Energy Issues-Wed

Please see the following articles:

Sac Bee, Wed, 5/23: New views emerging on power: More elected officials=20
support the concept of planned blackouts.

Sac Bee, Wed, 5/23: Californians' priorities for solving the crisis are=20
outlined in a Field Poll

Sac Bee, Wed, 5/23: Utility seeks OK of diesel use to avoid outages

Sac Bee, Wed, 5/23: Lawsuit wants to cap cost of power

Sac Bee, Wed, 5/23: All spin, no juice: Energy debate shifts from policy to=
=20
politics

SD Union, Wed, 5/23: Majority supports energy price caps, new nuclear plant=
s

SF Chron, (AP)Wed, 5/23: Burton, Hertzberg demand FERC puts price caps on=
=20
electricity=20

SF Chron, Wed, 5/23: Nuclear power's California comeback=20
FIELD POLL: Majority wants new plants built=20

SF Chron , Wed, 5/22: Lawsuit asks court to order energy price caps=20

SF Chron , Wed, 5/22: Energy crisis not real, state's residents say=20
But poll results show most expect more blackouts=20

SF Chron, Wed, 5/23: Supervisor sees energy up on S.F. rooftops=20
Sunniest areas would have solar panels=20

Mercury News, Wed, 5/23: California economy braces for $5.7 billion electri=
c=20
rate hike=20

OC Register, Wed, 5/23: Blackouts may come with early warning=20

OC Register , Wed, 5/23: Controller questions electricity cost=20

OC Register, Wed, 5/23: Rate increase to hit harder than thought

Energy Insight, Wed, 5/23: Giving FERC expanded eminent domain power a hot=
=20
button

Individual.com, Wed, 5/23: Energy Shortages, Price Caps and Windfall Profit=
=20
Taxes Lessons Never Learned

Individual.com, Wed, 5/23: California Religious Leaders Set Bush Energy Pla=
n=20
Against "Biblical Standards of Stewardship, Justice" at Federal Building Ra=
lly

___________________________________________________________________________=
___
___________________________

New views emerging on power: More elected officials support the concept of=
=20
planned blackouts.
By John Hill
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Published May 23, 2001)=20
If Californians are to be left in the dark, they should at least know when =
to=20
break out the candles or send the workers home.=20
That's the growing sentiment among a range of elected officials, including=
=20
Gov. Gray Davis, who are pushing the idea of planning power blackouts and=
=20
giving businesses and residents ample warning.=20
On Tuesday, the Democratic governor's office said Davis supports longer=20
public notice than the 24 hours called for under a proposal by the Californ=
ia=20
Independent System Operator, which runs the state's power grid.=20
Assemblyman Mike Briggs, R-Fresno, introduced a bill that would lay out a=
=20
blackout schedule for the summer. Businesses could make plans for the=20
possible blackout days and also be assured that on all other days the light=
s=20
would stay on.=20
Briggs called his plan an improvement on the existing system in which "ever=
y=20
day is a potential blackout day."=20
A Senate committee, meanwhile, discussed planned blackouts as part of a=20
strategy to gain leverage over electricity generators by declaring that the=
=20
state will not pay above a certain amount for power. The state would ask=20
Washington and Oregon to join the so-called "buyers' cartel."=20
If the power generators refused to sell at the lower prices, the state woul=
d=20
gut it out with planned blackouts.=20
"Let's use the blackouts against the generators," Michael Shames, head of t=
he=20
San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, told the Energy, Utiliti=
es=20
and Communications Committee. But Shames and others stressed the need for=
=20
warnings of at least 12 hours and blackouts no longer than 90 minutes.=20
"Absent that management of blackouts, we don't see how the buyers' cartel=
=20
could work," Shames said.=20
On a visit to Chicago on Monday, Davis said he talked to officials about th=
e=20
city's system for giving the public warning days before possible power=20
blackouts, with definite notice right before.=20
"There is no reason to keep that secret from the public when their safety i=
s=20
likely to be jeopardized," Davis told reporters Tuesday. The governor said =
he=20
plans to meet in the next few days with managers at ISO to explore the idea=
=20
of a system like Chicago's.=20
The grid operator announced Monday that it will try to give the public at=
=20
least a half-hour notice of outages, but many officials said Tuesday the=20
public needs even more warning. Davis aides said the governor's plan will g=
o=20
beyond ISO's.=20
There are potential pitfalls. Criminals might make their own plans, taking=
=20
advantage of deactivated alarms. And some say that a schedule of blackouts=
=20
might increase the number of outages.=20
If people have been warned that a blackout is coming, and a last-minute=20
supply of electricity makes it unnecessary, grid managers would have to=20
decide whether to call it off, said Dorothy Rothrock, vice president of the=
=20
California Manufacturers & Technology Association.=20
If they did, it would add uncertainty to future warnings, she said, possibl=
y=20
leading them to order unnecessary blackouts.=20
"Obviously, there are trade-offs," Rothrock said.=20
Still, the idea of planning blackouts seems to be gaining ground as a way f=
or=20
the state to get back some control of the energy crisis, sorely lacking in=
=20
recent months.=20
"It would help us as Californians to say, 'The hell with you, George Bush,=
=20
we're going to handle this ourselves,' " said Jim Overman, 68, of Elk Grove=
.=20
Overman said he has been burning up the phone lines trying to persuade anyo=
ne=20
who will listen that scheduled blackouts will make everyone's lives easier.=
=20
Briggs said he has been told by constituents, including irrigators and food=
=20
processors, that scheduled blackouts are the way to go.=20
Irrigators would know that they shouldn't plan on getting water on a day th=
at=20
their electronic gates might be closed.=20
Businesses could tell workers to stay home on a blackout day, or arrange fo=
r=20
backup power generators, he said.=20
"We would be very interested in it," said Ed Yates, senior vice president o=
f=20
the California League of Food Processors.=20
Power blackouts are chaotic for processing plants, Yates said, requiring so=
me=20
plants to be re-sterilized and shutting down operations for more than a day=
.=20
Some processors might choose to close on days when they faced a blackout, h=
e=20
said, losing revenue but avoiding the loss of thousands of pounds of food.=
=20
"It doesn't solve the problem, but it helps manage a very difficult=20
situation," he said.=20
Briggs said that his plan would result in possible blackout days every two=
=20
weeks. The plan would assume that a certain number of customers would have =
to=20
turned off to keep the grid operating. If the electricity shortage went abo=
ve=20
that amount, people might still face unanticipated blackouts, Briggs said.=
=20
One question is public safety. Some are queasy about burglars knowing when=
=20
blackouts will occur. But pluses include the ability to arrange for tempora=
ry=20
stop signs at road intersections, or families being able to arrange for a=
=20
sick relative to be moved.=20
"If the police have only five minutes notice, they can't get to difficult=
=20
intersections to direct traffic, they can't help paramedics, fire departmen=
ts=20
and ambulances get where they have to be," Davis said.=20
The manufacturers' association and other business groups haven't endorsed t=
he=20
idea yet, but say it's worth a look.=20
"It's preferable to random, rolling blackouts," Rothrock said.=20

The Bee's John Hill can be reached at (916) 326-5543 or jhill@sacbee.com.

Californians' priorities for solving the crisis are outlined in a Field Pol=
l
By Dan Smith
Bee Deputy Capitol Bureau Chief
(Published May 23, 2001)=20
Californians have some clear ideas on how to solve the energy crisis: build=
=20
more nuclear power plants, cap the wholesale price of electricity and relax=
=20
air-quality standards to allow older plants to be upgraded.=20
And, according to a Field Poll released Tuesday, they're not so hot on the=
=20
recently approved $13.4 billion bond authorization to pay for electricity, =
or=20
the idea of Gov. Gray Davis seizing power plants through eminent domain.=20
Poll architects said responses may be somewhat colored by respondents'=20
unfamiliarity with all the issues or skepticism on the causes of the state'=
s=20
power woes. Nearly 60 percent said it essentially is an artificial crisis=
=20
created by power companies to make money.=20
But on one longstanding issue -- nuclear power -- the poll showed a clear=
=20
preference and a dramatic shift in public opinion.=20
In the highest recorded support for nuclear power in California since befor=
e=20
the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, 59 percent say they favor more=20
nuclear plants in the state to provide electricity.=20
Support among registered voters grows to 61 percent, with 33 percent oppose=
d.=20
Among Democrats, 53 percent support more nuclear plants, and three-fourths =
of=20
Republicans and 55 percent of others agree.=20
"The change in attitude is very significant because they know this issue,"=
=20
Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said.=20
Californians' support for nuclear power reached nearly 70 percent in the=20
mid-1970s in the aftermath of a nationwide energy crisis. But it plummeted =
to=20
37 percent in 1979 after the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile=
=20
Island plant and fell to 33 percent in 1984 -- the last time Field surveyed=
=20
the question.=20
In 1989, voters demanded that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's=
=20
Rancho Seco nuclear plant be shut down. The utility complied and has spent=
=20
more than $200 million decommissioning it during the past 12 years.=20
Although the poll results are in line with some private surveys done recent=
ly=20
by nuclear-energy advocates, opponents say the Field Poll opinions could be=
=20
misleading because the issue has been dormant for so long. Not since the la=
te=20
'70s has an application for a nuclear plant been filed in the United States=
.=20
Only two operate in California -- San Onofre in San Diego County and Diablo=
=20
Canyon in San Luis Obispo.=20
"When the (poll) questions are on issues that people haven't thought about=
=20
that much lately, you do get some aberrant results," said Bill Magavern, a=
=20
lobbyist for the Sierra Club. "People right now are obviously concerned abo=
ut=20
electricity, but they haven't really thought about what it would be like to=
=20
have a nuclear power plant in the neighborhood."=20
The Field Poll results lend support to at least one aspect in the national=
=20
energy plan recently released by President Bush, who called for more nuclea=
r=20
power plants nationwide.=20
But poll respondents were even more insistent that the Federal Energy=20
Regulatory Commission should impose caps on wholesale energy prices despite=
=20
opposition from the Bush administration. The poll showed 70 percent of all=
=20
adults and 68 percent of registered voters -- including 57 percent of Bush'=
s=20
fellow Republicans -- support the price controls.=20
"It really does expose the Bush administration to long-term serious problem=
s=20
in California if they're perceived as not willing to help the state in this=
=20
regard," DiCamillo said. "The public really thinks (price caps) should be=
=20
imposed."=20
Republicans in the survey support price caps despite Bush opposition, and=
=20
Democrats narrowly oppose the move by Democratic lawmakers and Davis to=20
authorize the largest bond sale in national history to pay for power=20
purchases.=20
Among all adults, 38 percent approve of the move, and 52 percent oppose it.=
=20
Democrats disapprove of the bonds by a 46 percent to 44 percent margin.=20
Californians' desire for clean air is softening in the face of the energy=
=20
crunch, respondents said.=20
By a margin of 51 percent to 41 percent, poll respondents say they would=20
maintain air-quality standards rather than relax them to build plants. That=
=20
support is down from a Field survey in January, when 59 percent said they'd=
=20
rather maintain standards. Moreover, a majority (53 percent) say they would=
=20
relax air-quality standards to get older plants back in operation, an=20
increase from 47 percent in January.=20
Slight majorities support a state-run public power authority (54 percent) a=
nd=20
state-owned power transmission lines (51 percent), but DiCamillo said that=
=20
some poll respondents were probably not familiar with all the implications =
of=20
those moves.=20
Responses to the idea of Davis seizing power plants if prices continue to=
=20
rise this summer fell somewhat down partisan lines, with Democrats in favor=
,=20
50 percent to 42 percent, and Republicans opposed, 52 percent to 32 percent=
.=20
Overall, the idea was rejected by 48 percent of adults and favored by 44=20
percent.=20
A strong majority of registered voters, 56 percent, oppose additional=20
offshore oil and gas drilling to ease the energy crunch, and 38 percent fav=
or=20
it.=20

The Bee's Dan Smith can be reached at (916) 321-5249 or smith@sacbee.com.

Utility seeks OK of diesel use to avoid outages
By Chris Bowman
Bee Staff Writer
(Published May 23, 2001)=20
Desperately seeking megawatts, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. wants to pay=20
local industries to fire up their high-polluting emergency diesel generator=
s=20
this summer to relieve the electricity grid and avoid rolling blackouts.=20
If approved by the state Public Utilities Commission, the proposal could=20
increase the region's generating capacity by up to 50 megawatts, enough to=
=20
serve about 50,000 homes and significantly minimize if not eliminate planne=
d=20
blackouts.=20
"Customer willingness to participate has been quite strong, if the proper=
=20
incentives are in place," said Debra Reed, president of SDG&E, which serves=
=20
3 million consumers in San Diego and southern Orange counties.=20
The utility estimates the program would cost $15 million.=20
Environmental opposition to date has come mainly from the state's chief=20
air-pollution enforcer, the California Air Resources Board, which can=20
influence but has no direct control over air pollution rules set by San=20
Diego-area elected officials.=20
The board contends that the San Diego region, which already suffers some of=
=20
the worst smog in the nation, would see its air quality deteriorate further=
=20
if the notoriously dirty diesel generators are deployed en masse.=20
Most diesel generators have few or no pollution controls and, megawatt for=
=20
megawatt, spew about 500 times more smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxid=
es=20
than do new power plants fired by natural gas, said Michael Kenny, air boar=
d=20
executive officer. The standby diesels also pump out significantly more=20
particles of soot that can lodge deep in the lung and cause cancer.=20
"The SDG&E proposal would expend ratepayer dollars on extremely polluting a=
nd=20
expensive power, decrease participation in more sound conservation programs=
=20
and not make a significant difference in the number or extent of blackouts,=
"=20
Kenny said in a letter of opposition.=20
The utilities commission is scheduled to vote on the proposed "rolling=20
blackout reduction program" Thursday in San Francisco.=20
Many utilities have offered similar financial incentives to get businesses=
=20
off the power grid at times of peak demand. The San Diego utility's plan,=
=20
however, would take power-shedding where it has not gone before by explicit=
ly=20
rewarding the use of higher-polluting power sources.=20
"We have not gone down that path," said Kevin Payne, Southern California=20
Edison's director of technical support for customers. Edison is proposing=
=20
cleaner alternatives than diesels to get power-intensive businesses off the=
=20
grid when supplies are tight.=20
Officials at Pacific Gas & Electric said they, too, have stopped short of=
=20
enlisting the use of diesel generators.=20
"We definitely see merit in being able to avert blackouts, and the diesel=
=20
generator being the tool to do that, but we have concerns about the=20
environmental impacts," said Staci Homrig, a PG&E spokeswoman.=20
Under the San Diego utility's plan, participating businesses would turn on=
=20
backup generators at the utility's request and simultaneous disconnect from=
=20
the electricity grid when power supplies are at Stage 3 -- nearly depleted.=
=20
Utility officials say the diesels would run "in strict compliance with all=
=20
rules" of local, state and federal air pollution enforcement agencies. But=
=20
unlike most local air pollution control districts, San Diego County's allow=
s=20
unlimited use of emergency generators when rolling blackouts appear imminen=
t.=20
Richard Smith, assistant director of the San Diego County Air Pollution=20
Control District, said his board of elected officials believes the deployme=
nt=20
of backup diesels would not only spare businesses millions of dollars in lo=
st=20
revenue but would also shield San Diego residents from greater pollution th=
at=20
would come when even more standby generators kick in during a blackout.=20
PG&E officials say it would be unfair for one area of the state to avoid=20
power outages by cranking up dirty diesels when other areas of the state go=
=20
dark, spokeswoman Homrig said.=20
"If there are going to be blackouts, it should be blackouts for everybody,"=
=20
she said.=20

The Bee's Chris Bowman can be reached at (916) 321-1069 or cbowman@sacbee.c=
om
.

Lawsuit wants to cap cost of power=20
By Kevin Yamamura
Bee Capitol Bureau
(Published May 23, 2001)=20
Key lawmakers touted their lawsuit filed Tuesday against federal energy=20
regulators as a last-ditch maneuver to relieve California from summer=20
blackouts and high electricity costs.=20
Filed on behalf of the Legislature and the city of Oakland, the suit charge=
s=20
that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to fulfill its leg=
al=20
duties by allowing generators to charge unreasonable rates for power in=20
California.=20
The lawsuit, filed by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Assembly=20
Speaker Robert Hertzberg, seeks immediate caps on wholesale energy rates an=
d=20
refunds from past purchases.=20
The two Democrats noted that power prices shot up from $33 a megawatt in 19=
99=20
to as high as $1,900 earlier this year. Burton suggested a $200 cap is=20
reasonable.=20
"The people of California need some relief, some protection from these=20
outrageous prices," Hertzberg said. "In our judgment, the law is clear -- i=
t=20
is clear that the federal regulators are ignoring the law."=20
Under the Federal Power Act, FERC is charged with setting "just and=20
reasonable" wholesale energy prices.=20
The commission adopted a plan in late April that would cap rates once=20
reserves fall below 7.5 percent, in what is called a Stage 1 power emergenc=
y.=20
But California officials denounced that plan as ineffective, noting that th=
e=20
state needs relief before emergencies strike.=20
High energy costs have helped drain more than $6 billion from the state's=
=20
general fund since California began purchasing electricity for utilities in=
=20
January.=20
In addition, the state faces at least 260 hours of power blackouts this=20
summer, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council. Those=
=20
outages are a health threat to California's most vulnerable residents, Burt=
on=20
said.=20
But Jan Smutny-Jones, who represents wholesale generators as executive=20
director of the Independent Energy Producers Association, said a suit would=
=20
solve none of California's problems.=20
"We need to tone down the political rhetoric and fix problems rather than t=
ry=20
to litigate this," he said. "This lawsuit will not add one megawatt of=20
generation to the system nor will it decrease demand in California."=20
Gov. Gray Davis, who has attacked the Bush administration for not capping=
=20
energy prices, said he supports the lawsuit.=20
"I support all efforts to recoup the windfall profits that these generators=
=20
have recovered by gouging our utilities at the cost of having to be passed=
=20
off in some form or fashion to the customers over time," the Democratic=20
governor said.=20

The Bee's Kevin Yamamura can be reached at (916) 326-5542 or=20
kyamamura@sacbee.com.

All spin, no juice: Energy debate shifts from policy to politics

(Published May 23, 2001)=20

If the spin machines of the Davis and Bush administrations generated=20
electricity, California wouldn't have to worry about blackouts.=20
Unfortunately, political hot air won't drive a turbine.=20
Both Gov. Gray Davis and Vice President Dick Cheney have stepped up their=
=20
finger-pointing campaigns, with the governor blaming Bush for abandoning=20
California, and Cheney blaming Davis for ignoring the problem until it blew=
=20
into a crisis.=20
But while the governor and the White House play blame games, some of the re=
al=20
policy work sits uncompleted. As temperatures soar and June approaches, the=
re=20
is nothing close to a consensus on the three unresolved challenges of the=
=20
power crisis: returning the state's investor-owned utilities to solvency;=
=20
preventing independent generators from exploiting a broken wholesale power=
=20
market; and keeping alternative generators producing power at reasonable=20
rates.=20
For the somewhat distant future, some policy pieces have fallen into place.=
=20
The need for more power will be met by plants under construction and in the=
=20
approval process. The state's $800 million investment in new conservation a=
nd=20
efficiency initiatives will dampen demand for power. The creation of a stat=
e=20
public power authority gives California a tool to deal with imbalances in t=
he=20
electricity marketplace.=20
But the immediate crisis offers only unpleasant and controversial choices,=
=20
all of them heavily freighted with political risk. Decisions about rescuing=
=20
the utilities or controlling wholesale prices hinge on different ideologica=
l=20
views of the proper role of government in the marketplace and the causes of=
=20
the electricity mess. And the stakes are extraordinary, both for California=
's=20
economy and for political positioning in the national battle over energy=20
policy and future elections.=20
In the absence of quick policy action, though, all of the finger-pointers=
=20
stand to lose. Cheney is right about Davis' dilatory approach to the power=
=20
crisis, but dead wrong in shirking federal responsibility for what comes=20
next. The federal government alone has authority to restrict the wholesale=
=20
price of power to what is just and reasonable. This is the law, and the Bus=
h=20
administration refuses to enforce it.=20
As long as the sky is the potential limit on wholesale electricity prices,=
=20
both for purchases past and present, it's harder for the political system t=
o=20
resolve the past debts of the utilities and the contractual relationships=
=20
with alternative generators. If the Bush administration wants to turn the=
=20
political heat on Davis and Sacramento, it must do its own job first. The=
=20
only thing preventing that is a near fanatical belief that with electricity=
,=20
the free market can do no wrong.

Majority supports energy price caps, new nuclear plants

By John Marelius=20
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER=20
May 23, 2001=20
Californians are sharply divided over a host of proposals to address the=20
energy crisis, with a new statewide poll showing caps on wholesale=20
electricity prices the most popular fix and a $13.4 billion bond to buy pow=
er=20
for the state the most unpopular.=20
The nonpartisan Field Poll shows the Bush administration's refusal to=20
consider energy price controls at odds with Californians, who support caps=
=20
overwhelmingly, 70 percent to 24 percent.=20
Though that might give Gov. Gray Davis ammunition to escalate his criticism=
=20
of White House passivity in the crisis, the most aggressive action the=20
governor has taken to date registers strong disapproval.=20
? Coalition's generator plan rejected=20
? Davis trims outlook for new power=20
? Water district may seek additional bids to build power plant=20
? Proposed plant caught in city-state tug of war
Fifty-two percent of the 1,015 California adults surveyed said they oppose=
=20
the record $13.4 billion bond issue authorized by Davis and the Legislature=
=20
to purchase power over the next two years. Only 38 percent thought the bond=
=20
issue was a good idea and 10 percent had no opinion.=20
Concerning other proposals, 54 percent to 36 percent support creating a=20
state-run power authority to operate power plants and 51 percent to 41=20
percent favor the state buying transmission lines from utilities.=20
A narrow plurality, 48 percent to 44 percent, opposes the idea of Davis=20
invoking the governor's emergency powers to seize power plants.=20
The telephone survey was conducted from May 11 to Sunday. According to=20
statistical theory, such a poll is accurate 95 percent of the time within a=
=20
margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.=20
While the Field Poll shows the energy problems have not shaken Californians=
'=20
long-held opposition to permitting off-shore oil drilling and relaxing clea=
n=20
air standards, it revealed a stunning reversal on nuclear power.=20
Nearly three in five in the survey, 59 percent, said they favor building mo=
re=20
nuclear power plants; 36 percent was opposed. That represents a turnabout=
=20
from 1984 when 33 percent supported nuclear power plants and 61 percent=20
opposed them.=20
"The resurgence of public support for nuclear power is something I never=20
would have predicted before we did the survey," said Mark DiCamillo,=20
associate director of the Field Poll. "But it's been 20-some years since=20
Three-Mile Island (the Pennsylvania nuclear plant accident) and it seems th=
at=20
the safety record is there."=20
Reaction to many of the electricity proposals broke heavily along partisan=
=20
lines and reflected the two major parties' attitudes toward government.=20
While Democrats favored creating a public power authority, purchasing=20
transmission lines and seizing power plants, Republicans were strongly=20
opposed to these ideas.=20
But asked about rate caps, members of both parties were heavily in favor.=
=20
Republicans favored rate caps 57 percent to 37 percent. With Democrats,=20
though, the gap was twice as wide, 79 percent to 17 percent.=20
"This is one area where the federal government and the Bush administration =
is=20
exposed to long-term damage here in California," said DiCamillo.=20
At the same time, the pollster said, Davis has not made the case for such a=
=20
large bond issue to alleviate a crisis the majority of Califorians believe=
=20
has been artificially exacerbated to drive up the profits of energy=20
companies.=20
"It's a huge bond issue and I think the sheer size of it is dragging it dow=
n=20
some," DiCamillo said. "I think the cynicism that the public has about the=
=20
causes of this and why this whole crisis has come to be really prevents the=
=20
public from supporting this kind of money for this purpose."=20

Burton, Hertzberg demand FERC puts price caps on electricity=20
DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2001=20
,2001 Associated Press=20
URL:=20
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/news/archive/2001/05/23/s=
tate0
344EDT0119.DTL&type=3Dnews=20
(05-23) 00:44 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --=20
California's Democratic legislative leaders asked a federal appeals panel=
=20
Tuesday to order federal regulators to cap wholesale electricity prices.=20
"The people of California need some protection from these outrageous prices=
,"=20
said Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg.=20
The move by Hertzberg of Van Nuys and Senate President John Burton of San=
=20
Francisco came after unsuccessful lobbying by Gov. Gray Davis and other=20
lawmakers to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose strict=
=20
price caps.=20
"The citizens of California are suffering immediate irreparable harm as a=
=20
result of FERC's abrogation of its duty to establish just and reasonable=20
rates for electricity," the lawmakers wrote to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court o=
f=20
Appeals, which has jurisdiction over FERC.=20
The lawmakers, joined by the city of Oakland, said California's looming=20
threat of continued blackouts "are an imminent threat to the health, welfar=
e=20
and safety of every California citizen."=20
"There's a danger this entire economy can come unwound," warned former=20
governor and now Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown. He plans to recruit his fellow=
=20
mayors to also pressure FERC.=20
However, Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox of Fair Oaks questioned whethe=
r=20
the federal court will intervene in the commission's ongoing regulatory=20
decisions. "If the court takes it, it's meritorious. If not, it's political=
,"=20
Cox said.=20
The suit comes after more than a year of wholesale power prices reaching=20
historically high levels. In December, prices in California reached $200 pe=
r=20
megawatt hour -- and they have skyrocketed to as much as $1,900 per megawat=
t=20
hour during peak times since then.=20
The Bush administration ardently opposes price caps and President Bush has=
=20
declined Davis' request to urge FERC to impose strict caps.=20
Vice President Dick Cheney, chief architect of the administration's energy=
=20
plan released last week, said capping prices would not increase energy=20
supplies or reduce demand.=20
"We get politicians who want to go out and blame somebody and allege there =
is=20
some kind of conspiracy ... instead of dealing with the real issues," Chene=
y=20
said Sunday.=20
Cheney criticized Davis, a Democrat, for what he called a "harebrained=20
scheme" to use the state's budget surplus to buy power because California's=
=20
two largest utilities face enormous financial problems.=20
For the short term, the Bush administration has approved Davis' request to=
=20
expedite permits for new power plants and has ordered federal facilities in=
=20
California to reduce energy consumption 10 percent this summer.=20
Sacramento and the White House appear locked in a high-voltage war of=20
rhetoric over energy policies. There is broad bipartisan dissatisfaction in=
=20
Sacramento with Washington's response to California's energy crisis -- the=
=20
result of its own 1996 deregulation rules.=20
Last month FERC did order a one-year cap on electricity sold into Californi=
a=20
during power emergencies, when power reserves fall below 7 1/2 percent. The=
=20
agency did not set a price and also required the state to join a regional=
=20
transmission organization, which could limit California's ability to contro=
l=20
its own power grid.=20
Davis called the plan a "Trojan horse," and state power regulators dismisse=
d=20
the cap as inadequate, saying it would profit power generators at ratepayer=
s'=20
expense.=20
In addition, Davis and state lawmakers sharply criticized FERC for=20
considering requiring the state's power grid operator to add a surcharge on=
=20
power sales to pay generators the money they are owed by the state's two=20
large financially strapped utilities.=20
The case filed Tuesday is Petitioners v. Federal Energy Regulatory=20
Commission, 01-70812.=20
,2001 Associated Press ?=20

Nuclear power's California comeback=20
FIELD POLL: Majority wants new plants built=20
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2001=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20
URL:=20
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2001/05=
/23/M
N208173.DTL&type=3Dnews=20
In a startling shift from views held consistently for more than a generatio=
n,=20
energy-strapped Californians now strongly favor nuclear power as a means of=
=20
providing more electricity, a Field Poll shows.=20
The statewide poll released today shows that 59 percent of those surveyed=
=20
support building new nuclear power plants in the state -- compared with 36=
=20
percent who oppose the idea and 5 percent undecided.=20
The breakdown is even more dramatic for registered voters who were among th=
e=20
1,015 Californians polled -- 61 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed, wi=
th=20
6 percent undecided.=20
That represents the first time since 1978 -- a year before the nuclear=20
accident at Three Mile Island -- that Californians have approved of more=20
nuclear power. And it is a complete reversal from the last time Field polle=
d=20
on the issue in 1984, when Californians rejected more nuclear power by a=20
2-to- 1 ratio.=20
"This is a big deal. . . . The state's current energy crisis has just set o=
ff=20
a chain reaction of public support for nuclear power," said Mark DiCamillo,=
=20
director of the Field Poll. "The public's fear of nuclear power is being=20
mitigated by the long-term experience with nuclear power in other states, .=
.=20
.=20
and it is letting down its fears."=20
At the same time, the poll shows a majority of Californians want air=20
pollution controls to remain in place and reject offshore oil drilling and=
=20
greater use of coal-fired power plants to provide more energy.=20
Significantly, although once the subject of passionate "no nukes" protests=
=20
and controversial initiatives in California, nuclear power now has a majori=
ty=20
of support among Democrats, Republicans and independent voters alike, the=
=20
poll showed.=20
While Californians gave thumbs up to a power source being pushed by the Bus=
h=20
administration for the long term, they also backed federal price ceilings o=
n=20
energy -- a short-term measure rejected repeatedly by the administration.=
=20
Seven in 10 Californians surveyed say a federal price limit on energy would=
=20
be a good thing -- echoing Gov. Gray Davis' adamant call for such action=20
since the energy crunch became apparent last winter.=20
Despite the opposition from Bush and Republican leaders, 57 percent of=20
registered Republican voters in California support price limits as do an=20
overwhelming 79 percent of Democrats.=20
DiCamillo says the findings clearly dramatize that "the consequences of not=
=20
having federal price caps will be quite severe for the Bush administration =
as=20
we go into the summer and have blackouts."=20
California voters see the price limit proposal as the "one way out . . . fo=
r=20
the state to continue to buy (power)," he said. "The one proposal the publi=
c=20
really wants is something that the state itself cannot do. . . . It require=
s=20
the assistance of the federal government."=20
The poll, underscoring the shifting political landscape created by=20
California's deepening energy woes, came even as Vice President Dick Cheney=
=20
was making another high-profile plea for more nuclear energy.=20
"We want to assess the potential for nuclear energy to make a major=20
contribution in terms of improving air quality," said Cheney, speaking in=
=20
Washington, D.C., before the Nuclear Energy Institute. He called nuclear=20
power "a very important part of our energy policy today in the United=20
States."=20
The Field Poll findings on nuclear energy were met with enthusiasm by the=
=20
nuclear industry -- and harsh criticism from environmentalists.=20
"It's not surprising," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the group that Chen=
ey=20
addressed yesterday. "People are seeing an industry running efficiently,=20
running safely, pumping out a lot of electricity and with no emissions into=
=20
the atmosphere. What's happening here is the growing consensus and=20
recognition that nuclear energy needs to be part of a diverse portfolio for=
=20
the country."=20
Singer said California's nuclear power plants -- in San Onofre and in Diabl=
o=20
Canyon -- provide California with 17.8 percent of its electricity needs,=20
at an average production cost of 1.83 cents per kilowatt hour.=20
NUCLEAR'S TV ADS
But Ann Mesnikoff, spokeswoman for the national offices of the Sierra Club,=
=20
said voters have been inundated by expensive TV ads by the nuclear industry=
=20
-- which fail to mention the dangers.=20
"When people start seeing truck or rail shipments running through the cente=
r=20
of the state, will they be reminded that nuclear power generates the most=
=20
dangerous (waste) substances we've created?" she asked.=20
"Nuclear power should not be part of our 21st century energy plan," she sai=
d.=20
"It's expensive, it's slow, it's dangerous. It's not a plan that will provi=
de=20
California with quicker, cleaner and safer energy."=20
The Field Poll generally asked for the views of Californians on the propose=
d=20
solutions to the state's energy crunch. Among its results, Californians=20
surveyed:=20
-- Reject, by 52 percent to 38 percent, the major solution thus far offered=
=20
by Davis and the Legislature -- issuing the sale of up to $13.4 billion in=
=20
revenue bonds to help the state purchase power over the next two years.=20
CYNICISM ABOUNDS
"They think it's very expensive," DiCamillo said. "They're very cynical abo=
ut=20
why they're in this (energy crisis) and they look at this as just a big=20
gaping hole in the state's long-term budget."=20
-- Support, by 54 percent to 36 percent, the idea of a state-run public pow=
er=20
authority to operate power plants.=20
-- Support, by 51 percent to 41 percent, Davis' proposal to buy power lines=
=20
that transport electricity from the private utility companies.=20
-- Oppose, by 48 percent to 44 percent, the idea of Davis using his emergen=
cy=20
powers to seize private power plants if energy prices rise this summer. Hal=
f=20
of Democrats favor the idea, but a majority of Republicans oppose it.=20
-- Reject the use of more coal-fired power plants, by 48 percent to 40=20
percent, and offshore drilling of oil and gas wells, by a 48 percent to 44=
=20
percent margin.=20
-- Support maintaining air quality standards in general 51 percent to 41=20
percent, but by 53 percent to 39 percent favor relaxing standards in some=
=20
areas to allow older power plants to produce again.=20
The statewide poll of 1,015 California adults was taken May 11 to Sunday. I=
t=20
has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.=20

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.=20
Field Poll / Californians' reactions to energy crisis
Support for building more nuclear power plants to provide more electrici=
ty=20
took a dramatic rise in the survey, marking a shift in the attitudes=20
Californians have had toward nuclear power since 1979. The survey shows a=
=20
majority of residents still oppose increasing other forms of power producti=
on=20
to provide more electricity, though opposition to building more coal-fired=
=20
plants is less than in previous surveys on this issue.
May survey results by voter affiliation
Registered=20
voters Democrats Republicans Other
=20
Nuclear power
Favor 61% 53% 75% 55%
Oppose 33% 41 20 37
No opinion 6% 6 5 8
.
Offshore oil drilling(x)
Favor 38% 23% 56% 41%
Oppose 56% 73 35 56
No opinion 6% 4 9 3
.
Coal-fired power
Favor 38% 32% 45% 40%
Oppose 52% 57 42 58
No opinion 10 11 13 2
(x) Allowing more oil and gas well drilling in state tidelands along=20
California seacoast
The results are based on a telephone survey conducted May 11 to 20 by th=
e=20
Field Institute. The survey of 1,015 California adults was completed in=20
either=20
English or Spanish using random digit dialing methods. This poll has a marg=
in=20
of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
Chronicle Graphic

,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 1=20

Lawsuit asks court to order energy price caps=20
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2001=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20
URL:=20
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2001/05=
/22/M
N193624.DTL&type=3Dnews=20
California's legislative leaders and the city of Oakland asked a federal=20
court today to order federal regulators to limit the prices charged by=20
suppliers of electricity to the state.=20
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acknowledged last November that=20
wholesale prices of power sold into California were not "just and reasonabl=
e"=20
but has violated its legal obligation to curb those rates, the suit charged=
.=20
It was filed by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco,=20
Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, D-Sherman Oaks, and the city of Oakland =
in=20
the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where FERC orders can be direct=
ly=20
challenged. The suit says emergency intervention by the court is needed wit=
h=20
California facing worsening power shortages, escalating costs and the=20
prospect of summer blackouts.=20
In addition, FERC is about to act on requests by out-of-state suppliers for=
=20
three more years of authority to sell electricity to California at market=
=20
rates, the suit said.=20
State officials "have been repeatedly complaining to FERC about obvious=20
price-gouging for well over a year, and pleading with FERC to act," the sui=
t=20
said. "These pleas have fallen on deaf ears.=20
". . . With continued blackouts a certainty this summer . . . it will not b=
e=20
long before fender-benders once again become fatalities, before traffic=20
irritation escalates into full-blown road rage, before air conditioner=20
failures leave fragile people in sweltering, life-threatening conditions,=
=20
before elevators become prisons, and before minor fires become infernos."=
=20
FERC has resisted price caps during both the Clinton and Bush=20
administrations. Late last month, the commission ordered a one-year cap on=
=20
the price of electricity sold into California, but only when power reserves=
=20
fall below 7.5 percent. Legislative leaders and Gov. Gray Davis say the=20
action was inadequate.=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 12=20

Energy crisis not real, state's residents say=20
But poll results show most expect more blackouts=20
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2001=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20
URL:=20
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2001/05=
/22/M
N175993.DTL&type=3Dnews=20

The overwhelming majority of Californians say the state's power crisis is=
=20
"very serious" and blame the big energy companies for creating and=20
manipulating shortages, results of a new Field Poll show.=20
"In the public's view . . . this is a manufactured crisis -- not a real=20
crisis," Mark DiCamillo, director of the statewide Field Poll, said=20
yesterday. "That cynicism permeates a lot of things. . . . The public is no=
t=20
sold on the explanations as to why we're in the crisis we're in."=20
The poll results, released yesterday after a year of energy woes, underscor=
e=20
Californians' increasing concerns about the energy crisis and their growing=
=20
list of personal conservation efforts to deal with it. The poll of 1, 015=
=20
California adults was conducted May 11 to Sunday.=20
CONSUMPTION, CONSERVATION
In what may be the first such tally of statewide conservation efforts,=20
California residents said they reduced their power consumption by an averag=
e=20
of 8 percent -- an effort motivated by the energy crisis.=20
The new poll results also dramatized that Californians are "very attentive"=
=20
to news reports and information about the energy crisis as a way of bracing=
=20
themselves for the effects of increased rates and power outages.=20
But so far, it is not the politicians who are the object of their wrath -- =
it=20
is big energy, DiCamillo said.=20
"They're the bad guys," he said. "But (in the public's view) no one has bee=
n=20
able to stop them. No one is winning this."=20
The findings of the latest Field poll:=20
-- Three quarters of the Californians polled deemed the energy crisis "very=
=20
serious," and 20 percent said "somewhat serious" -- compared with just 5=20
percent who said they didn't see it as a problem. That is similar to a=20
California Public Policy Institute survey released Monday that showed 82=20
percent of those polled believe the energy crunch is a "big problem."=20
-- Despite the widespread media coverage of the effects of blackouts, many=
=20
Californians said they were not personally inconvenienced, the poll results=
=20
showed. Just 11 percent reported being inconvenienced "a great deal" by=20
blackouts, and another 16 percent say they have been affected "some" by the=
=20
problems, compared with 16 percent who said they'd had "a little"=20
inconvenience, and 11 percent who said "none." Almost half said they had no=
t=20
experienced a blackout at all.=20
-- One-third said they expected to be inconvenienced "a great deal" by=20
blackouts during this coming summer, the poll showed.=20
-- Only 1 in 5 residents say rate increases have so far created serious=20
problems for them -- and nearly half say they haven't been affected at all,=
=20
the poll showed. But most Californians say they are fully aware new rate=20
increases have been passed by the Public Utilities Commission, and "you can=
=20
see the pain level goes up fairly dramatically," said DiCamillo. "They're=
=20
bracing themselves for the worst."=20
WHAT LIES AHEAD
DiCamillo said the poll results confirm how deeply Californians fear what m=
ay=20
lie ahead in the energy arena.=20
"Up to this point, (rate increases and blackouts haven't) really touched a=
=20
strong nerve, but they really feel it's coming," he said. "They don't know=
=20
how it will affect them. . . . They're looking at the politicians as if=20
they're impotent in the face of these changes."=20
The Field Poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points=
.=20
Tell us what you think -- What are your suggestions for saving energy? Send=
=20
your best tips to Energy Desk, San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., Sa=
n=20
Francisco, CA 94103; or put your ideas in an energy-efficient e-mail to=20
energysaver@sfchronicle.com.=20

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com=20
Field Poll
Californians' reactions to energy crisis
More than half of Californians surveyed this month by the Field Poll say=
=20
the energy crisis is more a product of the energy companies' efforts to dri=
ve=20
up rates than a real shortage. Despite that view, 85 percent say they're=20
trying to conserve energy.=20

-- Which is closer to your view - that the current electricity shortage is=
=20
real or is an attempt by energy companies to increase rates?
Attempt to increase rates Real shortage No opinion
May survey 59% 36% 5%
January survey 57% 36% 7%
May survey results by household income:
Less than $20,000 54% 37% 9%
$20,000 to $40,000 62% 34% 4%
$40,000 to $60,000 59% 36% 5%
$60,000 to $80,000 57% 37% 6%
More than $80,000 55% 42% 3%

-- Degree to which residents say they have cut back on electricity usage=20
since=20
the start of energy crisis: Percentage of residents who . . .
Have not been able to conserve 15%
Have cut back electricity use (median percentage cutback 8%):=20
5% 17%
10% 25%
15% 14%
20% 13%
More than 20% 11%
.
Can't estimate % of savings 5%

The results are based on a telephone survey conducted May 11 to 20 by the=
=20
Field Institute. The survey of 1,015 California adults was completed in=20
English and Spanish using random digit dialing methods. This poll has a=20
margin=20
of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
Chronicle Graphic

,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 13=20

Supervisor sees energy up on S.F. rooftops=20
Sunniest areas would have solar panels=20
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2001=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle=20
URL:=20
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2001/05=
/23/M
N193839.DTL&type=3Dnews=20
San Francisco -- Rooftops in San Francisco's sunniest neighborhoods would b=
e=20
covered with power-generating solar panels to help ease the city's energy=
=20
crunch under an ambitious plan proposed by Supervisor Tom Ammiano.=20
It is envisioned that at full capacity the project would generate 50=20
megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 50,000 homes -- which would mak=
e=20
it the largest such solar program in the nation.=20
The project, as conceived by Ammiano, would be a public-private partnership=
.=20
The city would help with financing and private contractors would build and=
=20
maintain the equipment, which would be installed on commercial and=20
residential buildings.=20
Ammiano hopes to ask voters in November to approve a Charter amendment that=
=20
would allow the Board of Supervisors to issue revenue bonds to pay for the=
=20
project. The bond debt would be paid back with money made from the sale of=
=20
the electricity and lease payments from participating building owners;=20
property taxes would not be raised. The city would tap into state and feder=
al=20
subsidies for solar power to bring the costs down.=20
"Our local dialogue about the energy crisis has been missing a key componen=
t:=20
a commitment to renewable energy that will be directly beneficial to local=
=20
residences and businesses," Ammiano said Monday. "The project will stake ou=
t=20
the city's commitment to clean, renewable energy."=20
The solar power could be used by the buildings on which the equipment is=20
housed, with any excess going to the power grid serving the city.=20
"It's not going to be power in the hands of people who are playing games wi=
th=20
us. It puts power in local control," said Rick Shattuc, consumer advocate f=
or=20
The Utility Reform Network, a consumer rights group.=20
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce vice president Jim Mathias said the idea =
is=20
intriguing. But he wants to see the numbers crunched.=20
"Financing will be a big challenge," Mathias said. "Economies of scale will=
=20
help bring down costs, but it is unclear if a project focused on the sunny=
=20
neighborhoods of San Francisco will be big enough in scale to make the=20
numbers work."=20
Paul Fenn, director of Local Power, an Oakland advocacy group, helped Ammia=
no=20
develop the proposal. He said the costs could run into the hundreds of=20
millions of dollars.=20
Although San Francisco is more famous for its fog than its sunshine, Fenn=
=20
said, studies have shown the city has considerable capacity to go solar,=20
particularly in neighborhoods on the south side. To generate 50 megawatts,=
=20
solar panels equivalent to about 100 football fields would have to be=20
installed on rooftops, he said.=20
E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.=20
,2001 San Francisco Chronicle ? Page?A - 17=20

California economy braces for $5.7 billion electric rate hike=20
Posted at 6:29 a.m. PDT Wednesday, May 23, 2001=20
BY MICHAEL LIEDTKE=20

AP Business Writer=20

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Higher power costs zapped restaurateur Marino Sandova=
l=20
and his customers even before California regulators decided how to allocate=
a=20
$5.7 billion electricity rate hike -- the highest in state history.=20
Faced with soaring natural gas rates that tripled his utility bill, Sandova=
l=20
last month raised prices at his popular Mexican restaurant chain, El Balazo=
,=20
by as much as 20 percent on some items. A giant burrito that cost $4.95 at=
=20
the end of March costs $5.95 today.=20
``We had to do it because it seemed like the price of everything, from our=
=20
beans to our tortillas, was going up almost every day. Our higher prices ha=
ve=20
everything to do with the higher energy prices,'' said Sandoval, who runs s=
ix=20
restaurants in the San Francisco area.=20
From hotels to bagel shops, businesses throughout California have been=20
raising prices or imposing special surcharges to offset rising power costs.=
=20
Most of the increases so far have reflected higher natural gas costs, which=
=20
utilities have been passing along to customers.=20
Now, businesses and households are bracing for electricity rate increases=
=20
that could balloon the bills of the largest users of the state's two bigges=
t=20
utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co.=
=20
The higher rates, which will begin appearing in June's utility bills,=20
threaten to jolt the state's already-jittery economy.=20
``Pretty soon, we may see California staring down the barrel of a=20
recession,'' said Dave Puglia, a vice president for APCO, a public affairs=
=20
firm hired by California business interests to study the economic effect of=
=20
the state's energy woes.=20
By itself, the $5.7 billion rate increase approved in late March by the=20
California Public Utilities Commission probably isn't enough to topple the=
=20
state's roughly $1 trillion economy -- the sixth largest in the world.=20
After weeks of public hearings and intensive lobbying by various customer=
=20
groups, the commission voted last week how to spread the pain of those rate=
=20
hikes.=20
``It will cause some hardships, particularly for some small business owners=
,=20
but from the macro point of view, these rate increases aren't going to have=
a=20
major impact on California's output,'' predicted Sung Won Sohn, chief=20
economist for Wells Fargo & Co., which runs the biggest bank headquartered =
in=20
the state.=20
But some business leaders are worried the hike will represent the coup de=
=20
grace for many companies already reeling from rising expenses for gasoline,=
=20
natural gas, health care benefits and workers' compensation insurance.=20
Against this backdrop, many employers also face pressure to raise their=20
workers' wages to help pay for California's high housing costs.=20
``If this keeps up, at some point, we are going to reach a breaking point i=
n=20
the economy,'' said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of=
=20
Commerce.=20
The California Chamber is part of the California Alliance for Energy and=20
Economic Stability, a coalition that sought to shift more of the electricit=
y=20
rate increase from businesses to households.=20
Under the plan approved by the PUC, businesses are expected to pay about $4=
.6=20
billion more for electricity and households will pay an additional $1.1=20
billion.=20
Even if they are spared on their utility bills, consumers still will be=20
pinched by higher prices for goods and services as businesses pass along=20
their electricity price increases.=20
The rate increases mean that utility bills will consume about 25 percent to=
=20
30 percent of a big manufacturer's budget, Puglia estimated, up from about =
15=20
percent now.=20
``I wouldn't be surprised if we see some companies go out of business becau=
se=20
of this,'' said Justin Bradley, director of energy programs for the Silicon=
=20
Valley Manufacturing Association, a high-tech trade group.=20
Even if they don't shut down completely, many companies likely will lay off=
=20
workers as they cut costs to pay for power. The California Manufacturers an=
d=20
Technology Association estimates the energy crisis will result in the loss =
of=20
135,755 jobs -- or about 40,000 more than the entire dot-com industry has=
=20
laid off nationwide during the past 16 months.=20
Painful though they may be, most economists say higher electricity rates an=
d=20
some resulting layoffs are a better alternative than the increased number o=
f=20
blackouts that probably would have occurred if retail prices hadn't been=20
raised.=20
Even though the monthly utility bill at one of his restaurants rose from=20
$1,500 last year to $4,500 this year, Sandoval said customers continue to=
=20
pour into his El Balazo restaurants despite higher menu prices.=20
``Business is so good that I have been too busy to think about whether I am=
=20
going to have to raise my prices again,'' he said. ``If I have to, I will. =
I=20
don't think people are going to stop eating because of this.''

Blackouts may come with early warning=20
ISO plan for 30-minute notice also includes projections for the next day.=
=20
May 22, 2001=20
By MARY ANN MILBOURN
The Orange County Register=20
The public could get up to 30 minutes' warning that rolling blackouts are=
=20
likely under a plan proposed Monday by the state's power grid operator.=20
More information also would be available about the day's electricity supply=
=20
and demand, as well as a forecast on the likelihood of next-day rolling=20
blackouts.=20
The proposals are an effort by the Independent System Operator, which=20
operates the power grid, to respond to criticism that the six blackouts tha=
t=20
have occurred so far in California have caused costly disruptions of=20
communities and businesses. Problems have ranged from car accidents when=20
traffic signals went blank to lost production caused by computerized=20
equipment suddenly going down.=20
The additional lead time would help people prepare for the outages. For now=
,=20
however, Southern California Edison customers wouldn't be told where the=20
first outages would hit. The utility would publicize the locations of=20
subsequent outages.=20
Ernie Rodriguez, owner of Southern California Plastics in Santa Ana, said=
=20
anything would be helpful.=20
"Our equipment is very sensitive," said Rodriguez, whose company custom-=20
molds plastic. "We need to prepare our machines, and even 30 minutes would =
be=20
helpful."=20
But the ISO's proposal wasn't enough for some members of the Legislature wh=
o=20
have advocated prescheduled blackouts.=20
Assemblyman Mike Briggs, R-Fresno, plans to introduce a bill this week that=
=20
would require the state Public Utilities Commission to notify businesses an=
d=20
homeowners of possible blackouts as much as one month ahead of time.=20
"We owe the people of this state some kind of schedule," Briggs said. "If=
=20
businesses and individuals knew what days their power could potentially be=
=20
shut off or blacked out, they could plan for that blackout accordingly."=20
The ISO's board of governors will consider the early- warning system at its=
=20
meeting Thursday. If adopted, it could go into effect May 30 and provide ne=
w,=20
more timely information on several fronts:=20
When demand is high, the ISO would issue forecasts to the news media,=20
emergency services and utilities of peak demand, supply and weather for the=
=20
next 24 hours.=20
A "power watch" would be issued when the ISO calls a Stage 1 alert, in whic=
h=20
reserves dip below 7 percent, or a Stage 2 alert, when the system is within=
5=20
percent of running out of power.=20
The ISO would issue a "power warning" if there's a 50/50 chance that a Stag=
e=20
3 alert, in which reserves fall below 1 1/2 percent, will be called.=20
Thirty minutes before a blackout occurs, the ISO would issue a "notice of=
=20
probable load interruption." If additional supply is found or demand is=20
reduced, no blackout would be necessary.=20
Steven Conroy, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, said he hadn't=
=20
seen the details of the policy but that it appears to work well with his=20
company's plans. Edison serves most of Orange County.=20
"The more information we can provide will be of value to our customers,"=20
Conroy said.=20
Beginning next month, Edison customers will get their rotating-outage group=
=20
number on their bills. Initially, Edison will use the group numbers only to=
=20
let customers know who might be next for blackouts once they start. The=20
company will use its Web site, a telephone voice recording and broadcast=20
media to get the word out.=20
Conroy, however, said the company is considering posting the group numbers=
=20
for the first areas to be blacked out. Officials have been reluctant to=20
announce where outages will hit for fear of theft and vandalism.=20
San Diego Gas & Electric, which serves 100,000 customers in south Orange=20
County, is already using pagers and e-mail to notify business customers of=
=20
power-grid conditions. Spokesman Ed Van Herick said the ISO warning might=
=20
give SDG&E time to let block groups know where initial blackouts will hit.=
=20
Also Monday, the Public Utilities Commission began accepting applications=
=20
from businesses seeking exemptions from rolling outages.=20
Exemptions are only granted to customers who provide essential services, su=
ch=20
as hospitals, fire and police stations, and air traffic control facilities.=
=20
The PUC will consider exemptions for businesses whose shutdown would=20
constitute a threat to public health and safety.=20
The deadline to apply is June 1. A decision on which businesses qualify for=
=20
exemptions is expected by Aug. 2.=20
As part of the statewide effort to gear up for the expected summer blackout=
s,=20
the California Energy Commission on Thursday will test a new computer syste=
m=20
that notifies cities, counties, special districts and some federal agencies=
=20
in the state about energy conditions.=20
The goal of the system is conservation, said Mara Bouvier, commission=20
contingency planning coordinator. The messages, sent via telephone and=20
e-mail, will detail energy forecasts and ask that agencies reduce power use=
.=20
About 800 cities, counties, special districts and federal agencies have=20
signed up for the statewide program to determine how much power could be=20
conserved during a Stage 3 emergency.=20
"We're going to see if there's notable conservation there,'' Bouvier said.=
=20
Bouvier characterized the effort as a civic duty by agencies "to show the=
=20
governor how the state will do what they can to conserve energy.''=20

Controller questions electricity cost=20
Connell says state might have to issue bonds, but Davis says state is meeti=
ng=20
goals.=20
May 22, 2001=20
The Associated Press=20
SACRAMENTO -- Controller Kathleen Connell on Monday questioned whether the=
=20
state can buy enough electricity cheaply enough to avoid borrowing more tha=
n=20
the $13.4 billion bond sale already approved by state lawmakers.=20
Connell said the state will need to issue an additional $3 billion to $5=20
billion in short-term debt this summer or risk running out of money this fa=
ll=20
until the long-term bond can be issued to repay the state treasury. The=20
increased amount could further stress the state's declining credit rating,=
=20
forcing higher interest rates for new borrowing.=20
Meanwhile, the state auditor released a report saying previous estimates th=
at=20
the state could avoid blackouts this summer are overly optimistic. The Bure=
au=20
of State Audits also criticized the California Public Utilities Commission,=
=20
saying the commission hasn't responded to the crisis by expediting=20
transmission line projects.=20
The audit said the PUC contributes to delays by failing to work closely wit=
h=20
other agencies and in its decision-making relies too heavily on information=
=20
supplied by the investor-owned utilities.=20
Auditors, asked by lawmakers to review the state's energy regulators, also=
=20
said the California Energy Commission's extensive licensing methods slowed=
=20
down plant approvals. Of a dozen power p