Shouldn't Cheney reimburse California for the $30 Billion he stole?

Great Debates
21

What Sua ignores is that an energy shortage during a summer heat wave can be dismissed as a natural event.

By 12/00, though, it was pretty obvious that there was scope for market manipulation. And when prices spiked in the months that followed, the existence of that price manipulation was obvious to everyone except the Bush Admin and certain libertarians.

Interesting. I think, though, that the $30 billion dollar figure refers to the extent to which CA a) bailed out PG&E in 2001 (with CA state debt) and b) signed off on long term contracts based on prices supported by market manipulation and malfeasance.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to do an accounting of the economic damages and transfers occurring from 5/2000 - 6/2001.

Finally, to the extent that the OP is saying that Bush & Crew should be imprisoned for policy errors, I think we can set that concept aside as one borne of hyperbole.

22

Why is it natural? Power companies can readily predict the demand that they’re going to need during hotter months (hint: It’s going to be higher). It’s not like it snuck up on them or something…

“Oh my lord! It’s summertime! It caught me totally flat-footed! You’d think this happens every year!”

It’s not like an Earthquake or a Hurricane or something. It’s 100% predictable.

23

It is predictable, albeit with error.

Let me reprise the arguments.

As xerwo234u5023 pointed out, "California has not built a new power plant in x years. The power companies did not want to build any new plants before the exact deregulation framework was specified. Furthermore, it takes y years to build a new power plant. Also, we underestimated power demand, because we didn’t anticipate the rise of server farms.

Ergo, we have a shortage of capacity during the summer, when air conditioners are at full blast. Especially at 2pm."

We also have a shortage of capacity giggle when we shut plants down for chortle “repairs”. Oh, and if there are any problems, it’s because California’s deregulation was fake deregulation. Whatever that means.

24

The “second-hottest season in the West in 100 years” does NOT happen every year.

25

This is getting increasingly bizarre.

blowero writes

But I’ve already demonstrated that

  1. in a two-month period, from June to August 2000, wholesale energy prices nearly trebled. If that’s not “price-gouging” what is?; and

  2. In December 2000, FERC under Clinton imposed “soft” price caps, that were roundly condemned by California politicians as insufficient. Do you think that FERC woke up one morning and said, “ya know, today’s a good day for soft price caps”? No, California had been asking for “hard” price caps for months.
    And I’m not saying that either administration was responsible. I’m saying that, if either administration bears responsibility, then the Clinton administration certainly bears a good chunk of it.

What you ignore is that is wasn’t dismissed as a natural event. Let me give you an extensive quote from the Economist, a British newsmagazine from August 24, 2000. (Mods - this is less than half the linked article, so I think it’s OK on copyright grounds. If I messed up, I’m sorry and please delete what you think necessary.)

(This quote, BTW, is from a link I provided 5 days ago.

So as of August, 2000:

  1. The problem was widely recognized as being caused by the botched deregulation, not the weather;
  2. Californians were irate and screaming for relief;
  3. Local price caps had already been imposed in some areas; and
  4. Clinton had partially intervened.

It looks like my link to the LA Times archive didn’t work for blowero - you probably have to register. (When you do, search in the archives for “Price caps” between 1/01/00 and 12/31/00). Here are some headlines from the LA Times:

8/28/00 -

9/13/00 -

10/3/00 -

10/27/00 -

10/28/00 -

11/1/00 -

11/2/00 -

11/22/00 -

So, by August 28, 2000, there were public allegations of price gouging. By September 13, 2000, FERC was “weighing its options.” By October 3, 2000, Edison was seeking price caps from FERC. On October 27, 2000, FERC imposed price caps on backup power. On November 1, 2000 FERC met and rejected the idea of wholesale price caps. By November 22, 2000, California utility regulators were asserting that there had been market manipulation.

I swear, this is the damage MTV has caused America. I find it mind-boggling that people can’t remember events that were splashed across newspapers, magazines and TV just 20 months ago.

Sua

26

Revisionism happens quickly these days.

27

Here’s the earliest request for Gov. Gray Davis I can find for FERC to impose price caps, from an article dated July 28, 2000:

Sua

28

for whatever this is worth…
http://www.public-i.org/50states_01_053001.htm

29

How so?
Ya know, SuaSponte - all I asked was that you back up your assertion that Clinton was equally responsible for the mess that California was in. You may THINK you already did that, but providing a slew of links (1/3 of which don’t work, and of those that worked, many were irrelevant or contradictory to the point you were trying to demonstrate) doesn’t cut it. I thought I was being pretty conciliatory with phrases such as “maybe I missed somthing”, and “I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you”. I’m sorry you object to having to back up your assertions. It would be helpful if you would make a point and then post a link that actually backs up the point you just made, rather than innundating us with pages and pages of material to sift through.

It would also be nice if you would address specific points that people make, like the fact that you said there were “rolling” blackouts in 2000. I don’t see where you ever provided any backup for that assertion. (Authorizing them and HAVING them are not the same thing). Instead you just keep regurgitating the same material over and over, and acting frustrated, as if we aren’t listening to you. But again, I will offer the caveat that I am perfectly willing to admit my mistake if I missed some proof of rolling blackouts in 2000.

I don’t see any reason for you to be rude. I guess I must be brain-dead from too much MTV, but I just don’t recall the general consensus being “darn that Clinton - I wish he would help California”. But I sure as hell remember the outcry when the Bush administration said they would not help. I don’t understand why you are getting all bent out of shape that I would question you on that. Are you sure your political ideology isn’t clouding YOUR view?

30

blowero, ya wanna know why I’m annoyed?
I never many any such assertion I said - again and again - that if Bush is responsible for the mess, then Clinton is also.

As it is, I don’t blame Clinton for anything. I don’t blame Bush for anything. I blame California for, back in 1996, instituting a “deregulation” scheme that a 3-year old would have seen was defective, prone to abuse, and illogical. I blame Enron (and perhaps other energy companies) for acting criminally.
I do not think that both the Clinton and Bush Administration’s failure to detect Enron’s criminal activity means they acted either criminally or negligently. Hell, this is just coming out now, and only because Enron’s successors decided to voluntarily waive attorney-client privilege.

I’m getting all bent out of shape because (a) I’ve done everything but get Gov. Davis to post and say “yeah, I was trying to get the Clinton Administration to do something real early on,” and (b) this was such a big story in the second half of 2000, that I’m flabbergasted and a little offended that I have to go to such lengths to prove something I vividly remember.

I take it you haven’t hung out in GD too much, blowero. :smiley:
I’m a flaming Clintonista. And, quite frankly, that’s another reason I’ve gotten all bent out of shape - I really, really dislike defending Bush, but this collective amnesia has put me in that position.

Sua

31

Sua, I do hang out in GD, and I’ve seen that your arguments usually make sense. However this

was implied among many other places, here

And is, counselor, simple math.

The administrations are not equally culpable, as your own arguments and links have shown again and again.

And secondly, and again repeating, we’ll find out what the FERC knew and didn’t know in the investigation. Stating what they knew before hand, as you did here:

can only be proven by a full investigation, and is an unfounded assertation at this point.

Personally, I don’t know how our spheres different, but I heard nothing about this on the east coast until January, so thanks for the links. In summation – I agree that the Clinton administration could have been more agressive. Following from our agreed argument in that it follows that the Bush administration was criminally inactive.

32

Ace0Spades that is just stupid.

  1. Price caps were initially requested under the Clinton Administration.
  2. The State of California set up a whacky market.
  3. Enron was not the only participant
  4. Where is the Cheney link other than having some nebulous meetings

Point one above is a matter of public record.

Point two made the problem a Hell of alot worse than it actually was. By allowing flexible retail rates the ability to raise prices so high would have been dramatically minimized as people would have conserved in response to price changes.

Point three is also a matter of public record. The other companies involved were companies such as Dynegy, Reliant, Calpine, AES, and others.

Too be sure what Enron did was in all likelihood illegal. At the very least the actions of Enron violated the ISO’s tarrifs prohibiting gaming.

Also, that there were problems in the market were apparent within weeks of its opening. For example, in the ancillary services market (black start, etc.) the price was $9,999/MW. Also in the summer of 1998 SCE experienced its first ever Stage 2 Emergency in its service territory.

In 1999, prices were climbing and there was growing concern that the utilities would have trouble recovering fully their stranded assets. It wasn’t until the summer of 2000 that things got so bad that people outside of the industry started to notice.

The CA legislature, Davis, Clinton and to a lesser degree Bush deserve the blame in that order. The Legislature for crafting such a ridiculous market, Davis for not removing price caps, and Clinton for ignoring the problem completely. IIRC Davis actually went to Clinton and requested relief. Clinton did nothing.

Those of you who keep bleeting for documentation backing this up…fine, here you go.

ISO’s Market Surveillance Committee Report for Man and June of 2000

Cal ISO New Reports

You will note the large number of Stage 1, Stage 2 and even the occasional Stage 3 emergencies.

Such as this one.

News Release about the CA ISO filing with ther FERC.

Note that last one was in 2000. Can you guys read that? That is 2000. TWO THOUSAND. A 2 followed by three zeros.

2001 News Release noting the 30th consecutive day of Stage Three Emergencies

By the way, there is this wonderful device called a search engine. Google is a great one. I suggest you guys try them sometimes.

:rolleyes:

33

I have lived in San Diego for the past 5 years. I remember when this crisis started there was a lot of talk that Clinton did not do anything because San Diego is a traditionally conservative town. Just like when Bush was in office there was talk that he did not intervene because California did not vote for him.

The big thing about this whole fiasco that really bugs me is that the deregulation made it illegal to inter into long term electricity contracts. The CA legislature outlawed the main way the humanity had come up with to deal with fluctuating commodity prices. They did this ostensibly on the grounds that two entities agreeing on the price amounted to collusion.

34

OOOoooh, it was “implied” there. How about when I explicitly stated:

or

or maybe

And it is not “simple math.” $30 billion was lost. At least $15 billion of that occurred while Clinton was in office. But the mere fact that money was lost while an administration was in office** is not evidence of negligence or criminal conduct by that administration.** The federal government is not responsible for everything, or even most things.

Actually, yes they are, on present evidence. On present evidence, neither bears any culpability.

Your attitude is what we call a “witchhunt.” One does not start an investigation unless one has evidence that criminal activity occurred. The only evidence thus far that criminal activity occurred points to Enron, not FERC. If, later, evidence is uncovered points to FERC, then we should start investigating FERC, not before. What you are proposing is McCarthyism - guilt by association.

Bullshit. First of all, when there is no obligation to act, you cannot be “criminally inactive.” And there was no obligation to act.
But anyway, let’s look at another situation - steel.
The steel companies in this country have been in trouble for years, losing considerably more than $30 billion dollars. Thousands of steel workers have lost their jobs, and they and their bosses have been screaming for protective tariffs for years. Clinton refused to impose them, but Bush did. Was Clinton “criminally inactive”? Or was it, just perhaps, that in Clinton’s considered opinion, steel tariffs were a bad idea?

Sua

35

Missed this quote before:

If you mean “could,” as in, “had the ability to,” then we are in agreement. If you instead mean “should,” as in “ought to have,” then we are in disagreement. The Clinton Administration acted appropriately.

Sua

36

Sua, your last post was complete and utter hand-waving – as well as being nigh illegible.

You want me to believe you don’t understand your own arguments? For those who joined us late:, Sua believes that the Clinton adminstration is responsible for part of the putative wrongdoing

Further, Sua, argues that the blame, if any, should be split equally:

Then when called on his egregiously flawed arguments, by multiple posters, Sua sputters and curses, and somehow equates this to the egregious steel tariffs.

Perhaps we could drop this hijack and concentrate on investigating further the Cheney administration’s possible wrongdoing?

37

Ace, this isn’t what Sua believes; it’s just what you think he believes. Reread the thread. Sua’s told you at least seven times that he does not believe that either the Bush or Clinton administration is responsible for California’s trouble and that the actions and inactions of those administration is not criminal. Continuing in that vein, he isn’t advocating that any of the $30 billion be split between Bush and Clinton, though he has tried in vain to show you that California had energy problems prior to Bush’s inauguration.

38

From your last post, Ace, it appears that you don’t know what the word “if” means (nor the word “illegible” - clue: words typed on a computer screen can’t be illegible).

As for the rest of your insulting comments, if you want to continue this “discussion,” take me to the Pit, if you dare. Your ignorance can’t be fought.

Sua

39

Well technically Sua, I think a case can be made the the FERC ignored their legal responsibility to ensure that prices were just and reasonable. At least for a time. Hell even FERC economists have made such statements, IIRC. I’ll see if I can find the link.

You can be held accountable for being “inactive”. If you know somebody is in trouble and fail to call 911 you could, AFAIK be held responsible for that failure.

40

kesagiri, it’s a circular argument. Whether or not FERC has an obligation to ensure that prices are just and reasonable (I’ll wait for your cite - and BTW, even if there is such an obligation, FERC only has the power to do so if it determines that there is not a competitive market), FERC is the organization that (a) determines whether prices are just and reasonable, and (b) whether there is a competitive market.
Thus, it’s an empty “obligation,” if it exists - FERC decides whether it has the obligation.

Nope. You can be held criminally liable for inaction only if you have an affirmative obligation to act. (Such an affirmative obligation to act arises in many situations, but is not a general obligation.)
In your example, you can not be held liable if you fail to call 911, because you have no such affirmative obligation. You can be held liable if you induce others into inaction - in your example, if there are other people there pulling out their cell phones and you say “don’t bother, I’ll call the police,” and you don’t.

Sua