Lift Up The Rock....

TritonRider

Look at 1999 and 2000 here. those are under Davis
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wi...p-4683560c.html

1999: San Diego Gas & Electric becomes first California utility to deregulate,
allowing it to lift the price cap. Within a year, customers' bills triple as
the utility passes on high wholesale power costs.

2000:

May: Wholesale prices continue to soar. San Diego customers see their bills
triple as SDG&E passes the costs to its retail customers. Customers of Pacific
Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison remain under a price cap, but
those two utilities begin accruing large debts.

June 15: Rolling blackouts in San Francisco affect thousands. The blackouts are
caused by slim power supplies due to several Northern California power plants
shut down for maintenance.

August: Democratic Gov. Gray Davis calls for investigation into possible price
manipulation in wholesale electricity market.

September: State regulators approve plan for San Diego customers that caps
their rates for three years.
He kept the rates capped even though the wholesale rates the companies had to
pay, and what they could charge customers was still capped by the state. Then
he orders and investigation into illegal practices which is reasonable. Then
after he has pretty much bankrupted them he offers to have the state buy the
transmission lines. I have no doubt he wanted to take over control of the
industry.
He got a ton of votes by making sure that the companies could not pass their
costs on to their customers. He, and I'm not saying it was him alone by any
means, but he was the ringleader screwed the local providers by "protecting"
them from the robber barons. You can and will spin it any way you like. Even
with his pandering for votes the recall made it pretty clear that his
mismanagement was historical.
Just too bad that lots of people woking in the industry lost jobs, and lots of
people who made what they thought were safe conservative investments were
screwed by his attempt to gather votes by being a hero for the common people by
ruining an industry.
Bill C

TritonRider

Here's another take on it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3acf8307362f.htm
Bill C

TritonRider

Damn let me try that again.
CA Governor Davis calls PG&E "selfish" for bankruptcy filing

News/Current Events News
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Published: 7 April 2001
Posted on 04/07/2001 14:13:43 PDT by John Jorsett
SACRAMENTO -- A shocked Gov. Gray Davis and state lawmakers lashed out at PG&E
on Friday, saying they had been working on a fair plan to help the utility out
of its financial woes only to be rebuffed by the ungrateful company.

``They've acted in a selfish manner and from a very narrow perspective and do
not have the interest of the people of this state at heart,'' said Davis,
speaking to reporters in San Diego, where he signed a bill providing rate
relief to big businesses there. ``They've dishonored themselves by their
actions today.''

In a statement on the company's decision to file for bankruptcy Friday, Robert
D. Glynn Jr., Pacific Gas & Electric Co. chairman, blamed the governor,
lawmakers and the Public Utilities Commission for having ``failed us.''

The utility said it was forced into bankruptcy in part because its negotiations
with Davis and his representatives were ``going nowhere.''

But Assembly Democratic Leader Kevin Shelley of San Francisco pointed his
finger right back at PG&E. ``The utilities came to us four years ago and begged
for deregulation and told us they would live with the consequences,'' he said.
``Now we've spent $5 billion in state money to bail them out, and they haven't
even been interested in cooperating with us.''

Shelley said he believed that PG&E was never interested in working out an
agreement with the state. ``They came to us with hat in hand saying please give
us some more, but instead of just a morsel of food, they wanted filet mignon.
It was just one demand after another.''

Angry as they were at PG&E, lawmakers said they will now be able to better
concentrate on their primary tasks: finding more energy, cutting prices and
keeping California's lights on.

PG&E says it has incurred $9 billion in debts because the state's deregulation
law prevents the company from passing the skyrocketing wholesale costs of
electricity to its customers.

To help the company out from beneath its debts, Davis and his representatives
have been negotiating to buy the transmission lines of PG&E and Southern
California Edison, which has also been struggling with huge debts.

On Friday, Davis and lawmakers accused PG&E of failing to negotiate in good
faith.

That PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on the morning after Davis outlined
his plan to deal with the energy crisis during a 5-minute statewide television
speech was not lost on anyone.

In his speech Thursday, Davis reversed his previous position and called for a
rate increase of about 26.5 percent for most California residents.

The governor's supporters said they suspect PG&E was simply unhappy with the
size of the rate increase proposed by Davis -- and the increase approved by the
Public Utilities Commission last week that would raise residential rates by as
much as 36 percent. The company, they said, probably figures it will do better
in bankruptcy court.

Garry South, Davis' political adviser, said PG&E is taking a gamble and is sure
to lose. People won't conclude that the state forced PG&E into bankruptcy, he
said.

``I've seen the polls,'' he said. ``People are going to be saying they got what
they deserved.''

But Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, said the financial stability of PG&E may
be more appropriately handled by the courts than lawmakers and the governor.

In fact, it may lead to fewer blackouts during the hot summer months, she said.

Bowen noted that many small generators have been forced to shut down because
PG&E hasn't been able to pay them for months. But under bankruptcy law, they
likely will be among the first of PG&E's creditors to get paid. That would
encourage them to start selling power again and help ease the electricity
shortage.

State Treasurer Phil Angelides said the situation should help policy-makers in
Sacramento set priorities.

``Our focus ought to be on how to create conservation, power and get the
generators off our throats,'' Angelides said. ``We need to spend less time on
reorganizing companies. That's what Chapter 11 is for.''


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
If I wasn't stuck in the middle of this mess, I'd be laughing myself sick about
now.
Bill c

TritonRider

This tells me exactly what Davis was looking at:
Garry South, Davis' political adviser, said PG&E is taking a gamble and is sure
to lose. People won't conclude that the state forced PG&E into bankruptcy, he
said.

``I've seen the polls,'' he said. ``People are going to be saying they got what
they deserved.''
It wasn't about doing what needed to happen for the state's future it was
about relection and polls.
Bill C

B. Lafferty

"gwhite" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:698b8866.0404301555.77b73c7b@posting.google.com...
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:
> > Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about that quote.
>
> How did that happen?

Shit happens. Out of sight, out of mind.

>
> > Good stuff. I suspect the Founders are getting pissed.
> > It would be nice if they could come back and shake the
> > Republic up a wee bit.
>
> ]-[o|y Crap. I suspect you are actually correct. How did that happen?

Damned if I know.

Robert Chung

TritonRider wrote:
> Look at 1999 and 2000 here. those are under Davis
> http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wi...p-4683560c.html
>
> 1999: San Diego Gas & Electric becomes first California utility to
> deregulate, allowing it to lift the price cap. Within a year,
> customers' bills triple as the utility passes on high wholesale power
> costs.

The electric utility deregulation bill was passed and signed by Pete
Wilson in 1996. The electric utilities were so eager to get the bill
passed that they were the main supporters of the bill and spent large
amounts on lobbying and political campaigns. SDG&E and PG&E began
divesting themselves of power-generation capacity almost immediately
(interestingly, LA DWP didn't). Because SDG&E had relatively few
power-generating sources, it was able to achieve divestiture more quickly
than other major utility companies and thus became the first to lift price
caps, by summer 1999. By mid-2000, Henry saw his electricity rates triple.
Davis was elected in November 1998 and took office in January 1999.

Steven L. Sheffield

On 04/30/2004 09:57 AM, in article
2Iukc.296$Hs1.254@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:LYfkc.15237$gH6.4754@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20040429183110.04016.00000349@mb-m17.aol.com...
>>>> From: "B. Lafferty" Magni@Italia.com
>>>
>>>> You've both been declared enemy combatants by the President and will be
>>>> held indefinitely, in a secure location without the right to consult
> an
>>>> attorney; without the right to know the charges leveled against you;
> without the
>>>> right to know the facts alleged against you; without the right to have
> a court
>>>> review your detention. The Attorney General says, "Fuck you. Have a
> nice
>>>> stay."
>>>
>>> I'm still waiting for the single example of this of a US citizen,
>>> captured in the US.
>>
>> Jose Padilla. US citizen arresed on US soil. Held for two years in a
> Navy
>> bring in the Carolinas as an enemy combatant. Denied counsel. Not
> formally
>> charged. His case was heard this week by the US Supreme Court.
>
> Will you believe the Supreme Court if they find for the Government? Somehow
> I doubt it.
>
>>> I am amazed at the outright level of panic and fear coming from the
> left
>>> in the almost total absence of incidents such as the one Brian and his
>>> friends keep claiming are happening here every day, in every state.
>>
>> The history that gave rise to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (also know as the
>> Writ of Freedom) is repleat with examples of people held for years by
>> executive power with no recourse to the courts. The Writ of Habeas Corpus
> is
>> something the Founders of this country viewed as being essential to
>> preventing the rise of tyranny on these shores.
>
> Here's a test - the requirements of Habeas Corpus are suspended under
> certain conditions: what are those conditions and how often have they
> occurred?


Legally, habeas corpus can only be suspended by an Act of Congress, per "Ex
parte Merryman" (1861) (and the US Constitution, Article I, Sections 8 & 9).

Lincoln chose to illegally ignore the ruling during the Civil War; the first
of many an illegal act by Republican presidents over the course of American
History.

The Supreme Court, in "Ex parte Milligan" (1866) ruled that that military
trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were
illegal.

Last I checked, civil courts are still capable of functioning in the United
States and US territories ... Jose Padilla is a US citizen, arrested on US
soil, for a criminal offense; he was not taken prisoner of war on foreign
soil. He should have been tried in a civil court, except there wasn't
enough evidence to bind him over for trial, so our Republican administration
has illegally declared him to be an enemy combatant.

Odd thing, though ... The "enemy combatants" captured during the "war on
terrorism" are being denied their rights under the Geneva Convention,
because the administration claims they are not prisoners of war.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Howard Kveck

In article <20040430093155.29868.00000176@mb-m27.aol.com>,
tritonrider@aol.com (TritonRider) wrote:

> Morning Howard
> Thanks for the links. That was really an interesting bit of information. Not
> surprising though. Considering that about half of them were around, or think
> Tricky Dick is a good example their behavior is about right.

The problem seems to be that they've had a tough time changing their way
of thinking with the times. They still have a cold war mentality going,
with the focus on problems with other countries, rather than the stateless
group systems, like al Qaeda. (Which is the point I believe Richard Clarke
was making with the comment about Rice "not having heard of al Qaeda".)

> It's pretty clear the GW is not running the show, these clowns are. These in
> general sre the same idiots who brought us the post Vietnam military mess,
> which was nicely highlighted when Carter tried to use our "Elite" forces, and
> they couldn't work together, and did slam into each other.
> Unfortunately I think a Kerry administration would be just about as bad in
> other ways.

Maybe. Some of the inter-departmental problems may have become
institutionalized, and it would take a big shake up to straighten that out.
Is Kerry capable of doing that? I don't know, and haven't decided yet. I'm
certain Bush isn't capable of it. As you mention, considering the people he
has doing the work, I'd say he is pretty much guaranteed the status quo is
maintained.

> I've been talking with Brian and at this point I'm convinced that we are
> headed for a huge low to mid intensity war all around the globe with Muslim
> fundamentalists. There is just way too much evidence of a fairly organised
> effort to destabilise, or covert countries all over the globe.

While I will agree that there is a certain amount of Islamic extremists'
clamoring for world domination, I don't think they really have the support
of enough other Muslims to actually get the traction needed to get that
project seriously rolling. There will probably be a few contries that go
that way, but I don't think it'll ever be too many. Even in Iran, there is
a growing resistance to the power that the ayatollahs exert. Might even
start to see some protests... I think the more problematic aspect of
Islamic extremism is the desire they have to punish the west.

On the other hand, there is a certain amount of pressure from certain
Christian organizations that would appear to be pointed in the same
direction. They don't have the rhetoric going quite as loudly yet, nor the
willingness to use firepower (yet). Some of the first aid groups to get
over to Iraq were chosen specifically because of their extreme evangelical
leanings - they were rather explicit in expressing not just a desire to
proselytize, but that it was a prime motivation for being there.

> Took a bit to find this again but I see no way to match Sharia law with
> western law.
> http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=1

That's true. But the question for me is where you draw the line: Can you
allow someone who's religion doesn't allow for use of medicine cause the
death of their child? Multiple spouses? I wonder how they'd really end up
setting up a Sharia court there, and how much interaction with regular
courts they'd have. To me, having a bonus judicial system working in a
state is asking for trouble. But I'm one of those people who thinks there's
far too much talk about freedom -of- religion and not enough about freedom
-from- religion. You know, if someone wants to believe in 'x', fine, let
'em, but I don't want or need to have it pushed on me.

As an aside on religion, it is funny that in the '60 campaign, people
were warned that a certain JFK would only do the work that the pope wanted,
but in the '04 campaign people are being warned that a certain JFK won't do
what the pope wants.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Stewart Fleming

Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <20040430093155.29868.00000176@mb-m27.aol.com>,
>> It's pretty clear the GW is not running the show, these clowns are. These in
>>general sre the same idiots who brought us the post Vietnam military mess,

Hmmmm. Not sure now, actually. It seems pretty clear that Iraq is W's
war, given what is emerging on the punishment call on Falluja.

> Is Kerry capable of doing that? I don't know, and haven't decided yet. I'm
> certain Bush isn't capable of it. As you mention, considering the people he
> has doing the work, I'd say he is pretty much guaranteed the status quo is
> maintained.

For what it's worth, looking from the outside, I don't see much major
change in US foreign policy (with Kerry), which is what we are generally
concerned about. Perhaps there will be more consultation with partners,
but US National Security Strategy - maintaining permanent military bases
across the globe - will probably not change substantially. (Again, for
what it's worth, the US would probably have been more globally dominant
in a more pervasive way if deficit reduction a la Clinton had continued...)

Howard Kveck

In article <c6v5n7$gk8mk$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> TritonRider wrote:
> > Look at 1999 and 2000 here. those are under Davis
> > http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wi...p-4683560c.html
> >
> > 1999: San Diego Gas & Electric becomes first California utility to
> > deregulate, allowing it to lift the price cap. Within a year,
> > customers' bills triple as the utility passes on high wholesale power
> > costs.
>
> The electric utility deregulation bill was passed and signed by Pete
> Wilson in 1996. The electric utilities were so eager to get the bill
> passed that they were the main supporters of the bill and spent large
> amounts on lobbying and political campaigns.

The industry lobbyists and lawyers are realistically the authors of the
bill, although Steve Peace (he of "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes) has
his name on it. It did have support from legislators on all sides of the
political spectrum.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Davey Crockett

"Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> writes:


> Odd thing, though ... The "enemy combatants" captured during the "war on
> terrorism" are being denied their rights under the Geneva Convention,
> because the administration claims they are not prisoners of war.
>

Its the same the whole world over Steven.

Just look at how the British treated Rudolph Hess. I've studied the ``Hess Mystery'' diligently over the years and the more one investigates, the more bizarre it gets. But the finer points aside:

(1) Hess arrived in Britain after an unbelievably difficult flight in a ME110 aeroplane with the guns packed with grease, ie: disabled, and stated that he came on a ``Mission of Peace''. Now since the dawn of history, such emissaries have always been escorted back to their own lines, but the British declined to honour tradition in this instance after having refused to permit Hess to put forward his government's proposals to any British official of suitable stature or office.

(2) Hess was denied Prisoner of War status, and was held under some executive order as a sort of ``non-person'' - the British even referred to him as ``X``. Now this situation had several unfortunate (for Hess) consequences, one of which was that he could not get a ration book and consequently had no food and was reduced to eating the leavings from his captors' plates.

(3) Even though the British broke with tradition and refused to treat Hess as a negotiator, he should have had prisoner of war status under the Geneva and various Hague Conventions which would have precluded the brainwashing and drugging tactics which the British employed (Hess' medical file is still sealed and several researchers, myself and Wolf Rudiger, Hess' son, included have repeatedly been refused access to it). Furthermore under the Geneva Convention the British should have repatriated Hess when, for purposes known best to themselves, they declared him to be insane.

And in a slightly different vein, look at Dreyfus, a half century earlier, although the French did eventually rectify that charade.

--
le Vent a Dos
Davey Crockett
Six-Day site: http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html

Robert Chung

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <c6v5n7$gk8mk$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> TritonRider wrote:
>>> Look at 1999 and 2000 here. those are under Davis
>>> http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wi...p-4683560c.html
>>>
>>> 1999: San Diego Gas & Electric becomes first California utility to
>>> deregulate, allowing it to lift the price cap. Within a year,
>>> customers' bills triple as the utility passes on high wholesale power
>>> costs.
>>
>> The electric utility deregulation bill was passed and signed by Pete
>> Wilson in 1996. The electric utilities were so eager to get the bill
>> passed that they were the main supporters of the bill and spent large
>> amounts on lobbying and political campaigns.
>
> The industry lobbyists and lawyers are realistically the authors of
> the bill, although Steve Peace (he of "The Attack of the Killer
> Tomatoes) has his name on it. It did have support from legislators on
> all sides of the political spectrum.

http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/policy/energy/History.htm
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/post..._1890&sess=9596

Ewoud Dronkert

On Sat, 1 May 2004 05:31:44 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
>By mid-2000, Henry saw his electricity rates triple.

And now he has burned up his reserves and that is why he isn't posting
anymore?

B. Lafferty

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-011E58.22240830042004@netnews.comcast.net...
> The industry lobbyists and lawyers are realistically the authors of the
> bill, although Steve Peace (he of "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes) has
> his name on it. It did have support from legislators on all sides of the
> political spectrum.
>

Now that was a great film!!