers. PG&E, saying it hasn't received the help it needs 
from
regulators or state lawmakers, filed for federal bankruptcy protection April 
6.

??Edison is continuing to work with state officials and its

??reditors.

?????(PROFILE


?????(CO:Southern California Edison Co.; TS:SCE;)


?????(CO:Pacific Gas and Electric; TS:PCG; IG:ELC;)


?????)


LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????8 of 78 DOCUMENTS

??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

??????????????????????????????Contra Costa Times

????????????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

KR-ACC-NO: ?K560

LENGTH: 460 words

HEADLINE: Energy officials accused of manipulating natural gas market defend
actions

BYLINE: By Andres LaMar

BODY:

??SACRAMENTO _ Energy officials who are accused of manipulating California's
market for natural gas defended their actions on Thursday and attributed the
state's skyrocketing gas prices to increased demand, the weather and other
factors.

??The explanation, however, drew skepticism from lawmakers in the wake of
expert testimony alleging that one Texas firm, El Paso Natural Gas Co., had
engineered a classic case of monopoly power by controlling the pipeline that
delivers gas to the state.

??At the outset of the Thursday's hearing, Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg,
D-Sacramento, noted the huge run-up in the cost of natural gas, which went 
from
$6.6 billion for the entire year of 1999 to $12.3 billion for sales in 2000 
and
to $7.9 billion for the first three months of this year.

??Steinberg zeroed in on the difference between California and other parts of
the country. From March 2000 to February 2001, natural gas prices have risen 
489
percent compared to a 266 percent increase in New Mexico and a 247 percent 
jump
in Chicago.

??Steinberg asked Ralph Eads, the president of an El Paso Natural Gas Co.
subsidiary, for an explanation.

??"The 275 percent difference you say is attributable completely to 
constraints
on the pipeline and demand?" Steinberg asked.

??"Yes," Eads replied. Eads said the state's energy crisis, which led power
plants to run harder and longer, dramatically increased demand for natural gas
over the summer and a winter with temperatures about 15 percent cooler than 
the
year before exacerbated the problem.

??In another twist to California's deregulation nightmare, El Paso officials
said they gained greater control of the pipeline after the Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. relinquished the capacity four years ago. At that time, PG&E's
movement of the gas and the prices it could charge were regulated by the 
Public
Utilities Commission.

??In other developments at the Capitol on Thursday, lawmakers called on the
federal government to re- regulate natural gas sales at the California border
and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said federal regulators should impose
price caps on California's wholesale electricity market.

??The Assembly held considerable debate on the resolution asking for
re-regulation, with Democrats accusing President George W. Bush of doing 
nothing
to come to the aid of California and Republicans defending the administration.

??"I'm learning an interesting lesson that all the problems of the world
started after Jan. 21 and the inauguration of the new president," said
Assemblyman Bill Leonard, R-San Bernardino.

??KRT CALIFORNIA is a premium service of Knight Ridder/Tribune

??(c) 2001, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.).

??Visit the Contra Costa Times on the Web at http://www.cctimes.com/
 
JOURNAL-CODE: CC

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????10 of 78 DOCUMENTS

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

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

?????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday, Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 715 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST;

A U-TURN ON CAR TAX REBATES;

LEGISLATION: STARTING JULY 1, FEE REDUCTION WILL BE FIGURED DIRECTLY INTO
VEHICLE REGISTRATION BILLS, NOT REFUNDED BY MAIL.

BYLINE: CARL INGRAM, TIMES STAFF WRITER



DATELINE: SACRAMENTO

BODY:


??Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature spun a U-turn Thursday and scrapped a
costly program that requires motorists to first pay their car tax and then 
get a
rebate in the mail.

??Starting July 1, the state Department of Motor Vehicles will send owners of
approximately 26 million vehicles registration renewal bills already reduced 
by
the amount of the vehicle license fee rebates.

??On a unanimous roll call, the Senate voted final approval and sent to Davis
an "urgency" bill, SB 52, that repealed the rebate program, which the governor
had previously fought for and defended.

??In addition to abolishing the rebates, the legislation reduces by 67.5% the
amount motorists must pay for the upcoming year, the level that lawmakers and
former Gov. Pete Wilson envisioned in 1998 when they began cutting the fee. It
had been about 2% of a vehicle's market value.

??Davis immediately signed the repeal bill, saying only that the new law will
"expedite relief to taxpayers and greatly reduce administrative costs."

??The governor's muted observation contrasted with his effusive support of the
rebates last year, when he said Californians "don't appreciate the fact that
they're getting a rebate unless they see it in their hands."

??At the time, Davis and the Legislature had the choice of simply cutting the
car tax, which voters might not notice, or sending checks in the mail, which
Davis felt would have a greater impact.

??The rebates, which began Jan. 1, were scheduled to continue through 2002,
when Davis intends to run for reelection. In 2003, the license fee was to have
fallen permanently, with no more rebates.

??"The whole rebate scheme was good only through the next gubernatorial
election cycle," said Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), who supported
reductions in the license fee but opposed the rebates.

??Until July 1, the DMV will continue to bill motorists for the full amount of
their license fee, which includes a 35% reduction from last year.

??"Then we return to you an additional 32.5% rebate, making a total reduction
of 67.5%," said DMV spokesman Bill Branch. Starting with license renewals on
July 1, the DMV bills will include the full tax cut.

??A Senate analysis of the repeal bill noted that the current "awkward system 
.
. . effectively requires taxpayers to overpay their vehicle license fee and 
then
await a rebate check from the state--a system that is, at best, difficult to
explain."

??But as the California economy tightened, the state's budget surplus shrank
and taxpayers shelled out approximately $ 50 million a day to buy 
electricity, 
the costs of the rebate program threatened to become a political embarrassment
to Davis.

??Projected administrative and postage costs of the rebate program alone were
estimated at $ 22 million this year and another $ 22 million or so next year.

??Last year, state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) and McClintock sought to
eliminate the rebates and give drivers their full tax cuts when they register
their vehicles. Under pressure from Davis, the bill failed.

??"It was killed behind the scenes at the insistence of the governor,"
McClintock said Thursday. "He didn't want it on his desk."

??This year, Dunn launched a similar bill, but his name was struck from it as
the lead author in the Assembly and the name of Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) 
was
substituted.

??In a speech Thursday, Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine) suggested that Davis'
performance on the issue in an "earlier time and a more just society" would 
have
resulted in his "public flogging by representatives of taxpayers."

??The repeal bill was passed 78 to 0 by the Assembly on Monday, and sent to
Davis by the Senate on a 34-0 vote Thursday.

??If the rebates were to be abolished, the bill had to pass this week in order
to take effect July 1, said Branch, the DMV spokesman. This is because 
motorists
must be advised 60 days in advance that their registration renewals are due.

??"We have to reprogram all the computers. We have to print new bills and mail
them by May 1 for the July 1 expiration," he said. "It will be a little tight,
but we will still make it."

??Branch said that since the Jan. 1 start of rebates, checks totaling $ 454
million have been sent to 7.4 million vehicle owners at an extra 
administrative
cost of $ 9.4 million.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????11 of 78 DOCUMENTS

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

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

?????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday, Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 453 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST;

LOCKYER ASKS JUDGE TO ORDER FIRMS TO RELEASE RECORDS

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



BODY:


??California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, ratcheting up his investigation of
possible civil and criminal violations by the state's power suppliers, is 
asking
a San Francisco judge to order two firms to hand over confidential records.

??In a motion filed Thursday in Superior Court, Lockyer said Reliant Energy 
and
Mirant Corp. have failed to comply with subpoenas for documents that were to 
be
produced by March 19.

??Amid soaring electricity costs and rolling blackouts, the attorney general
launched an investigation of possible manipulation of wholesale electricity
prices that have skyrocketed to record levels and have financially crippled 
the
state's major utilities.

??Dozens of other public and private power suppliers are complying with the
subpoenas.

??But in an interview, Lockyer accused Reliant and Mirant of stonewalling
investigators "so they can keep enjoying these exorbitant profits and prices 
for
as long as possible."

??Ultimately, the companies will have to honor the subpoenas, he said. "I'm
going to pit bull them," he said. "This is one we win."

??Both companies say they have done nothing wrong and played by the rules of
California's flawed electricity deregulation plan.

??A spokesman for Houston-based Reliant said Thursday the firm is seeking 
court
action of its own to ensure that sensitive business information will not be
shared with other public agencies or its competitors.

??Last week, Reliant asked a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to clarify the
attorney general's obligation to keep proprietary information confidential.

??"We're glad to cooperate with his investigation to the extent we can," said
Reliant spokesman Richard Wheatley. " But we have not received sufficient
assurances that Lockyer would keep the data confidential."

??Lockyer called Reliant's court filing "frivolous" and "propagandistic" and
insisted that adequate safeguards are in place. He reserves the right under
state law to share information with other government agencies aiding in his
investigation but has said he will keep sensitive business information from
being made public.

??Atlanta-based Mirant demanded and received similar guarantees of
confidentiality, Lockyer said. Mirant did not return phones calls Thursday.

??Lockyer did not discuss details of the probe or the kinds of information 
he's
seeking. But based on the investigation so far, he said, "it's beginning to 
get
interesting."

??Other records indicate that the attorney general has sought 91 categories of
information about the power merchants' activities. They include the operation 
of
power plants, trading information that may have been shared by private power
suppliers and bidding strategies in the California market.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????12 of 78 DOCUMENTS

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

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

?????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday, Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 3; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 1426 words

HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST;

LEGISLATORS UNITE OVER ENERGY PRICE ISSUE;
?POWER: BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION CALLED TOGETHER BY DAVIS SAYS U. 
S.
MUST STEP IN TO PROTECT STATE FROM MANIPULATION BY SUPPLIERS.

BYLINE: MITCHELL LANDSBERG and MIGUEL BUSTILLO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS



BODY:


??This may be the surest sign yet of the depth of California's energy crisis: 
A
bipartisan cross-section of the state's congressional delegation, brought
together Thursday by Gov. Gray Davis, not only agreed about the severity of 
the
problem but also about the need for swift federal intervention.

??"This meeting did not have the word 'Democrat' or 'Republican' used once,"
Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Vista), said of the unusual spirit of cooperation at 
the
meeting near Los Angeles International airport.

??Members of both parties said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must
slash wholesale electricity prices so California utilities can once again 
afford
to buy power. Since January, the state government has been buying electricity 
on
their behalf, as skyrocketing wholesale prices put Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
and Southern California Edison billions of dollars into debt and many power
suppliers refused to sell to them; PG&E has since filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.

??Although the Bush administration has said repeatedly that it is strongly
opposed to price caps, and FERC has refused to grant them, California
Republicans at the energy meeting said they are optimistic that the
administration will agree to some other form of price regulation. They brushed
aside the notion that such regulations might conflict with their ideological
belief in a free market.

??"This is not a free-enterprise situation," Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) 
said
after the meeting. "In fact, it's just the opposite."

??Specifically citing the huge disparity between natural gas prices charged to
California and those charged in other Western states, he said California 
clearly
has been the victim of unreasonably high energy costs. Under federal law, the
FERC must regulate the prices of companies if it finds they are exerting 
"market
power" to drive prices to unreasonable levels.

??Executives from two Texas energy companies, meeting with legislators in
Sacramento, denied Thursday that they had caused natural gas prices in
California to artificially skyrocket by hoarding access to a critical pipeline
into the state.

??After the extraordinary meeting in Los Los Angeles, Rep. Brad Sherman
(D-Sherman Oaks) said the biggest disagreement between California Democrats 
and
Republicans appeared to be their relative faith--or lack thereof--in the 
ability
of President Bush and his administration to help California. There has been 
much
speculation that Bush, who lost California in November, has no political 
motive
to help the state.

??"We Democrats," said Sherman, "hope very much that our skepticism is proven
wrong."

??Davis--who sat flanked by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the
governor's newly appointed chief energy advisor, S. David Freeman--said he 
used
the meeting mainly to discuss the importance of conservation by Californians
this summer and to ask the congressional delegation to pitch in. Five
Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats attended the gathering.

??Feinstein said Thursday that she has asked for a third time to meet with 
Bush
to discuss the energy situation. Meeting with Times reporters and editors
Wednesday, she described a recent meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney in
which, she said, he "ignored" her appeal for federal assistance.

??Feinstein has been among those critical of natural gas companies, saying 
they
appear to have constricted access to a California-bound pipeline to run up
prices.

??The Brattle Group, a respected consulting firm, alleged Wednesday before an
Assembly committee that Dynegy Inc. and El Paso Natural Gas Co. had 
manipulated
the market by charging so much for the rights to their pipeline capacity that
they had, in effect, withheld access to it.

??That action, the experts said, directly forced companies trying to deliver
gas to California to look for alternatives, clogging other pipelines and 
causing
a surge in prices.

??The explanation, El Paso executives said, was simple: Demand for gas soared
in California because generators that use gas to make electricity increased
production last year in response to the energy crisis.

??"We're not withholding capacity--no one is," said El Paso Merchant Energy
President Ralph Eads. "With these prices, you want to sell every molecule."

??In other developments Thursday:

??* The agreement between Davis and Edison International to return its ailing
utility arm to financial health is in "deep trouble and could be rejected by
legislators," the Standard & Poor's credit rating agency said in a note to
clients, citing legislative and other sources. A rejection of the deal "would 
be
a humiliating setback for the governor," S&P said.

??The agreement calls for, among other things, the sale of Edison's
transmission grid to the state for $ 2.76 billion and the sale of $ 2 billion 
in
bonds--both designed to pay off the utility's huge electricity debt. Edison
agreed to several constraints, including the sale of electricity to the state 
at
prices tied to the cost of producing power.

??Since they returned Monday from a two-week recess, state legislators have
been sharply critical of the Edison agreement and have indicated a desire to
tinker with aspects of the deal. Some lawmakers have said publicly that a
bankruptcy protection filing by Edison, like that of PG&E, might not be such a
dire outcome.

??But a senior Edison executive said it is "way too early" to give up on
passage of the proposal, which legislators have not yet seen in official form.

??"There is an education process to do here," the executive said of the highly
detailed 38-page document. "The legislators should be asking questions. That 
is
appropriate."

??* The Public Utilities Commission voted to investigate whether alternative
energy providers violated contractual agreements by withholding supplies from
PG&E and Edison, which owe them hundreds of millions of dollars.

??The action, Commissioner Carl W. Wood said, was prompted in part by lawsuits
some providers have filed seeking release from their contracts with the
cash-starved utilities. The producers of solar, wind and geothermal energy
account for more than 25% of California's electricity supply.

??"The question is whether we will be able to rely on them in the long, hot
days of summer," Wood said.

??Jack Raudy of the Renewable Energy Creditors Committee said the PUC needs to
address the $ 700 million the producers are owed. "All we have gotten is
rhetoric from the governor, the PUC and the utilities," he said.

??* An $ 850-million plan to entice Californians to conserve precious 
megawatts
appears to be running into roadblocks, compounding predictions by state
officials of tighter than expected energy supplies in May and June.

??Davis signed the conservation spending package last week, earmarking $ 242
million of the new funds for the Public Utilities Commission to distribute to
the state's investor-owned utilities to support existing conservation 
programs.

??But Barbara Hale, director of the PUC's Division of Strategic Planning, said
Thursday that since Pacific Gas & Electric Co. filed for bankruptcy protection
April 6, the utility has stopped releasing conservation funds.

??Hale, testifying before a state Senate committee, said PG&E's
decision--coupled with the threat that Southern California Edison could 
follow a
similar route to U.S. Bankruptcy Court--has complicated her agency's efforts.

??PG&E spokeswoman Staci Homrig said her company plans to petition the
Bankruptcy Court to have the conservation funds designated as a trust and
separated from assets tied up in the bankruptcy proceedings. She said if the
court denies the request, PG&E would ask to be permitted to pay the expenses
anyway. The process, she added, could take about a month--too long in the view
of some legislators, given increasingly gloomy energy forecasts for late 
spring
and early summer.

??Deputy Director Bob Therkelsen of the California Energy Commission said his
agency had been counting on a number of small power producers to bolster their
output during that period. But he said some producers did not purchase the
necessary equipment because PG&E and Edison have failed to pay them in full 
for
earlier electricity deliveries.

??"It's not a huge amount," he said of the anticipated production shortfall,
"but every little bit helps."


??*

??Landsberg reported from Los Angeles, Bustillo from Sacramento. Times staff
writers Nancy Rivera Brooks in Los Angeles, Carl Ingram and Julie Tamaki in
Sacramento and Tim Reiterman in San Francisco contributed to this story.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????16 of 78 DOCUMENTS

??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

??????????????????????????The Orange County Register

????????????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

KR-ACC-NO: ?K497

LENGTH: 846 words

HEADLINE: Federal energy commission considers price fix for state energy 
market

BYLINE: By Dena Bunis

BODY:

??WASHINGTON _ Californians who see federal re-regulation of the state's
crisis-bound energy market as an answer to the impending summer emergency 
better
look for some other solution.

??Even the short-term price fix that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
may consider at its Wednesday meeting might be too little too late.

??Lobbyists, lawmakers and other FERC-watchers say they have seen a slight
shift in recent weeks among commission staff and at least one member. There is
some willingness, they say, to consider some price controls, even though the
Bush administration is adamantly opposed to such measures.

??Many are looking to see if President Bush's choices for the two vacancies on
FERC will provide a margin for change.

??But the commission's basic philosophy that open, unregulated markets are 
best
is not likely to change soon, members say.

??"I've been championing a revamping of FERC's antiquated standards for
determining market-based rates," Commissioner Richard Massey said Thursday. 
But
with no success. " My agency is not on the verge of turning on a dime on this
market-based pricing."

??The standards are a joke, Massey added, because the commission never turns
down requests for such pricing authority. More than 600 power sellers have 
been
given that authority, he said.

??For a power company to be allowed to charge whatever the market will bear, 
it
must show FERC, for example, that it doesn't have the power to manipulate the
market and drive prices up.

??"Any seller that can't pass our screen needs to fire their consultants and
lawyers," Massey said.

??While the overall philosophy remains consistent, FERC staff has proposed to
the commission that a Stage 3 electricity emergency in California should 
trigger
cost-based rates, a form of price controls. Such triggers would be in place 
for
one year, under the staff proposal.

??The commission may decide Wednesday whether to accept that proposal. It has
to make some decision by May 1 on how the market will be monitored from now 
on.

??The theory behind controlling prices in Stage 3, says a FERC staff report, 
is
that during such an emergency generators have the greatest opportunity to
manipulate the market and drive prices up.

??But generators have that power during Stage 2 and Stage 1 emergencies, says
Les Starck, Southern California Edison Co.'s manager of federal regulatory
affairs. Price caps during Stage 3 might avert the rolling blackouts 
associated
with that level of crisis, but they wouldn't do anything to stop generators 
from
jacking up prices the rest of the time, he said.

??It is not clear how long it would take for such price controls to take
effect, should the commission go along with the staff recommendation.

??"We're close because summer is approaching," Commissioner Linda Breathitt
said Thursday. Breathitt, who had firmly opposed any form of price controls,
said in an interview last month that given the worsening crisis in California
she was open to considering some short-term measures.

??"It's important to me that we address the summer," Breathitt said, but said
she wasn't able to predict what the commission would do Wednesday.

??Even if an order is approved, Massey said, there could be delays while the
power sellers file their costs with regulators and disputes over those filings
are handled.

??Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday such a move by the commission would be
"better than having no controls at all. There's no question that we're going 
to
be in a Stage 3 emergency."

??Feinstein, D-Calif., and other Western lawmakers have been urging FERC to
step in sooner and with price controls that extend beyond just the emergency
period.

??Waiting for Stage 3 to intervene "is putting the whole grid at risk," said
Roger Hamilton, a member of Oregon's Public Utility Commission. "We have a 
real
stability problem when you cut it that close."

??Feinstein says the future could well rest with the new commissioners,
particularly Patrick Wood, the head of the Texas PUC who many believe will
replace Curt Heber as FERC chairman if he is confirmed by the Senate.

??Even if Massey and Breathitt agree on broader price controls, as chairman,
Heber could block consideration of such a move. It's unclear what stance Wood
would take as chairman.

??"The thing that deeply concerns me about Pat Wood is that he's from Texas,"
Feinstein said. "What's reassuring is that it appears from my personal
discussion with him is that he appears to be pragmatic."

??But once again, timing could be a problem.

??Bush has said he intends to nominate Wood and Nora Brownell, a member of the
Pennsylvania PUC, but has not formally sent their nominations to the Senate.

??"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is of vital importance right now,
and to let the time go on without filling the spots makes no sense," Feinstein
said. "Please please please, President Bush, process your nominees."

??KRT CALIFORNIA is a premium service of Knight Ridder/Tribune

??(c) 2001, The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.).

??Visit the Register on the World Wide Web at http://www.ocregister.com/
 
JOURNAL-CODE: OC

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????17 of 78 DOCUMENTS

??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

????????????????????????????San Jose Mercury News

????????????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

KR-ACC-NO: ?K512

LENGTH: 696 words

HEADLINE: In response to power woes, rating agencies have California on credit
watch

BYLINE: By Jennifer Bjorhus

BODY:

??SAN JOSE, Calif. _ All three of the nation's influential judges of credit
risk now have California on credit watch, saying they are deeply concerned 
about
the economic impact of the state's power crisis.

??The Fitch credit rating agency made it unanimous Wednesday when it warned
that the thickening electricity quagmire, as well as lower than expected tax
revenues in February and March, could spell broader risk for the state's 
budget.

??The announcement is a signal that Fitch, too, may downgrade its ratings on
California's nearly $30 billion in public debt, a move which could cost
taxpayers millions.

??The announcement comes as state lawmakers mull a bailout plan for Southern
California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. sits in bankruptcy and state
officials bleed through the state's general fund as they purchase expensive
electricity for consumers. Earlier this week, Gov. Gray Davis announced that 
the
average daily bill for electricity purchases has risen from $45.8 million a 
day
in the last week of March, to $73 million a day.

??Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's have already issued their 
own
credit warnings, although none of the three agencies has actually downgraded 
the
state's very good double-A credit rating.

??Bond ratings are important yardsticks that bankers and investors use to 
price
municipal and corporate bonds. A downgrade would force California to offer
bondbuyers higher interest rates going forward, costing taxpayers.

??The state was last at a lower A rating back in 1994.

??Moody's changed California's Aa2 general obligation bond rating outlook from
stable to negative on April 6, the day Pacific Gas & Electric Co. filed for
bankruptcy. Standard & Poor's has had the state's AA rating outlook at 
negative
since January, when the state began buying electricity for the utilities.

??The deciding factor for Fitch, said Fitch vice chairman Claire Cohen, was 
the
disagreement over how the money from the new electricity rate hike will be
spent.

??The California Public Utilities Commission ruled in late March that money
generated by higher electricity bills should go first to pay the state
Department of Water Resources, which has been buying electricity for the
utilities. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has argued that if the state is paid
first, there won't be any money left for it.

??The utility is formally challenging the PUC decision, and the move threatens
to hold up the estimated $12 billion to $14 billion of bonds the Department of
Water Resources plans to issue to buy more electricity.

??"With that being appealed you don't have a clean authorization," Cohen said.
"It signals to me that it could delay the financing process."

??A second concern is that the state isn't collecting as much in taxes as
expected, Cohen said. Tax collections for both February and March were below
forecast. The amount of personal income tax the state collected in those 
months
fell short by $455 million, or 14% less than expected.

??Cohen said she made her decision before hearing that the state's power costs
now exceed $70 million a day. Cohen and David Hitchcock, the California 
analyst
for Standard & Poors, agreed those rising costs are a definite concern.

??"It doesn't take much of a change in economic growth to make some of these
projected fund balances disappear and so we're very worried about what the
current economic activity is, particularly in Northern California with some of
the problems with the high tech area," Hitchcock told analysts and investors
last week in a conference call.

??State treasurer Phillip Angelides was traveling Thursday and couldn't be
reached for comment. Other economy-watchers expressed concern.

??Sandy Harrison, assistant director of the state Dept. of Finance, said the
move reinforced the importance of solving the current power problems soon.

??"It's important to note that the rating hasn't been lowered yet and does
remain very strong," he said.

??KRT CALIFORNIA is a premium service of Knight Ridder/Tribune

??(c) 2001, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).

??Visit Mercury Center, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at
http://www.sjmercury.com/
 
JOURNAL-CODE: SJ

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????18 of 78 DOCUMENTS

??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
???????????????????????Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

????????????????????????????San Jose Mercury News

????????????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

KR-ACC-NO: ?K520

LENGTH: 1069 words

HEADLINE: Issues still remain on what power consumers will eventually pay

BYLINE: By John Woolfolk and Michael Bazeley

BODY:

??SAN JOSE, Calif. _ State regulators last month announced an electric rate
increase that would average a whopping three cents per kilowatt hour, hit 
bills
beginning in May and punish power pigs while sparing energy misers.

??Now, much of that is up in the air.

??Higher rates are surely coming _ but not before June. Exactly which 
consumers
and businesses will pay how much is uncertain as regulators rush to forge a 
rate
structure from a tangle of more than 20 proposals.

??Their task has been complicated immeasurably by Gov. Gray Davis' decision to
weigh in with a competing rate plan and Pacific Gas & Electric's move into
bankruptcy court.

??"Little details are moving billions of dollars around," said Nettie Hoge of
consumer advocate group TURN.

??All the proposals assume a "tiered" structure that forces the heaviest users
of energy to pay the most. But key details yet to be decided mean consumers
could see their average rates go up anywhere from 7 percent to 30 percent or
more.

??Among them:

??_How much of an overall increase? The Public Utilities Commission approved a
3-cent per kilowatt hour increase last month, which would boost utility 
revenue
$4.8 million. Gov. Gray Davis' hike _ left vague in Davis' April 5 television
address _ averages 2.8 cents for PG&E customers but only 2.3 cents for 
customers
of Southern California Edison.

??_What regions of the state will pay? The commission agreed to raise rates
only for Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, but Davis 
would
include the additional 1.2 million San Diego Gas & Electric customers.

??_Should heavier users of electricity subsidize those who are exempt from the
new rate increase? If so, those users will find themselves paying much more 
than
any of the average increase figures being tossed about.

??_How will utilities bill customers retroactively for the increase? At the
time of the PUC vote on March 27, commissioner said their increase would take
effect immediately.

??Various plans are being presented this week to an administrative law judge
working for the commission. The judge is expected to recommend a rate 
structure
to the PUC on May 4. Public hearings would follow May 7-11, and the commission
would vote on a plan May 14, condensing to a few weeks a process that normally
lasts nearly a year.

??Each of the major proposals before the commission assumes that residential
customers using less than 130 percent of their baseline would be exempt from
higher rates. That's mandated under a new law that allows the state to buy
power. Customers already pay higher rates for exceeding their baseline, which 
is
the average basic level of use for each region of the state.

??Each major proposal also sets new "tiers" with progressively higher rates 
for
"medium" use at 130 to 200 percent of baseline and "heavy" use over 200 
percent
of that level.

??But that's where the similarities end.

??The first distinction among the leading plans comes in the form of an
assumption: How many residential customers will avoid any increase because 
they
don't exceed 130 percent of their baseline? Davis says more than half,
commissioners say a little under half and PG&E says less than a third.

??The second difference among the plans is a real difference: What happens to
everyone else?

??Under the plan by utilities commission President Loretta Lynch, medium PG&E
users would see average bills rise 9 percent and heavy users would see bills
increase 36 percent.

??Davis' plan says medium PG&E users would see average bills rise 11 percent
while heavy users would pay 37 percent more. But the average total bill 
increase
for PG&E residential customers, including those who are exempt, would be 20
percent under his plan and 24 percent under Lynch's, according to a statement 
on
the governor's web site.

??Business customers would see proportionately greater increases, averaging 30
percent under Lynch's proposal and 26 percent under Davis'.

??The most consumer-friendly of the various proposals comes from
consumer-rights group TURN. They suggest an overall average residential 
increase
of just 7.5 percent.

??TURN's plan assumes utilities cannot charge other customers more to make up
for the energy misers shielded from rate increases under state law.

??PG&E disagrees with that interpretation. The utility wants other residential
users to make up for any lost revenue from exempted customers through higher
rates. Under the utility's plan, residential customers would see an average 
rate
hike of nearly 30 percent.

??"The proposal these folks are pushing rips the heart out of that law," said
Matthew Freedman, staff attorney for TURN.

??Another issue affecting consumers is how the utilities can bill for
electricity used in April and May, before the final plan is approved.

??Utility officials have objected to making the rate structure retroactive.
Instead, to recoup the revenue, they are proposing a flat surcharge that
everyone would pay, regardless of how much they use.

??Edison proposes a higher surcharge added to bills for a shorter period of
time _ in this case, June through August. PG&E officials are suggesting a
smaller surcharge that would be spread out over 12 months.

??"It'll probably be something closer to the PG&E proposal," Paul Clanon, the
commission's director of energy issues.

??All the rate increase proposals stem from a commonly understood problem:
California's current, frozen rates don't generate enough money to cover the
wholesale price of power. The PUC raised rates 10 percent _ or 1 cent per
kilowatt hour _ in January in an attempt to help, but that turned out to be 
far
from enough.

??In March, the Commission approved an additional 3-cent increase. But Davis
followed quickly with an alternative proposal. The next day, PG&E filed for
bankruptcy, raising the specter that a federal judge could order even higher
rates.

??Although the PUC has sole authority to raise rates under state law, Davis'
proposal has complicated an already complex process. The governor appointed
three of the five members of the commission, and his appointees seem inclined 
to
show him deference. But Davis has been slow in filing the details of his plan,
which has made it hard for the PUC to proceed.

??KRT CALIFORNIA is a premium service of Knight Ridder/Tribune

??(c) 2001, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).

??Visit Mercury Center, the World Wide Web site of the Mercury News, at
http://www.sjmercury.com/
 
JOURNAL-CODE: SJ

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????19 of 78 DOCUMENTS

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

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

????????????????????APRIL 20, 2001, FRIDAY, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A4

LENGTH: 765 words

HEADLINE: Edison pushes lawmakers to accept deal

SOURCE: Chronicle Staff Writer

BYLINE: David Lazarus

BODY:
Although lawmakers are skeptical of the state's multibillion-dollar deal to
acquire the power lines of Southern California Edison, the head of the 
utility's
parent company warned yesterday that failure to approve the accord could lead 
to
a "long and costly" bankruptcy.

???But John Bryson, chief executive of Edison International, told The 
Chronicle
that he thought legislators would "want to do the right thing" by approving 
the
multibillion-dollar agreement and preventing Edison from following Pacific Gas
and Electric Co. into bankruptcy court.

???Bankruptcy for California's two largest utilities could have severe
consequences for consumers. Financial analysts said a worsening of the state's
energy mess would increase the possibility of higher electricity rates.

???Nevertheless, lawmakers are unlikely to accept the Edison deal -- at least
not in its present form.

???"We are going to go through this thing extensively," said state Senate
President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco. "There are a lot of concerns
about the valuation."

???Still, he said, legislative backing for the accord remains possible as long
as Edison is open to amending some of the terms.

???"The Edison people are smart enough to know that the Legislature is going 
to
have its say," Burton said.

???Indeed, sources familiar with the matter said Edison expected a certain
amount of tinkering with the deal and would not resist efforts to reach common
ground with lawmakers.

???"The Assembly members do not view bankruptcy as a favorable alternative,"
said Assemblyman Herb Wesson, D-Los Angeles. "There will be a big effort to 
try
and work something out."

???Edison's Bryson seems eager at this point to present himself and his 
company
as reasonable business partners who are willing to negotiate in good faith.

???This contrasts sharply with the state's relations with PG&E, which turned
acrimonious after PG&E blindsided the governor with its bankruptcy filing. 
Each
side blamed the other for the collapse of earlier negotiations.

???"We made the decision at an early stage that this was a massive problem for
the state and that the best course was to find a practical solution that would
allow us to get on with operating our power system," Bryson said.

???Bankruptcy, he said, "is absolutely a last resort. It's a long and costly
process."

???It is also the last thing Wall Street wants to see. On Wednesday, rating
agency Fitch Inc. joined Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investor Service in
warning that California's credit rating could be lowered because of the 
state's
energy mess.

???"The state may be forced to issue junk bonds," said Carol Coale, an
energy-industry analyst at Prudential Securities in New York. "This could lead
to a surcharge on electricity bills to guarantee the bonds."

???Bryson, not surprisingly, defended Edison's agreement with the governor as 
a
prudent alternative to bankruptcy.

???"This is a very good deal for the state," he said. "It is not a bailout.
Edison gives up a lot to make all this possible."

???Southern California Edison will sell its power lines to the state for $2.8
billion. It also will provide low-cost power to California for 10 years and 
drop
a federal lawsuit seeking full recovery of nearly $5 billion in past debt.

???Critics say the state is paying far too much for Edison's transmission
system -- more than two times book value -- and that the power lines are of
little use unless PG&E's grid also can be acquired.

???"It's a multibillion-dollar ratepayer bailout of Edison," said Doug Heller,
a spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa 
Monica.
"Edison gets off scot-free."

???Under the most likely scenario, lawmakers will seek to reduce the amount
paid for Edison's power lines and to increase the role of the California 
Public
Utilities Commission in regulating the utility.

???They also will try to come up with a workable contingency plan for the 
state
if PG&E remains adamant in its refusal to sell off its part of the power grid.

???"The deal on the table is still salvageable," said Michael Shames, 
executive
director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego. "But Edison
needs to understand that what it got from the governor is only a framework, 
not
set in stone."

???For his part, Bryson signaled that plenty of room existed for give and take
on the issue.

???"We're just at the initial stage," he said. "We always have accepted the
notion that Edison is a California regulated utility and is subject to the 
laws
of the Public Utilities Commission."E-mail David Lazarus at
dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.

GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Gov. Gray Davis (left) and John Bryson, chairman of Edison
International, announced a transmission line deal on April 9. Bryson said 
Edison
may go into bankruptcy if the deal isn't approved.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????24 of 78 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.

???????????????????????April 20, 2001, Friday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????7:04 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 438 words

HEADLINE: Most Edison executives going without bonuses

BYLINE: By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES

BODY:

??Senior executives at Edison International and its subsidiary, Southern
California Edison, went without hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses in
2000 because of California's power crisis.

??Edison International's chairman and chief executive, John Bryson, was paid $
950,000 in 2000, compared with salary and bonus totaling $2.16 million in 
1999.

??Stephen Frank, the chairman and chief executive at Southern California
Edison, was paid $617,000 in 2000, compared with salary and bonus totaling 
$1.3
million in 1999, according to the company's proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

??The company also said Thursday it would not award merit increases to
executives in 2001 because of the continuing crisis.

??In a similar proxy statement released Tuesday, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Corp.
revealed it also withheld bonuses for its top two executives, although they 
did
receive raises.

??Edison and PG&E say they've lost nearly $14 billion since June to high
wholesale prices that the state's electricity deregulation law bars them from
passing on to consumers. PG&E, saying it hasn't received the help it needs 
from
regulators or state lawmakers, filed for federal bankruptcy protection April 
6.

??Edison is continuing to work with state officials and its creditors.

??The utility said its board of directors decided to withhold bonuses to all
but two key executives because the financial effects of the energy crisis have
overshadowed all other aspects of company and individual performance.

??The two executives who did get bonuses earned them for their roles in
preserving the viability of the companies during the crisis and for retention
purposes, Edison said.

??Ted Craver, senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer at
Edison International, was paid $375,000 in 2000 and received a $100,000 bonus.
His total compensation in 1999 was $652,100.

??Harold Ray, executive vice president at Southern California Edison, received
a salary of $390,000 in 2000 and a bonus of $50,000. His cash compensation in
1999 was $818,400.

??PG&E paid Chairman Robert D. Glynn Jr. $945,086 in salary and benefits 
during
2000, a 58 percent decrease from $2.26 million in the prior year, according to
the company's proxy statement.

??Glynn, 57, received a 12.5 percent increase in his base salary but didn't 
get
a bonus.

??Gordon R. Smith, who runs Pacific Gas and Electric, received a 14.5 percent
raise in his base salary to $630,000 but didn't receive a bonus. In 1999,
Smith's compensation package totaled $1.1 million.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????28 of 78 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.

??????????????????????April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 901 words

HEADLINE: Top political aide discusses Bush's low-key style

BYLINE: By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

??When 24 members of a Navy spy plane crew returned to the United States after
11-days in Chinese custody, President Bush was noticeably absent from their
homecoming ceremonies.

??He also kept a low profile as the Senate shrank his tax-cut plan by $400
billion, and had little to say about riots in Cincinnati this month.

??Such is the silent style of the new president, says Bush's top political
strategist, Karl Rove.

??"Every administration is marked in contrast to its predecessor. The previous
administration felt compelled to dominate the evening news every day and the
president said, 'I'm focused on getting the job done,"' Rove said Wednesday in
an Associated Press interview.

??Running a low-key presidency sets Bush apart from former President Clinton,
but the style has its critics.

??Some lawmakers, including members of his own party, said Bush could have
saved more of his $1.6 trillion tax-cut plan if he had personally lobbied more
lawmakers.

??Bush issued a statement expressing sympathy with police and protesters in
Cincinnati, but ran the risk of looking detached.

??And Rove acknowledged that there was some discussion in the White House 
about
Bush attending the U.S. crew's homecoming to reap the public relations reward
for freeing the crew.

??But the president vetoed the idea, according to Rove, who quoted Bush as
saying, "I want it to be about them and I don't want to go through the
discombobulation that it would require of them and their families for me to 
show
up."

??It is not hard to imagine Clinton commanding center stage during city riots,
a budget battle or an international crisis, but Rove said, "We intended to 
have
a smaller profile than the previous administration."

??Bush's "attitude is that he's not going to be measured by whether or not he
gets on the evening news but on whether or not he gets progress," Rove said
during the 45-minute interview.

??He sat at a polished wood conference table in his West Wing office, his 
hands
folded over a memo he had discretely turned upside down. Newspapers and a
Starbucks coffee mug littered his desktop. Framed photos and artwork were
propped against a chair, still awaiting hanging on his 89th day in the White
House.

??A painting of a Texas landscape decorated one wall, allowing Bush's 
political
strategist of eight years to "go on vacation whenever I'm on the phone."

??Rove is on the telephone a lot these days crafting strategies to pass the
White House legislative agenda, maintain GOP control of Congress in 2002 and
position the president for a re-election bid in 2004.

??Bush narrowly won the White House without California's 54 electoral votes,
and Rove said the president could win re-election without the state "but it's
always nicer to carry the Golden State."

??He said the state's electricity shortage will not hurt Bush's chances in
2004, adding that the administration has done "virtually everything" Gov. Gray
Davis has requested.

??He suggested that the state caused its own problems by not building enough
power plants and failing to follow the lead of other states, such as Bush's
Texas, to establish sound energy policies before a crisis struck.

??"This has got a very human dimension to it," Rove said. "It's one thing to
talk about power supplies. It's another thing when you talk about how it 
affects
their jobs, how it's affecting their livelihoods, how it's affecting the 
safety
of their communities and the health of their families. This is a tough issue 
and
it ought to be a wake up call for the entire country."

??A White House task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney is working on
recommendations to address both short-term problems of soaring electricity and
natural gas prices and longer-term energy supply problems, focusing on 
producing
more domestic oil and gas and building more electric power plants.

??Rove said the administration will soon unveil new conservation measures 
aimed
at helping California ease its shortages.

??He said Bush and his political team are bringing House Republicans from
politically competitive states to the White House, where they discuss their
districts' needs and, often, gain local media attention.

??Bush also plans to attend fund-raisers for House and Senate campaign
committees, helping the party gear up for 2002 midterm elections in which
control of Congress is at stake.

??Rove also said:

??-Bush will not seek broad authority to negotiate trade treaties anytime 
soon,
allowing time to make the legislation more attractive to Democrats. "You can
only put so much into that pipe, and we've stuffed it," he said of Bush's
crowded legislative agenda. The "fast track" authority is key to Bush's plans
for a free trade zone stretching from Canada to Chile. That proposal is the
focus of the three-day Summit of the Americas beginning Friday in Quebec City.

??-Americans will support Bush's environmental policies despite criticism of
his decision to overturn some initiatives of the final days of the Clinton
administration. Rove stopped short of accusing Clinton of setting Bush up for
political troubles. "I'm not certain I see a conspiracy there. I do think it's
interesting" that Clinton waited until the last moment to act.

??-Bush has not wavered since the campaign in his view that states should be
able to opt out of minimum wage increases passed by Congress. "We are not all
one single labor market," Rove said.

GRAPHIC: AP Photo WX109

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????29 of 78 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.

??????????????????????April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 727 words

HEADLINE: Utility commission staff says parent company profiting from energy
sales

DATELINE: BOISE, Idaho

BODY:

??IDACORP made $66 million in profits in the past year by buying electricity 
on
the spot market and reselling it for a higher price to its subsidiary, Idaho
Power Co., the staff for state utility regulators contends.

??The Idaho Public Utilities Commission staff said such profits should not 
come
at the expense of Idaho Power ratepayers facing staggering electrical bills.

??In a report to commissioners posted on the agency's Internet site Wednesday,
the staff recommended Idaho Power's proposed increases for residential and
commercial customers be cut by about half.

??Idaho Power seeks rate increases over the coming year totaling $227.4
million. The regulatory staff recommends a $108.7 million increase. For
residential customers, a requested 34-percent hike would be reduced to 16
percent.

??"This is not a final decision," said Jeff Beaman, a spokesman for IDACORP 
and
Idaho Power. "In many cases, the commissioners disagree with the staff."

??The report noted there was nothing illegal about the transactions between
Idaho Power and its sister company, Idaho Energy Systems. To change that, the
staff urged commissioners to create a mechanism that forces Idaho Power to buy
electricity at the same price Idaho Energy Systems pays for it.

??The report said Idaho Energy Systems, an unregulated subsidiary of IDACORP,
repeatedly purchased electricity on the wholesale market and then sold it to
Idaho Power for a profit.

??Idaho Power officials contend the recommended policy change could 
financially
cripple the company. It already spent $161 million buying power on the open
market and cannot recover the money unless the coming year's rate is 
increased.

??"The failure to recoup these funds could lead to liquidity problems," Beaman
said, "and that will hurt not only the company but our customers as well."

??But IDACORP paid all of its salaried staff - including Idaho Power employees
- a 15-percent bonus at the end of the last fiscal year because the company 
had
achieved record profits of $139.9 million, 53 percent over the year before.

??Beaman said incentive payments have no impact on the rate request.

??Charging the higher rate between the two subsidiaries was the result of a
commission order tying the price that Idaho Energy charges for wholesale
electricity to the Mid-Columbia Index. The index has been pegged at 
unrealistic
levels since the energy crisis erupted in California, and fluctuates 
constantly.

??"We are confident that the transactions were performed within the letter and
spirit of the law, and have not been at the expense of ratepayers," Beaman 
said.

??Commission spokesman Gene Fadness said commissioners cannot comment on a 
case
before them, but their ultimate decision can be appealed to the Idaho Supreme
Court.

??The Public Utilities Commission staff also recommended:

??- Deferring $66.1 million of Idaho Power's rate request, without interest,
until answers are available about the company's electricity deals.

??- Deferring another $45.8 million of the request until next year, when the
commissioners would allow Idaho Power to collect 5-percent interest. That part
of the hike was earmarked for wholesale power purchases this year - purchases
that the staff believes will be much more expensive next year.

??- Cutting another $10.3 million from the increase request, contending it was
an error by Idaho Power's Risk Management Committee that the company planned 
on
passing on to ratepayers.

??- Implementing a low-interest loan program to encourage energy conservation
by Idaho Power customers.

??- A two-year phase-in of any rate increase ultimately approved that is
substantially over 20 percent.

??- Changing residential rates to a three-tiered system to encourage savings.

??Homeowners would pay 5.52 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 800 kwh 
used,
6.12 cents per kwh for use between 800 kwh and 2,000 kwh, and 7.48 cents per 
kwh
for use over 2,000 kwh. The current residential rate of 5.2 cents per kwh.

??The staff report also took Idaho Power to task, saying it was warned of the
possibility of spiraling prices and power shortages as far back as 1995.

??But the company contends it did not want to build generating plants during
the past decade because with electricity deregulation looming, nobody knew 
what
independent power facilities were being considered.

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001

??????????????????????????????30 of 78 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.

??????????????????????April 19, 2001, Thursday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 820 words

HEADLINE: Legislators probe possible power, natural gas collusion

BYLINE: By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SACRAMENTO

BODY:

??Southern California Edison was charged about $750 million more this year for
natural gas because of unchecked free-market forces, an industry consultant
testified.

??Paul Carpenter told the Assembly Electricity Oversight Subcommittee on
Wednesday the price spikes came after the El Paso Natural Gas Co. contracted
first with Dynegy and later with its own marketing affiliate, El Paso Merchant
Energy, to control the pipeline capacity.

??Officials with El Paso and other natural gas suppliers are expected to
testify Thursday that they did not illegally manipulate the market.

??The California Public Utilities Commission estimated a year ago that
overcharges by the companies that control natural gas flow drove up prices by 
$
100 million a year to California gas and electricity customers.

??But PUC attorney Harvey Morris said that was before last summer's price
spikes, which he blamed on natural gas suppliers using a "monopoly" to "game 
the
system."

??"It's way worse than we could possibly have imagined," Morris said after
testifying before the subcommittee. "It's obviously way higher than $100
million."

??Natural gas rates at the California border generally tracked national prices
until November, when they spiked as high as 11 times higher than the price of
natural gas elsewhere in the nation, Carpenter said.

??"I have never seen gas prices like this anywhere in the world," said
Carpenter, who has been studying the energy market for 20 years for Cambridge,
Mass.-based consultant The Brattle Group. The Brattle Group was hired by 
Edison
to study the natural gas market.

??The committee is one of two legislative committees exploring whether illegal
market manipulation in the electricity and natural gas markets has driven up
California's energy costs.

??"This is a market that is plagued by the exercise of market power," Frank
Wolak, chairman of the California Independent System Operator's Market
Surveillance Committee, told the Senate Select Committee to Investigate Price
Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market. The ISO runs the state's power
grid.

??However, "there is no law against me saying, 'I'm not going to sell to 
you,"'
Wolak said. Market manipulation only becomes illegal when there is collusion,
Wolak said, and such evidence is hard to find.

??Electricity generators and natural gas suppliers say a severe supply and
demand imbalance - not market manipulation - has led to higher prices.

??"Everybody's busy doing investigations. They're not interested in solving 
the
problem," said Independent Energy Producers Executive Director Jan 
Smutny-Jones.

??Investigations "are wasting everybody's time," Smutny-Jones said, adding 
that
previous probes and lawsuits have uncovered no wrongdoing. He said the state's
power problems came because state regulators denied utilities the chance to 
sign
long-term energy contracts when they had the chance.

??"People have been playing by the rules," Smutny-Jones said.

??But the Senate committee's first witnesses are ISO officials who authored
studies that claim the state paid more than $6 billion too much for power last
year.

??Committee chair Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, also has slated state Auditor
Elaine Howell, who last month blamed buyers and sellers for skyrocketing
electricity costs. Dunn also has scheduled future testimony from state, 
federal,
academic and private investigators studying the power market.

??He invited five major generators to attend the committee's second hearing
next week. All five - Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Energy, Duke Energy and 
Mirant -
say they are eager to cooperate and clear their names, Dunn said.

??Dunn asked the five for a total of 86 specific documents. If the companies
feel they cannot provide documents because of legal or confidentiality 
concerns,
Dunn said he will subpoena them.

??Smutny-Jones said investigators appear to be growing desperate to blame the
state's natural gas and electricity price hikes on illegal market manipulation
instead of natural market forces.

??He cited Attorney General Bill Lockyer's announcement last week that any
informant who helped prove wrongdoing would be entitled to a percentage of the
state's recovery he estimated could range from $50 million to hundreds of
millions of dollars.

??"If the state's offering a $50 million reward, they haven't found anything,"
Smutny-Jones said. "I don't think you're going to find the fact that anybody 
did
anything criminal here."

??Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said she believes otherwise after
Wednesday's testimony: "I think it is very clear there was some price
manipulation going on."

??But Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine, isn't sure there was anything
illegal.

??"There clearly are market forces at work, that's evident," Campbell said.
"Whether you make the jump to market manipulation ... I haven't seen 
conclusive
evidence that leads me to make that jump."

LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2001