California
Capitolweek #531
4/13/01
Energy Summit #4
((Jack))
Thanks for
joining us.
We promised
a special edition on Proposition 36, the new way the state will deal with
non-violent drug offenders, but we are moving that show to next week because of
developments in our energy crisis.
((Melissa))
The new
developments involve the state’s major private utilities; one is broke, and one
has signed a deal with the governor.
((Jack))
Coming on
the first business day after PG& E filed for bankruptcy, the Governor
signed a deal to buy Southern California Edison's transmission lines.
The cost,
more than two billion dollars.
It helps
Edison recover some of its multibillion-dollar debt from consumers.
Edison
would use ratepayer money to back the sale of bonds to investors, taking the
proceeds to refinance its debt.
But the
deal is far from done; the state legislature must approve parts of the deal.
Edison
officials hope it will hold off bankruptcy.
Begin Soundbite
((Gary Stern, Southern California
Edison))
The deal
that we announced with the Governor earlier this week, we hope that we’re now
on a path, subject to approval through the legislature and the PUC, to avoid
bankruptcy.
End Soundbite
((Melissa))
Edison also
urged federal intervention in the form of wholesale price caps, an issue
stressed at congressional hearings this week in California.
Everyone
from farmers to the PUC weighed in at House Government Reform Committee
meetings.
The
goal? Educating Congress about the
state’s energy crisis.
Also this
week, several state lawmakers traveled to Idaho to push for price caps and
immediate federal action.
They met
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and 11 officials from other
Western states.
No decision
was made on price caps, but the bi-partisan delegation hopes the feds are
getting the message California needs their help.
Begin Soundbite
((Robert Hertzberg, Assembly Speaker
[D]))
This
economy can’t stand it. The federal
government has to step up to the plate.
If it was a fire or a flood or some other natural disaster, they would
be here, and we were there to send that message.
End Soundbite
((Jack))
Despite all
the news this week, the bottom line is demand is outpacing supply.
Experts
predict as many as 30 blackouts this summer.
So what, if
anything, is the good news?
((Melissa))
Joining us
now:
Michael
Shames, with the Utility Consumers Action Network,
Gary
Ackerman, with the Western Power Trading Forum that represents more than 30 in
and out of state power generators.
((Jack))
Also with
us Republican Anthony Pescetti, vice chair of the assembly energy costs and
availability committee.
Senator
Debra Bowen , Democrat from Marina Del Ray.
She is chair person of the Senate Energy Commission.
And John
Nelson with Pacific Gas and Electric.
((Melissa))
Thank you
all for being with us. John, we’re
going to start with you today. We
gathered at the same time last week, and we hoped to avoid bankruptcy [of the
utilities], and the Governor had his big speech Thursday, and then the
announcement from PG&E. Why the big
surprise?
((John Nelson, Pacific Gas and Electric))
It was a
decision that was building, and it was a decision that we had warned opinion
leaders in San Francisco and Sacramento that it was building, particularly over
the last two weeks when the PUC enacted a number of provisions on March 27th
that we felt were very harmful. We
warned the PUC in advance, they did that and took those steps anyway—
((Melissa))
And is it
true that since December PG&E has been ready to file for bankruptcy?
((John Nelson, Pacific Gas and
Electric))
No, since
December we’ve been trying to stave off bankruptcy. We reached a point last Friday though where it was very clear
that the negotiations with the state were going in the wrong direction. The actions that the PUC was taking were
costing us millions of dollars a day.
There didn’t appear to be any forward way out of that. Clearly, our CEO and our company felt that
the best path for us to be stable is to seek protection in bankruptcy court.
((Jack))
Okay. Senator Bowen, if PG&E had no choice and
had to go into bankruptcy to protect themselves, doesn’t that same dynamic
apply to Southern California Edison?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina
Del Rey))
No, Edison
has a slightly different problem.
They’ve been willing to negotiate to avoid bankruptcy, but the problem
is whether it makes sense for California’s ratepayers and taxpayers to acquire
a third of the transmission system.
((Jack))
Could we
been in a situation where California acquires the transmission system from
Edison and they still go bankrupt?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina Del
Rey))
It’s
possible, but the acquisition of the transmission system from both PG&E and
Edison was designed to keep the companies out of bankruptcy. The problem, obviously, in acquiring one
part of it is if you acquire a third of a bridge, you’re very likely to get
wet.
((Jack))
Some of the
reportage on that deal indicates that there is a clause in that agreement that
would prevent Edison from getting into the situation that it was in previously,
meaning that rates would automatically go up if the price of wholesale power
went up beyond what they could capture from their customers, so that’s almost
an automatic rate increase. Is that
correct?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D]Marina Del
Rey))
Yes, that’s
how I understand it. It doesn’t look
like there is much in the agreement, in the MOU to recommend to ratepayers,
although it looks like a great deal for generators and Edison’s shareholders.
((Melissa))
All right,
Michael. Where does this leave
ratepayers?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Well, the MOU is out there.
It’s going to be analyzed by the legislature—
((Jack))
MOU,
memorandum of understanding?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
That’s the
deal between the Governor and Southern California Edison. It’s there.
It’s going to be reviewed. It’s
a very complex document. Really, the
question that we’re facing and that we’re trying to focus on is, “What’s going
to happen this summer and this year?
How big a hole is this state going to be digging itself
financially?” We’re very nervous on the
implications of the costs that could be racked up on the state’s consumers in
purchasing in the wholesale market this summer. It’s scary.
((Jack))
The speaker
came back from a meeting in Boise, which you attended Mr. Pescetti, and he
speculated that the state of California might spend about 64 billion dollars
just to buy power this year. The
Oakland Tribune reported today—and we’re taping this program late
Wednesday—they have a figure from the California State Energy Commission that
the state may be spending seventy billion dollars buying power. Where are we going to get that money?
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
You know,
we have to keep in mind that when they’re talking about the state purchasing
electricity, it’s not necessarily the state of California, but it could power—in
essence, what the consumer is going to be buying for the whole state, so right
now, the anticipation is that the state is spending in the neighborhood of
50 million dollars per day is the cost that ultimately will be the ratepayers
of the state and then the remaining will come from the consumers in the service
areas.
((Melissa))
Gary, Have
we seen the highest rates from a wholesale perspective? Is this the tip of the iceberg?
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power
Trading Forum))
I don’t
think it is. I think that prices are
stabilizing around a midrange, which makes some people uncomfortable, somewhere
in the thirty to sixty cent range. I
made the range fairly wide in answering your question, but the future prices
that we’re seeing for this summer is that forty cents to fifty cents per kilowatt
hour is what the wholesale price is going for today. It will move up and down as we approach the summer, and, of
course, deliveries will be made in July, August, and September. That’s what we consider the summer months.
((Jack))
You
mentioned forty to fifty cents a kilowatt hour. In the first two years after deregulation in California, there
was a price cap at fifteen cents a kilowatt hour, just to put that into
perspective so that viewers understand where the market is going—
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power
Trading Forum))
Actually, the
price cap in real-time purchases by the independent system operators started
out at twenty-five cents, I believe.
Then, it was jumped up to seventy-five cents; then it was down to fifty
cents, and then finally a quarter. But
when it was lowered last summer, average prices went up, which didn’t help
consumers at all.
((Jack))
All right,
just so that viewers can understand and take a look at their bill and get an
idea of where this is, we are paying for power at roughly seven cents a
kilowatt hour now, depending on where you are.
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power Trading
Forum))
Well, for
the wholesale portion it’s on average around seven cents, and what I was
talking about with the thirty to forty cents were spot prices, so if you didn’t
hedge your bets in any way, you would feeling the full brunt of the wholesale
price.
((Jack))
So does
that mean that my electric bill has to fill in the gap?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina
Del Rey))
Well,
somebody’s electric bill has to, and the PUC is now designing a rate structure
that places some of the burden on residences.
Less of it because the first increments on use for residents will be
protected, and there are significant rate increases posed for businesses of all
sizes, schools, hospitals, and all other types of users, but we’re talking
about power that costs two to three cents a year ago costing thirty to forty
cents now during the lowest usage time of the year, and predictions are that it
could go as high as a dollar or a dollar-fifty for power that used to, again,
cost two to three cents. There’s no way
the state can finance that without going into bankruptcy.
((Melissa))
We’re
hearing a lot this week at some of the hearings that the message seems to be
“The state can’t fix what is broken alone.
We need federal help. We need
federal help in the form of price caps.”
Assemblyman Pescetti, you were at a hearing this week where the topic of
price caps came up, but the FERC still does not seem to embrace that idea, but
there is a new trend now with market-based or cost-based price caps.
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Cost-based
plus pricing is one of the proposals that was made yesterday by our delegation
for—
((Melissa))
What does
that mean from a consumer perspective?
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Basically,
what it would mean as related to the generators is that their cost plus
whatever profit margin was acceptable would be the new rate. The intent is try to get those prices from
the wholesale market down from forty to sixty cents or higher down to something
that may be in the neighborhood of ten to twelve cents a kilowatt hour.
((Jack))
So what’s
wrong with that? That sounds fair.
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power
Trading Forum))
Sounds fair
to those that are buying, but it doesn’t sound fair to those that are
producing. It really would be
impossible to administer. You’re
talking about every power plant in the Western United States. You just can’t isolate, for example,
California and put price caps on every plant inside the state and just let
everyone outside the state charge whatever market prices they want. That kind of misallocation will definitely
mess up the markets. It might be that
the state of California is chasing the wrong problem. They keep on thinking that the markets are broken. I’d like to know, “What if they’re
wrong?” If they’re wrong, they’re
running the people of the state of California down a rabbit hole, and the real
problem is this is the value of this commodity to people. If you don’t want to pay it out of your
pocketbooks, then you’re going to have to pay it out of your tax money, and if
it doesn’t come out of either of those, then there’s not going to be power
flowing.
((Melissa))
John,
PG&E learned about the rapid rise in costs the hard way about what it could
do to a business in terms of bankruptcy.
Is PG&E still a player in this game, or did bankruptcy in essence
take you off the table?
((John Nelson, Pacific Gas and Electric))
No, we hope
very much to be a player. We still
generate about forty percent of the electricity that our customers use, and
there are difficulties in cost-based pricing for the entire western
region. We support that concept. It’s something that we do. We have pledged our generation at
cost-plus-based rates. We also are
going to play a major role in encouraging our customers to conserve
energy. We are going to spend tens of
millions of dollars to do that. We
absolutely want to be a player in this.
We have to be.
((Jack))
Michael,
PG&E is now in bankruptcy. There is
always the possibility that Edison could go into bankruptcy as well?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Sure.
((Jack))
So we could
be looking at bankruptcy all across the board?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Sure.
((Jack))
In that
situation, you’ve got a judge, and the judge’s job—not being a bankruptcy
lawyer, I’m not an expert on this, but I’d assume that the judge’s job is to
the get the cash flow and the money going out and the money coming in
stabilized a bit to get the company where it can survive and move forward. Does that mean that the judge can come in
and tell the Public Utilities Commission that they need to triple the rates
for, say, six months to provide a cash flow to keep these companies alive?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
You’re
asking one of those questions that lawyers can debate for years, and, in fact,
they probably will because it’s a Constitutional question, and it’s not clear
to anybody what power that judge has to increase rates. One thing the judge will do, and this is for
certain—the judge’s job is to protect the interests of the creditors and see
that they get paid in some fashion somehow while trying to preserve the
viability of the company. That’s what
the judge will be focused on. That
judge will not care about the public interests. He will not care about the state’s welfare. He will not care about energy policy in the
state.
((Jack))
Let’s take
a hypothetical. Let’s say that I am an out
of state generator and I am owed billions of dollars, could the federal judge
say, “Okay, instead of cash, we’ll give you Diablo Canyon?”
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Yes.
((Jack))
What
happens next?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
That’s my
greatest fear. My greatest fear is that
the bankruptcy judge will oversee the sale of important, strategic assets of
PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E, so that the state will lose additional control
over the energy policy in the state. We
will lose assets that, right now, are under state control and state rates to
the same companies that have been gouging California shamelessly, and that’s
the horror story. That’s the thing that
keeps me up at night.
((Melissa))
Senator,
how much power has been taken away from what lawmakers can actually do now that
there has been a bankruptcy filing?
Does that sort of take the foot of off the negotiations?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina Del
Rey))
Well,
Michael is really right. What we get is
a long list of legal questions. The
general rule in bankruptcy court is that federal bankruptcy litigation does not
override the state’s laws that deal with public health and welfare. That would suggest that the state laws that,
for example, require the Public Utilities Commission to approve a sale of
generation assets as being in the best interests of ratepayers would continue
to apply, but, again, most of this is litigation that’s never happened before
in this manner—
((Melissa))
Well, most
people are saying it’s going to take a long time, so we’re hearing from a
consumer perspective that they don’t want to wait, so what about seizing the
plant. In a state of emergency, the
state has the power to do that. Is that
something that lawmakers might take a look at?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina
Del Rey))
Well, I
think we’ve been looking at using the power of imminent domain for a long time,
but a more refined version of that is to ask if it’s in the better interest of
the state not to seize the plant itself—because in many instances they’re old
and if they’re generating power at top prices, the cost right now might right
now be higher than it will ever be in history, but the state has the ability to
commandeer the output, and to pay a fair price for that output. That would keep power from going out of the
state of California. I’m sure that Gary
will say that it will also mean that others will not send power to California. Again, there’s no easy answer.
((Jack))
So, it’s
seize the power, not the plant?
((Senator
Debra Bowen, [D] Marina Del Rey))
Well, you
could do either, but if you seize a power plant, the state is required to post,
in cash, the fair market value of that plant, and the question is whether it
makes sense to take that much cash at a time when the plants because of costs
are—
((Jack))
Phil
Angelides was here last week, and he said that the legislature had done the
math, and the purchase price of the power plants after deregulation was below
what the state of California is paying for power, so why not do that?
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Well, you
know, I think when we look at the whole issue, there are a couple of things
that we have to look at. Since January,
the Legislature gave the Governor the authority through the Department of Water
Resources to purchase power. We’ve been
purchasing power for PG&E and Edison and, to a certain degree, Sempra,
which is San Diego gas and electric, since February 1st, the middle
of January, so the utilities have been able to collect the revenues based on
their native generation plus the qualifying facility contracts. The state’s taken the risk on everything
else. PG&E, last week within hours
of announcing their bankruptcy, paid out in the neighborhood of fifty to sixty
million dollars in bonuses to senior managers.
I’ve had a lot of people ask, “Well, where is all that money?” So, I think as we look at—whether it’s the
seizure of the electrons, the seizure of the power plants, or the purchase of
the transmission—we need to take a look at the big picture, the impact that
it’s going to have on those companies with permits and citing ability in
California. There are twelve or
thirteen that have been approved. Six
of them are moving forward. We hear the
other six or seven are saying, “Wait a minute.
Time out. We’re not sure we want
to do business in California.” All of
the those decisions and whatever the legislature does and whatever the Governor
does under his power will have a direct and indirect impact in the state of
California, so we have to move with some caution, but whatever we do, we have
to ultimately make sure that we protect the taxpayer.
((Jack))
On the
bonuses, John, were you far enough down the food chain to qualify for one?
((John Nelson, Pacific Gas and Electric))
Actually,
if I were a senior manager, I wouldn’t have received one. The compensation package has been grossly
misreported. Six thousand of our
employees, basically any employee who is not a union employee, got the portion
of their compensation package that was due to them since January. Union employees got it in January; it’s
under contract. Virtually the rest of
the company got it last week. It had
been suspended since January as we were trying to stave off bankruptcy and
conserve cash. No officer of the
company got any of those bonuses, and there is actually a portion of an
employees salary that is set aside and awarded based on performance.
((Jack))
So, it was
salary that was handed out?
((John Nelson, Pacific Gas and
Electric))
That’s
correct, and they were reduced. They
are smaller than they were last year because a portion of that award is based
on the company’s performance.
((Jack))
Senator
Bowen, why do I want the transmission lines?
I’m a taxpayer and the Governor and legislature are looking into buying
them on my behalf. Why do I want them?
((Senator Debra Bowen, [D] Marina Del
Rey))
Well, when
we were looking at acquiring all the transmission grid, it was because there
are efficiencies of operation that you can get. We’ve had instances where we’ve been unable to move power from
one part of the grid to another due to bottlenecks. There have been difficulties in citing distributed generation,
microturbines, and on-site resources because every time you do that, the
utilities get less money in their transmission rates because you don’t have to
pay to use their transmission line if you’re generating on-site, so there are
some things you can do with public ownership.
And you own it; you don’t have to keep paying rent every year. Again, there is a question of whether that
still makes sense if you’re not sure you can obtain the entire system.
((Melissa))
And let’s
get to the bottom line too because the bankruptcy filing and everything that’s
going on still doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. Do we need more power and how is that going to help stabilize
consumer rates? So all these things on
the table are really helping consumers out or bringing more power, so, Michael,
where does that leave the consumers?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Well,
you’ve touched on what I think is the greatest area of frustration among people
watching this program as well as consumers throughout the state. What do we do, and what should we be
expecting? This summer looks to be a
very tough summer. We’ll have
blackouts. Prices may go up.
((Melissa))
Do we have
options, Michael? Is there anything
that consumers can do?
((Michael Shames,
Utility Consumers Action Network))
The individual consumer has two options. One, from the demand sign, what the
individual consumer knows how to do is to either buy something or not buy
something, so the consumer does have a certain amount of power, pardon the pun,
by choosing not to use power, and that’s the conservation angle, but it’s a
limited tool. You can’t win the war
just based on that. I think,
ultimately, the state is going to have look at flexing its own ability, its
power, to dictate the terms of what price the state will pay for power. I think the state is going to have to be
more aggressive this summer in the way it purchases power if we’re to get
through the summer and not bankrupt the state.
((Jack))
What does that say to generators out there. They look at the largest market on the west
coast, California, and are told that California will only pay forty cents a
kilowatt hour or fifteen cents a kilowatt hour. How do they respond to that?
((Gary Ackerman,
Western Power Trading Forum))
Well, they respond like they’ve always responded. This is a market where you’re trying to
maximize your profits for a given asset.
That’s always been the objective here.
These people who trade power—
((Jack))
I know, but if they say that they’ll just send that [power]
to Arizona or Nevada, the market isn’t as big in Arizona or Nevada.
((Gary Ackerman, Western
Power Trading Forum))
It doesn’t matter.
As long as I have someone to buy what I offer to sell, it doesn’t
matter. If I’m selling my home, and I
have one person who comes by and buys it, I don’t care if there are a million
people who want that home or just one person who wants that home. I have my price that I’m selling my home
at. The same goes for power. If I can find a willing buyer who will pay a
price that I think is market-based, I’m for it.
((Jack))
There has been some discussion on these programs in the past
on the issue that the purchase of the transmission grid is more political
cover, that a financing deal could be worked out with the utilities without
having to purchase the grid. How much
of it is cover?
((Senator Debra Bowen,
[D] Marina Del Rey))
I think the idea was the same as buying a house instead of
renting a house. If you rent a house,
you will pay the payments for that house every year, and you’ll also pay when
there’s a new roof, the place needs to be repainted, all the maintenance and
operation. So the idea was, to take
public ownership of an asset that we know will be used by the public for a very
long period of time, so we’re paying every year in our rates, and the state,
because it’s cost of borrowing money is lower and we don’t pay income taxes as
a public entity, could acquire the transmission grid and stay at about the same
rate for the transmission portion of the bill, which is relatively small. So, it made some sense to do that. It may still make sense to do that because
people are paying in their bills every year for that transmission grid. We need to be willing to do the same thing
on the energy side. I think as Californians,
we need to be willing to say, “If the generators want to charge us forty cents,
sixty cents, a dollar a kilowatt hour, that’s fine. We will build it ourselves.”
((Melissa))
Assemblyman Pescetti, you wanted to respond to that?
((Assemblyman Anthony
Pescetti, [R] Rancho Cordova))
Well, the Senator is right.
There were advantages at looking at acquiring the grid. I don’t support taking over it, largely
because when and before PG&E declared the bankruptcy, we were looking at
about sixty percent of the transmission grid.
There was still forty percent that we would not be able to purchase.
((Jack))
And that would be like SMUD facilities?
((Assemblyman Anthony
Pescetti, [R] Rancho Cordova))
Yeah, and LADWP—
((Jack)
Los Angeles, Palo Alto—
((Melissa))
It’s a disjointed ownership?
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Right. There are some advantages, but there are
also some disadvantages. You take the
grid out and the state owns it, you lose the property taxes to cities and
counties which means the state will have to—
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Anthony, don’t.
Please don’t—
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Oh, no wait a minute, Mike—
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
The consumer groups supported the purchase of the
transmission—
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
You said,
“We’re not going to pay for the taxes.”
Right now, PG&E, Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric are paying
property taxes—
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Yes, the
proposal put on the table by the consumer groups contemplated that those taxes
would continue to be paid—
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
By the
state.
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
By the owners of the transmission—
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Which means
the state.
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Fine.
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
Which means
the 2.3 billion dollar cost now becomes a 3.3 billion dollar cost—
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Nope, not
at all. It’s included in the
revenues. You didn’t do your homework,
Anthony.
((Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti, [R]
Rancho Cordova))
No, Mike, I think you need to look at it because the
property taxes—
((Melissa))
Let’s bring
up this consumer group angle because the power of the consumers is growing as
is the frustration, and as we approach the summer, it’s becoming as heated as
the dialogue we just witnessed. So, are
should we be afraid of the initiative that’s being floated in terms of
scrapping this whole deregulation process?
((Michael Shames, Utility Consumers
Action Network))
Uh, I’m not
just afraid of an initiative. I’m
afraid of a number of initiatives. I’m
afraid of this issue becoming highly politicized, not just by consumer groups
but by a lot of groups who will have their input and who will feel that because
things didn’t work out, they want to get their concerns saved. I look at next summer being not only hot and
dark, but it’s going to be very heated politically if we don’t fix the problem
this year—
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power Trading
Forum))
I think
you’re pointing the chaos, and what the generators say is, “Please, let’s stop
this insanity, and let’s get some order and lawfulness to this whole
process.” That’s why we really were
relieved when PG&E voluntarily went into bankruptcy, and I think we’ll be
equally relieved when Edison probably gets pushed into it in a few weeks.
((Jack))
You think
that’s a fait accompli? It’s only a
matter of time?
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power
Trading Forum))
Uh, it
can’t be a fate accompli. I’m saying
it’s probable.
((Jack))
For the
same reasons? Because of the political
chaos involved in this issue?
((Gary Ackerman, Western Power
Trading Forum))
I don’t
know if it’s the political chaos. I
believe that people haven’t been paid, and don’t see the money coming, and
they’re going to force it.
((Jack))
All right,
on that unhappy note, I think we’ve run out of time. Thank you all for being here.
((Melissa))
We would
like your feedback on this topic:
Should the
state take over the transmission lines?
((Jack))
Send us an
email to CapitolWeek dot org. And while
you’re there, log onto “At Issue: Energy” for the latest on the energy crisis.
((Melissa))
Thanks for
all your email regarding last week’s question on how the state is handling the
energy crisis.
You didn’t
mince words:
Yvonne from
Los Angeles writes:
“State
government has been lax in making important decisions . . . and should take
full responsibility.”
Bill from
Sacramento thinks:
“The irony
is that a price cap is what caused the current situation. The Governor and the
P-U-C need a refresher course in basic economics.”
((Jack))
Melissa,
Walter from Colfax addresses power producers and the prices they charge:
“ . . .
there is no market price when you are dealing with a monopoly that is providing
an absolutely necessary product . .”
Thank you
for your comments
((Melissa))
Next week,
our special on Proposition 36. Treatment versus punishment, you decide.
Until then,
I’m Melissa Crowley.
((Jack))
And I’m
Jack Kavanagh. Thanks for joining us
and see you next time.