Archive through June 12, 2001

The ClubHouse: Archive: Soaring Gas Prices: Archive through June 12, 2001

Nancy091158

Monday, April 23, 2001 - 06:00 pm Click here to edit this post
GROOCH i am not sure as i only saw the prices as we drove by taxi or bus around ...but i was guess prob a liter and your right it does make a diff ;-0

Admin

Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 07:41 am Click here to edit this post
Last week I paid $2.30/litre for racing fuel for my Barracuda. :-) 110 octane. Just wanted to do it once.

Grooch

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 01:25 pm Click here to edit this post
05/07/2001 - Updated 01:31 PM ET



California, Chicago brace for gas to hit $3 a gallon

By Dina Temple-Raston, USA TODAY

Shell and Chevron dealers in California and Chicago say they have been told by regional company representatives to get ready for the possibility of $3-a-gallon gasoline this summer. Bob Oyster, who owns 26 Shell and Chevron service stations in northern California, says representatives from both companies told him to "be prepared for $3 gasoline the early part of the summer." More than 20 service-station owners in California and the Chicago area contacted by USA TODAY say they also have been told to expect prices in the $3 range. The oil company representatives were not specific about which grade of gasoline would be $3, they say.

Shell spokespeople say they do not discuss prices. Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell says the company never provides advance notice on pricing to retailers. "Whatever the marketplace does, we will follow. But we don't know where that marketplace is going to go ahead of time," Gorell says.
California's average price for regular unleaded hit a new high of $1.95 per gallon this weekend, according to AAA. The average for premium was $2.11.

Dennis Decota, executive director of the California Service Station and Auto Repair Association, says the state is short on reserves of reformulated gas, a cleaner-burning fuel required in certain urban areas during the summer. "If there were any glitch in production, prices will go through the roof," he says.

In Chicago, where prices have been rising amid refinery problems, the average price for regular unleaded was $1.97 a gallon and $2.19 for premium.

Gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange hit a 17-year high last week when a fire crimped capacity at a Tosco refinery in Los Angeles, and a fire at a Tosco refinery in Wood River, Ill., also drove up prices.

Some analysts see the case building for a Bush administration rescue. The Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to issue waivers that would allow the use of regular gas instead of the reformulated blend. That could help bring down prices.

An EPA spokesperson says the agency has not received waiver requests from refiners.

Lancecrossfire

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 01:46 pm Click here to edit this post
Reports here last week indicate that although an area along the Columbia River was made a national park, the Bush administartation wants to change that so drilling can commence--drilling for natural gas.

And Bush does indeed want to drill for oil in Alaska.

At the very beginning of the thread I predicted that 1) OPEC has nothig to do with the price increases, and 2) Bush would immediately push for drilling for oil in new places within the US (using the higher prices as a reason). So far, it's working right down that road.

Anyone think the refiners are going to ask EPA for a waiver when they can get much higher prices for their reformulated blend???

Oh, I'm thinking the problems listed above (if true) will not be fixed by drilling for oil and gas in new locations. Bush is just getting that 1% of America just as rich as he can. (hey, I said I'd base what I thought of him by how he performed--and so I am)

Judy

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 01:52 pm Click here to edit this post
I just don't see how we can conveniently pin this crisis on a 5 month old administration people!!!

My goodness - I have never met anyone who says "Yeah I love dirty air and water" Yet that is how we paint anyone who wants to drill for oil or natural gas to be...

Conservation alone can't cut it - unless we can somehow freeze the population.

A good example is California- when you look at their growth in the last 10 years and the fact that they have not built 1 single new source of power -- IT"S RIDICULOUS!!!

We are so technically advanced and conservation minded - surely we can harness new sources of power and clean up our messes at the same time. The scare tactics that some environmentalists use really pisses me off!

OK I am done venting...

Lancecrossfire

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 02:08 pm Click here to edit this post
Judy, for me it isn't an issue of "blame". it's an issue of who decides to say we should drill for oil and gas.

I'm not saying it's GW's fault for a fire that screws up production--although drilling for more oil isn't the fix to that fire.

The situation may well not be the administration's fault (without regard to who's administration it is)---although the actions taken or not taken is the responsibility of the administration. Just like the plane downed in China--the responsibility for whatever we do as a country rests in the shoulders of the administration.

I'd like to hear from anyone what they see as the over all advantages of drilling for oil and gas (not guaranteed it's there, btw) in these new places instead of using what's already available. OPEC seems to be willing to sell us oil--why not buy what's already on the market, since the prices are not being raised as this time? Is the trade off of what we have to give up in order to drill worth what we get??

That one is for each of us to answer.

Whit4you

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 02:26 pm Click here to edit this post
My two cents on the gas prices.


We Americans waste gas like it were grains of sand.
Just stop for one moment and close your eyes and picture ALL cars being driven at this very moment - lined up bumper to bumer.

You guys know me well enough to know I'm not a environmental freak or anything like that. But frankly it's appalling to me the way our generation wastes this resource as if it were as vast a supply as stars in the sky. We may be paying for that gas but what makes us as a society believe we have the right to shamelessly waste such vaste quanities of this resource, when there are generations and generations yet to come?

As I said I"m not an environmental nut but there have been many times when I was in Cali - watching 10 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic as far as the eye could see filled with one person in each car.

Honestly I think gas would have to go to 10.00 a gallon before the average American would stop making all those endless trips to the convience store, and start planning ways to really save on gas.

Ironically - the states just keep adding tax after tax on a gallon of gas. (This is money we spend after they've already taken out income tax and so on) that money we have left is taxed yet again by the state when we buy our gasoline.

I really hate gas being so high on a personal level and I am one of the millions of Americns who wastes this resource. I figure I'm just one person what can I do - just as I am sure many others do. But I also believe future generations have just as much right to the resources on this planet as this generation does. So I'd also be happy to see the price of gas go so high that people STOP arrogantly and shamefully draining this resource.

I'm also for all major freeways etc having a carpool lane - because people who are car pooling are 1) wasting less gas 2) causing less wear and tear on our roadways 3) causing less pollution to our air and so on.

Well - as you all know I can be very verbose, but I will stop here.

Zeb

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 02:38 pm Click here to edit this post
The first realization is that not everyone is on the same travel time schedule so trying to arrange for carpooling on a regular basis is a pain in the ass.

The second realization is that out of all the traffic jams in the nation, who's to say that those people waste gas? They may only travel a few times a week in their car. Tomorrow, it may be some other unlucky group of people causing the traffic problem.

As long as gas powered vehicles are heavily promoted across the nation and as long as OPEC decides which valves to open and which to close, there will be a fuel/price problem.

Judy

Tuesday, May 08, 2001 - 02:42 pm Click here to edit this post
I have always been in favor of becoming less dependant on foreign sources of oil. If we have the resources here - I think we would do less damage to the planet in mining for them than other countries who have no environmental regulations. I think it would be wise to go forward with exploration to solve our long term problems and buy up as much as we can from OPEC for the short term problem.

Highlander

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 04:13 am Click here to edit this post
A phantom energy crisis
The Bush administration has convinced the nation that we're in the middle of a power emergency, but the facts indicate otherwise.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dan Ackman

May 8, 2001 | The Bush administration's new energy policy is, in a word, "more." The administration wants to mine more, drill more, generate more, use more. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech last week in Toronto, pointed to the situation in California as a harbinger of doom and said the government needed to encourage increased production. He also mocked conservation as a "sign of personal virtue" -- Jimmy Carter in his cardigan.

It looks like the administration's public relations efforts are bearing fruit. A recent poll indicates that 53 percent of Americans believe we are in an energy crisis and a like number are willing to put the extraction of new supplies ahead of environmental concerns.

In fact there is no crisis, and conservation is a big part of the reason. Despite declining real prices, Americans have barely increased their energy consumption. Between 1980 and 2000, overall consumption grew by just 26 percent, even while the nation's GDP increased by 90 percent. Although consumption has risen in absolute terms, there has never been a greater abundance of known oil, natural gas and coal reserves.

California's rolling blackouts have made headlines and Cheney has used them to sell his plan. But the Golden State's problems are unique and are caused by a massive regulatory failure. Indeed, the "crisis" does not even cover all of California. Los Angeles, for example, is unaffected because it has its own municipal power service.

"The potential crisis we face is largely the result of shortsighted domestic policies -- or, as in recent years, no policy at all," Cheney said, blaming the Clinton administration. But the United States has never had more abundant supplies of power selling at very low prices.

The country has also never been smarter about energy use. Since 1973, fuel efficiency for the economy overall has improved by more than 42 percent. This dramatic gain in what energy analysts call "energy intensity" was not caused by fuel becoming more expensive. Indeed, the opposite has occurred. Between 1980 and 2000, energy prices rose by 44.8 percent, most of that rise occurring in the past two years. During the same 20-year period, non-energy prices increased almost three times as fast, by 119 percent. The price of a gallon of gas has declined by 39 percent in real terms.

Low prices, efficient use, abundant supply: some crisis.

American homes and workplaces have become dramatically more energy efficient, but not because Americans have become more "virtuous" (though perhaps they have). The reason is that refrigerators, lamps, buildings and factories have been redesigned with fuel efficiency in mind. No matter how cheap heat and electricity become, using less is cheaper still.

Conservation is not, despite Cheney's derision, about putting on an extra sweater or sitting in the dark. It's about technology. It's employing a light bulb or a washing machine that uses much less power than the ones we used in years past.

As well as Americans have done to conserve, however, they can do better. Between 1980 and 1995, the fuel efficiency of U.S. automobiles improved quickly. Since then, the trend has stalled and even reversed. But it's not because cars have become less efficient. It's because many drivers -- encouraged by low gas prices -- have switched from ordinary cars to light trucks or sport utility vehicles, which are less fuel efficient than smaller cars.

One reason Cheney is selling the idea of an energy crisis is so the administration can also sell the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the administration's phony crisis cannot justify the drilling. Slight, even trivial, gains in automobile fuel efficiency would conserve far more oil than the U.S. could ever hope to extract from the Alaskan preserve.

In fact, we have reduced our dependence on oil as a source of energy. Between 1980 and 1998, U.S. petroleum consumption hardly increased at all, from 34.2 quadrillion British thermal units to 37.39 quadrillion Btu. Petroleum consumption has plateaued because Americans used to get 44 percent of their energy from oil. Now the figure is 39 percent, though more of it is imported. Coal provides a greater share of U.S. energy than it did 20 years ago, as does nuclear power. Nuclear plants accounted for 3.6 percent of power in 1980. By 2000, that number had jumped to 8.1 percent.

And no amount of drilling in Alaska or anywhere else is likely to have any impact on the financial and political crisis in California. Nearly all of the state's electricity is produced by natural gas and hydroelectric power. But Bush wants to capitalize on the fear that blackouts might occur elsewhere. "We need a full affront on an energy crisis that is real in California and looms for other parts of our country, if we don't move quickly," Bush told the Dallas Morning News last month.

Cheney used to work in the energy business, as did the president, so they should know better. The crisis hype is phony. Is the administration talking up a crisis to help pay back its buddies in the oil business? Certainly, the false cries of crisis indicate a dark motive is afoot.

Judy

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 04:47 am Click here to edit this post
No offence Highlander...but where did you find that steaming pile of doo doo? I did a Reuters/AP/UPI search for the author and came up with nothing - sounds like tabloid reporting to me.

I think everyone realizes that CA is in a mess because they didn't fully deregulate - for competition to flourish you can't cap prices...

If people want to think that Bush is manufacturing an energy crisis to line his and his friends pockets - and guarantee that he only has one term because he will eventually be blamesd for it - that's their right...but he'd have to have the press on his side - and if anyone thinks Bush has the press on his side - they're nuts!!


Bush Team Grapples With Energy Woes
By Ron Fournier
AP White House Correspondent
Tuesday, May 8, 2001; 2:42 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– President Bush's pollsters are watching uneasily as gas prices and rolling blackouts fuel voter anxiety.

His energy team has scoured the policy landscape but has found no short-term solutions. His political advisers have struggled to explain to the skeptical that there is precious little a president can do to lower energy bills.

And now Bush's allies, in the White House and throughout Republican circles, are whispering the words "Jimmy Carter" as they worry about the political damage an energy crisis could wreak.

"Clearly, all the events and forces that put us in this position occurred before President Bush took office. Consequently, at this point few people blame him for it," said Republican pollster Witt Ayres, an ally of the White House. "Eventually, however – and I don't know when this will happen – he takes ownership of the problem."

Interviews with several political operatives, including Republicans close to Bush, reveal a growing consensus that the president will have a difficult time avoiding political fallout if gasoline prices continue to rise and electricity shortages in California spread throughout the nation.

They're hoping that Bush gets credit for providing leadership – if not quick fixes – with the release next week of a comprehensive energy plan.

"They will see he has a plan, has a vision and has a roadmap for many summers to come," said White House adviser Dan Bartlett.

Not everybody is so patient.

California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat fighting for his political life, has accused Bush of not doing enough to help ease the state's electricity crunch.

Republicans in California have warned the White House of potential fallout, prompting Bush to dispatch Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to the state last week. Bush himself is trying to fit a California trip into his schedule.

In Washington, Republican lawmakers are warning the White House that their constituents want solutions now – and may take their anger out on the GOP-controlled Congress in 2002. Some GOP members of Congress have talked about reducing the 18 cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax, an option the White House has reluctantly left open.

Abraham faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike about Bush's plans to cut energy research by about 30 percent, with some programs involving solar and wind energy slashed in half.

"These cuts are unacceptable," Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., told Abraham.

Republicans are afraid of the political cost of high energy prices.

"We've got the rolling blackouts and the gas prices dominating the national news. For Republicans to maintain their control of Congress, they need to have something in the short term," said Republican consultant Scott Reed of Washington. "We don't want to be the ostrich party and stick our head in the sand."

Eager to avoid blame, the White House has pointed fingers everywhere – even at the first Bush administration – for the lack of a national energy policy.

Trying to lower expectations, Vice President Dick Cheney said creating energy policy is difficult work. "If it was easy the Clinton administration would have done it," he told CNN. "They ducked if for eight years."

Bush, however, made it sound easy during the presidential campaign.

"What I think the president ought to do," he said in January 2000, when heating oil prices were soaring in key campaign states, "is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your spigots!'"

Since then, gasoline prices have crept above $2 per gallon with some suggesting that the Midwest could see pump prices hit the unthinkable $3-per-gallon level. California, in a preview of a summer of woes, experienced its fifth day of blackouts Monday and more were expected Tuesday.

The Republican National Committee, which pays for polling used by Bush's advisers, has surveys that show the economy overtaking education for the first time in years as voters' top issue. The margin is narrow in RNC polls, but much wider in favor of the economy in public polls.

Energy costs, also rising as a concern in RNC polling, are affecting voters' views of the economy, according to Ayres and other GOP pollsters.

One senior Republican close to Bush said there are rising fears of a "Carter factor" in GOP circles, a reference to President Carter's political malaise during the 1970s energy crisis.

The pressure has caused some grumbling in the usually united White House; some advisers complained privately last week about a Cheney speech that seemed to dismiss conservation efforts.

But the president's allies say he won't fall into the Carter trap because the comprehensive energy plan will show him at least trying to ease costs. One senior Bush aide said some of the cost-saving measures in the plan will begin taking effect in six months to a year – in time to help the party prepare for 2002 elections.

"I don't think President Bush will look like Jimmy Carter," Ayres said. "He'll use his expertise in the oil business and politics to do whatever is possible."

–––

EDITOR'S NOTE – Ron Fournier has covered the White House and national politics since 1993.

© Copyright 2001 The Associated Press

Grooch

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 06:32 am Click here to edit this post
Just a side question for everyone.

Everyone is concerned about the price of gas, the supply of gas and the effects drilling will have on the environment.

What kind of car or truck do you drive and what kind of gas mileage do you get?

I remember when I was a kid the lines they use to have to buy gas and how you could only get it on odd or even days. So the car companies started coming out w/ fuel efficient cars. As soon as supply went up, nobody wanted them anymore and started buying big gas guzzling SUV's.

I live in South Florida which is flat as a pancake, but everyone seems to need 4x4 SUV's and trucks. There are no hills or mountains and we never get snow. These gas guzzler's are just a status symbol. The new Ford Expeditions are so huge, but when you really look at them, they just look like fancy vans to me. And now these people are the ones complaining about the price.

Anyway, I'm just curious as to what you drive.

Norwican

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 07:07 am Click here to edit this post
Agreed on the SUV's Grooch.

I drive a Toyota Camry and it gets good gas mileage.

My husband drives a van due to his line of work and it's a guzzler to say the least (at least compared to my car).

We also have another car that we use exclusively for long trips - so it remains in storage most of the time (it's a guzzler too).

Zeb

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 08:38 am Click here to edit this post
I have a Saturn SL2 and it averages 30 miles / gallon (12 gallon fuel tank). The car is safe, looks sharp, drives well, and is easy on gas mileage.

Karuuna

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 08:52 am Click here to edit this post
I drive an SUV. That's a move downward for me from a 4WD extended cab pickup truck. I use the SUV for both work and home use; and I need the cargo room for my business. However, I don't live far from the office, so I put far less than the average annual mileage on it. Living in Colorado, I also feel more comfortable with the extra ability to get around on bad roads.

There's another reason I drive an SUV. Several years ago my uncle-in-law was driving his 3 kids to soccer practice in their gas-efficient mini-van. They were broadsided on the passenger side by a pickup truck, and two of the children were killed. The mini van simply collapsed, even tho both vehicles were going less than 25 miles per hour. Personally, I'd drive a tank if I could get one.

Gail

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 04:43 pm Click here to edit this post
I drive an SUV - a Toyota Rav4 - it gets about 24 - 28 mpg - not a power vehicle by any stretch of the imagination. I used to drive a Honda CRX but got caught in a really bad blizzard/whiteout where the drifts on the road were up to the windows. With the amount of snow we get and with the remoteness of where I live (about 20 miles from town) I don't feel guilty about what I drive. Plus, it gives the dogs room to spread out when I drive to Albuquerque. :)

Zeb

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 04:50 pm Click here to edit this post
The bad thing about the "SUV Craze" in the cities is that it's a hassle when parking. You have a long line of SUVs trying to turn into a parking space blocking traffic for a mile back. They sometimes have to turn into your lane because they are big, bulky, and don't steer that sharp. It's at those times I wish they never existed. No offense.

Moondance

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 04:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Exactly Gail!... it's all about comfort for the kids:)... My SUV Toyota 4-runner comes in handy for my kitty rescues... a must have and I chose to have it without the 4 wheel drive so it is much better on the gas mileage. I drive below the average mileage that my insurance company set so I feel pretty good about it.

Highlander

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 05:21 pm Click here to edit this post
how about newsweek???? not exactly a tabloid

By Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK

May 14 issue — If you were in the oil and gas business, it was a meeting that dreams were made of. Nine days before George W. Bush was inaugurated, energy lobbyists gathered at
the American Petroleum Institute’s offices in downtown Washington.

THEIR AGENDA: to write a
wish list. One participant remembers it fondly. “The tone was, ‘OK, what do you guys want? You are going to have the ear of this White House’.” In came an easel and a whiteboard, and ideas flowed: looser rules for drilling on federal lands; more drilling for oil and gas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico; lower royalty payments for tapping offshore wells. After a while, the mood in the room grew giddy. The man from the wildcatters’
association suggested going All the Way. It was time, he said, to rethink the Endangered Species Act.

That was a wish too far. But many items on that board—and other lists scribbled by other energy lobbyists in other offices around town—found their way into the recommendations that the president will unveil to the nation next week. The API list, in fact, was forwarded to George Bush’s transition team, which sent it to the Interior Department. On March 20, Interior sent many of the same ideas to the Energy Task Force that Vice President
Dick Cheney had convened on Jan. 29. To close the loop, key leaders from that API meeting have since been appointed to pivotal positions in Bush’s administration—among them J. Steven Griles, an energy lobbyist and the new second in command at Interior, and Thomas Sansonetti, an energy lawyer recently named the top environmental cop at the Justice Department. The two, in effect, will help administer policies they helped to write.
What voters need to hear “loud and clear,” the president declared last week, “is that we are running out of energy in America.”

Gail

Wednesday, May 09, 2001 - 05:28 pm Click here to edit this post
I don't feel offended. There are a few people who live out where I do and all three of them have old full size Chevy Suburbans. Those things are tanks and probably get about 5 mpg per gallon.

I have no real desire to get anything bigger then what I have. However, I would like to get something with a bit more power. When I pull out on the highway each morning, I feel like I am cutting into a lap on the Indy 500 because people are going 75+ mph in a 60 mph zone.

Moondance

Monday, May 14, 2001 - 08:14 pm Click here to edit this post
******************************
QUOTE OF THE DAY

"Mr. Bush is constantly engaging in careless talk about how 'we're running out of energy, 'while Mr. Cheney has been forecasting a bleak future unless we start punching holes in the Arctic tundra and building 1,300 power plants. Little wonder, then, that when a spike in gas prices occurred, some people saw it as confirmation of the very apocalypse the Bush team has been predicting." - New York Times editorial, 5/14/01

To read more quote of the day visit:
http://www.democrats.org/news/quotes/recent.html

Highlander

Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 07:24 am Click here to edit this post
Published Sunday, May 20, 2001
JIMMY CARTER


It has been more than 20 years since our country developed a comprehensive energy policy. It's important for President Bush and Congress to take another look at this important issue, but not based on misleading statements made lately by high administration officials.

These comments have distorted history and future needs.I was governor of Georgia during the Nixon administration, when a combination of oil shortages and an OPEC boycott produced a real energy crisis in the United States. Five years later, the Iran-Iraq war shut off 4 million barrels of the world's daily oil supplies almost overnight, and the price of energy more than doubled in just 12 months. This caused a wave of inflation worldwide and created energy shortages. As before, there were long lines of vehicles at service stations, with drivers eager to pay astronomical prices for fuel.

No energy crisis exists now that equates in any way with those we faced in 1973 and 1979. World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful and drivers aren't waiting in line at service stations. Exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality.

Also contrary to recent statements by top officials, a bipartisan Congress worked closely with me for four years to create a well-balanced approach to the problem. No influential person ever spoke ``exclusively of conservation,'' and my administration never believed the ``we could simply conserve or ration our way out of'' any energy crisis.On the contrary, we emphasized both energy conservation and the increased production of oil, gas, coal and solar energy.

Permanent laws laboriously were hammered out that brought an unprecedented commitment to efficient use of energy supplies. We mandated improved home insulation, energy savings in the design of industrial equipment and home appliances and a step-by-step increase in gas efficiency of all U.S.-made automobiles.When I was inaugurated, American vehicles averaged only 12 miles per gallon. New cars reach more than twice this gas mileage, which would be much higher except for the failure to maintain the efficiency standards, beginning in the Reagan years. (Gas mileage has actually gone down during the past five years.)Statistics from the departments of energy and labor reveal the facts:Since I signed the final energy bills in 1980, America's gross national product has increased by 90 percent, while total energy consumption went up only 26 percent. Our emphasis on coal and other sources of energy and improved efficiency has limited petroleum consumption to an increase of only 12 percent.

During this time, non-energy prices have risen 2 1/2 times as much as energy prices, and gasoline prices actually have declined by 41 percent -- in real terms and even including the temporary surge in the past two years.Top oil-industry executives should acknowledge their tremendous freedom to explore, extract and market oil and gas products that resulted from the decisions made by Congress during my term in Washington.In fact, our most difficult battle was over the deregulation of oil and gas prices, designed so that competitive prices would discourage the waste of energy and promote exploration for new sources of petroleum products.

By late 1980, every available drilling rig in the United States was at full capacity, and dependence on foreign imports was falling rapidly.Despite these facts, some officials are using misinformation and scare tactics to justify such environmental atrocities as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which I signed in 1980, approved 100 percent of the offshore areas and 95 percent of the potentially productive oil and mineral areas for exploration or for drilling. We excluded the wildlife refuge, as first decided by President Eisenhower, when Alaska became a state in 1959, to set aside this area as a precious natural heritage.Those who advocate drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to meet current needs are careful to conceal the fact that almost none of the electricity in energy-troubled California is generated from oil.

It's important for citizens and organizations to know the facts and to join in the coming debates, so that we can continue the policies of the late 1970s: a careful balance between production and conservation.

Former President Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

Highlander

Sunday, June 03, 2001 - 05:20 am Click here to edit this post
Watt Price Ideology?


By PAUL KRUGMAN

I once had a math teacher who responded to student errors by saying "Save that answer — I may ask that question someday." I thought of him after George W. Bush's apparently pointless trip to California.

During that trip, Gov. Gray Davis asked for a temporary cap on wholesale electricity prices — a request that gained extra force because it was backed by economists with strong pro- market credentials, including Alfred Kahn, who oversaw the deregulation of airlines, trucking and other industries in the 1970's. Mr. Bush, however, was unmoved. Again and again he declared that a price cap would do nothing either to increase supply or to reduce demand.

Save that answer, Mr. Bush. We might ask that question someday.

Actually, Mr. Bush's assertion may have been wrong even on its own terms. I'll come back to that in a minute. But the most striking thing about his declaration was that it had nothing to do with the actual problem.

For the issue facing California right now is not how to increase supply and reduce demand. It's too late for that; summer is almost upon us, and it is simply a fact of life that there will be power shortages in the months ahead. It is important that the state build power plants as quickly as possible, so that this shortage is only temporary. But not to worry: power plants are being built at a furious rate, in California and in the nation at large. Indeed, last week the credit agency Standard & Poor's expressed concern that electric generating capacity is being added so quickly that the industry will soon face a glut.

Meanwhile, however, the temporary lack of capacity has led to incredibly high wholesale electricity prices, which are a huge financial burden on the state, over and above any disruption that may be caused by physical shortages of power. Nobody knows exactly how much California will pay for power this year, but reasonable estimates suggest that it will pay at least $50 billion more than two years ago — an increase of more than $1,500 for every resident. The great bulk of that represents not an increased cost of production but windfall profits for a handful of generating companies.

The main purpose of a temporary price cap would be to reduce — though by no means eliminate — this transfer of wealth away from California residents. That is, we're talking about dollars, not megawatts. And Mr. Bush's response is therefore almost surrealistically beside the point.

You could argue that any financial benefit from price caps would be more than offset by a worsened physical shortage. But that's a hard case to make. Nobody has proposed capping prices at a level that would prevent power producers from making extraordinarily high profits; why should this reduce the supply of power?
It's true that Econ 101 teaches that price controls tend to produce shortages. But this would be a minor effect in this case, since neither production nor consumption would be much affected. And anyway, students who go beyond Econ 101 learn that strictly speaking the standard argument against price controls applies only to a competitive industry. A price ceiling imposed on a monopolist need not cause a shortage, if it is set high enough; indeed, price controls on a monopolist can actually lead to higher output. That's not an argument you want to use too often, but given the extraordinary prices now being charged for electricity, and the considerable evidence that producers are exercising monopoly power, if ever there was a case for a temporary price ceiling, California's electricity market is the place.

I am actually somewhat surprised by Mr. Bush's obtuseness on this whole subject. No doubt his determination to answer the wrong question is deliberate: misrepresenting policy issues is, after all, standard operating procedure for this administration. But even on a cynical political calculation, Mr. Bush's remarks seem to be foolish, only reinforcing the sense that he neither understands nor cares about California's problems.

Maybe Mr. Bush's advisers are knee-jerk ideologues who believe that the market is always right, even when textbook economics says it is wrong. Or maybe they are so close personally to energy industry executives that they believe that whatever is good for Enron is good for America.

Whatever the real story, it's clear that this administration not only has no answers for California, it won't even listen to the question.

Highlander

Sunday, June 10, 2001 - 05:21 pm Click here to edit this post
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Major U.S. utility companies -- at the behest of senior congressional Republicans and with White House approval -- will launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign this week to fight federal caps on electricity prices in California, several sources tell CNN.
No exact dollar figure has been set for the television campaign, but congressional and administration sources said the first phase will cost less than $5 million and run only in California. Media buyers for the utilities will also purchase airtime on Spanish-language television.

"Every penny right now will be spent in the Golden State," said a source intimately involved in the ad campaign.

Over time, the utilities' ad campaign could easily cost more than $10 million. Leading congressional Republicans have urged the entire energy industry to spend upwards of $50 million on the ads -- or about as much as the tobacco industry spent to defeat comprehensive tobacco legislation in 1998.

Congressional GOP leaders have issued dire, albeit private, warnings to the energy industry that they may not be able to block legislation imposing caps on prices or other measures designed to give the federal government a greater role in setting rates for wholesale electricity, oil or natural gas.
The ad campaign reflects a deepening sense of dread among congressional Republicans that the Bush energy policy, while long on specifics, has failed to address short-term political pressure on Republicans.

Republicans inside and outside of Congress tell CNN they are terrified about confronting a summer of Democratic attacks on energy prices as they gear up for re-election campaigns. The concerns are all the more acute because of the GOP's narrow, five-seat House majority and fear among Senate Republicans that they could lose more ground to the Democrats in next year's elections.
The final straw for many House and Senate Republicans was Mr. Bush's trip to California, which, in effect, put the issue of price caps in the spotlight.
"It was a total disaster," said an adviser to the House Republican leadership. "He came out there to let every Californian, including Republicans, know he was against price caps. Now everyone in California knows (Democratic Gov.) Gray Davis is for them and the president is not."
What's worse, several senior Congressional Republican sources told CNN, the White House returned from the trip thinking the president had the upper hand.
"It's ludicrous," said another House Republican. "Members have lost confidence in their ability to understand how this issue is affecting us."
Congressional Republicans will not play any role in the content or overall strategy of the campaign. Neither is the White House involved. But House and Senate GOP leaders have shared their concerns with top White House officials, among them Mr. Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove.
"The White House is aware and approving of the effort," said a senior Senate Republican aide.

House Republican leaders, beset by complaints from rank-and-file Republicans about the beating they're taking on the energy price issue, have been demanding action from energy companies to make the public case against price caps or other controls on energy markets. Chief among the advocates has been House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

DeLay and his wife, Christine, dined with President Bush and the first lady on Wednesday. Sources close to the situation said the evening was mostly social, but they added that DeLay expressed concerns about the withering attacks the House GOP has been absorbing from Democrats on the energy issue.

From news conferences to special orders on the House floor, Democrats have blasted Republicans as allies of big energy conglomerates and as unwilling to question high energy prices.

The White House, sources inside and outside the administration tell CNN, has gotten the message. Senior advisers convened an emergency "California energy message" meeting Thursday to discuss future strategy. The meeting involved Rove, White House counselor Karen Hughes and senior advisers from the president's economic team and the Energy Department.

The political danger for Republicans has become so pronounced that House GOP leaders pulled an energy bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, because they could not be sure they could kill a Democratic attempt to add energy price caps in California to the legislation.

Similarly, senior Senate Republican aides said a push for electricity price caps in California could prove unstoppable if the issue comes to the floor. With Senate Democrats eager to push other matters first -- such as HMO reform -- the price cap issue will probably not make it to the Senate floor until Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess.

At a recent gathering of Senate Republicans, one top senator said there "wasn't five votes" among Republicans to block price caps on electricity in California.
Last week, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, and Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, sparred publicly over whether to hold hearings into energy prices. Armey said the exercise was "nonsense." Watts said he wanted energy companies to at least explain price fluctuations so the public would see that Republicans were at least willing to hold them accountable to consumers.
"We're not fighting fire with fire," said one exasperated senior House Republican aide. "This is a war and if the energy companies don't step up to the plate, we can't stop bad things from happening anymore. They have to be willing to fight and fight on the air."

Bijoux

Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 09:46 am Click here to edit this post
Senate's New Sense of Hearing
Oil Probe Reflects Democrats' Committee Powers

By John Lancaster
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 12, 2001; Page A01

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D) was back home in Michigan last month when something caught his
eye: All across the state, gasoline prices had spiked sharply, often by more or less the same
amount. Levin wanted to know why. Thanks to the Democratic makeover of the Senate, he
may get a chance to find out.

As the new chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on
investigations, Levin enjoys powers he never had as the ranking minority member on the
panel, including the right to unilaterally call hearings, subpoena documents and compel
testimony by reluctant witnesses. Levin's staff says he is prepared to do all of those things
in the course of a major new investigation into oil industry pricing methods and alleged
anti-competitive practices.

Levin's investigation, announced just days after Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords announced
his defection from the Republican Party, could complicate President Bush's plans to ramp
up energy production -- in some cases by easing environmental rules -- if it turns out that oil
companies are withholding supplies to drive up prices.

More broadly, the subcommittee probe illustrates the newfound ability of Democrats in the
Senate to shape the national agenda using the formidable power of committee
chairmanships they have not occupied for the last six years. Until last week, that power
belonged exclusively to Republicans. Democrats who wanted to spotlight issues by means
of committee hearings and investigations had to do so in cooperation with Republican
chairmen -- or content themselves with press releases and speeches on the Senate floor.

"We haven't had a forum to raise these issues in committee," said a Democratic staffer on
the investigations subcommittee. "Conducting hearings is very important. When you back
that up with the ability to subpoena documents, to make those hearings meaningful, you've
got a powerful tool."

Democrats are already making use of that tool. On Wednesday, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
(D-Conn.), the newly installed chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, will
preside at a hearing on energy deregulation. It is sure to highlight Democratic charges that
Bush has failed to respond adequately to rising energy costs.

Lest anyone miss the point, the committee will hear testimony next week by California Gov.
Gray Davis (D), who has clashed publicly with Bush on the federal government's role in
resolving California's power shortage.

The Democratic inquiries appear to have touched a nerve. "Within two days of having this
50-49 majority, they said, 'We're going to begin investigations,' " Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.),
the former majority leader, said on "Fox News Sunday." "You know, this is the blame game,
like in energy. Rather than trying to figure out we have a good, strong national energy
policy for the future, they want to determine who caused this problem."