What is Howard Dean afraid of?

Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs. I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California. Get real, its all politics, and rich politics and politicians are glued to the energy industry. It is one of the most lucrative industries.

Ken, you may want to study energy law instead of labor law, its boring at first, but there will always be a job, recession or no recession, people need oil and electricity always. Thats my area (no I'm not an attorney) but that's what my attorneys practice, oil, global projects (oil/LNG projects) and envionrmental law. It's not soo bad and not too stressful either. :)

[Ken King]

Originally posted by dems4me
Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs. I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California. Get real, its all politics, and rich politics and politicians are glued to the energy industry. It is one of the most lucrative industries.

Ken, you may want to study energy law instead of labor law, its boring at first, but there will always be a job, recession or no recession, people need oil and electricity always. Thats my area (no I'm not an attorney) but that's what my attorneys practice, oil, global projects (oil/LNG projects) and envionrmental law. It's not soo bad and not too stressful either. :)

What, like labor disputes will ever go away? Besides I'm not much for those that have problems with the oil glut types anyway. I think it would bore me to tears.

I think we should look at alcohol as a primary fuel. Give the farmers another market and shut off the money flow to the nations that use the wealth to acquire weapons. But that's another story.

As to ANWR, how much land do those caribou need? Alaska is a vast expanse of nothingness and the technology these days does a better job of being friendly to the environment. I don't see much problem with that.

California's problems were brought about by Californians. They don't want power production plants but they consume mass quantities of it. One of the worst cases of NIMBY that I have ever seen.

[SamSpade]

"Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... "

It absolutely will NOT. In fact, the caribou population near the exisitng nearby Alaskan pipeline has actually *increased*, because they nest near the warmth of the pipeline itself. The technology has advanced so much in the years since building that pipeline, we could leave a marginal footprint on the landscape there, small enough to barely be noticed. As you like to say, it's politics. You're right. It sure ain't environmentalism.

"there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs."

You don't get it, do you? Why on earth should I spend billions to flush out the remaining drops of oil here in the US, when I can buy it abroad for a tiny fraction of the cost? Would YOU do that? Do you buy all your groceries at the 7-11? You don't make any sense. You'd think the whole purpose of industry is to give you stuff.

"I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California."

Depends on how you define it. It was caused reckless deregulation and by groups refusing to allow new power plants being built locally, so they were, among other things, buying it elsewhere. That's insane. You can't run a state the size of California on the energy from several other states, and subsidize it as well. They were paying about half what the rest of the country was paying.

No, no, no guys. You don't get it. Look at FERC.gov where even Pat Wood (a noted Republican and the head of FERC, appointed by Bush himself) sides against the oil companies as causing the Energy Crisis in California. One docket in particular is EL00-95 or EL00-98. if you care to do the research, it found the oil companies guilty of market manipulation and rapid fire stock trading. Then, it was appealed and is no Docket PA02-2. It was not the Californians being NIMBY type. However that is the case in the most recent blackouts in the Northeast grid.

There we need to restructure the pipelines, it's like running a 2003 indy car on a 1920 track -- you just can't do it. That is a legitimate NIMBY stance. I can only say soo much about the energy/republican/Cheney/Bush whitehouse, without losing my job. If people knew, I'd get fired at work, let alone supporting Dean for President I'm really put on a spot - go with my heart, knowledge and beliefs and divulge information to this forum, or my job. I don't know how much I can trust a forum like this.

Nonetheless, politics are very important to me and my beliefs and I'm a Democrat and as your Republican guy and my most favorite Republican and tremendous human being, James Baker, says "politics are %100 philosophy" you pick your party by philosopy and I've chosen the Democratic philosophy. I'm not into the rich getting richer schemes.

The California Energy Crisis was all about the greed of about 5 big oil mongers.

No there is not a few last few drops left in our wells, there is plenty. As for the ANWR, originally, Bush Sr. was planning to open the Artic wildlife but did not get it through the Senate and Congress in time, he was assuming a victory for a second election, it did not happen and Clinton took office, and as a democrat he is for the environment and the reservervation of it -- can you imagine not having any trees -- are you SoMd folk really fond of living in a city instead of country?

Eitherway, it was suspended by Clinton and all those oil companies had to file a "blanket of certificate for abandonment" for their endeavors.

I don't mind paying the high prices for our own oil consumption, but you need to take the corporate greed out of the picture first and then see what the true price would be. We are very well organized in terms of FERC regulation or deregulation. Unfortunately in terms of the California energy crisis, it was legal, just (as quoted by Pat Wood, unethical).

Look at how much oil costs overseas. If we are going to waste energy as we do here, we should pay for it. Remember Gore was for alternatives to gasoline and funded cars like the hybrid that doesn't run off of gas... and get this -- in Virginia (a Republican state, if you drive a Hybrid, you can use the HOV lane). We need to reopen the full wells here that have been capped for financial reasons. It's not the American's fault that greed has set in the corporate energy world.

In regards to the the ANWR, the oil mongers don't even know how much the ANWR has in terms of mass oil production, other than a few biased and unofficial tests done in the late 1980s. You can believe everything you read in the media or newspapers, but sometimes you need to do the research and homework for yourself. Try FERC.gov for starters.

God Bless, I hope everyone has a Happy and more importantly Safe New Years Eve. I need to run for a party that starts at 10:00. Take care all of the forum. :)

[Ken King]

No, no, no guys. You don't get it. Look at FERC.gov where even Pat Wood (a noted Republican and the head of FERC, appointed by Bush himself) sides against the oil companies as causing the Energy Crisis in California. One docket in particular is EL00-95 or EL00-98. if you care to do the research, it found the oil companies guilty of market manipulation and rapid fire stock trading. Then, it was appealed and is no Docket PA02-2. It was not the Californians being NIMBY type. However that is the case in the most recent blackouts in the Northeast grid.

Well maybe we are reading differing documents (the FERC.gov website is anything but user friendly for a novice and doing a search resulted in 322 hits for orders/opinions related to EL00-95) in the order issued on 15 December 2000 the FERC staff says that the problems were;

1. The market forces in the form of significantly increased power production costs combined with increased demand due to unusually high temperatures and a scarcity of available generation resources throughout the West and California in particular played a major role.
2. The existing market rules exacerbated the situation by exposing the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to the volatility of the spot market without affording them the ability to mitigate the price volatility and by promoting underscheduling in the PX, thereby increasing the amount of demand and supply that appeared in the ISO's real-time market.
3. The Staff Report noted evidence suggesting that sellers had the potential to exercise market power, although there were insufficient data to make determinations about the exercise of market power by individual sellers.

Now I'm no expert but when the FERC staff states that the “scarcity of available generation resources” played a major role I take that to mean that the Californians desire not to build new production facilities is the same as how I used the term NIMBY.

Also, I have seen nothing that states that “oil” companies were found guilty of anything. If you could I ask that you give the complete docket cite for additional research on my part.

[Penn]

Does anyone remember a Miss Berry, who used to post in the political forum last year?

I'm sensing the same type of commentary, or am I imagining the parallel here?

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
Does anyone remember a Miss Berry, who used to post in the political forum last year?

I'm sensing the same type of commentary, or am I imagining the parallel here?

I thought the same thing for a while but in this case I think we have found a hard head, not one that is solid concrete.

[Penn]

Ken, in truest and most telling of Democratic traditions, I am fairly sure dems4me "feels Howard Deans' pain".

To be honest, when the news media such as MSNBC and Fox News put his mug up on the screen, I cringe, waiting to see/hear what new form of stupidity he will eschew for us today.

It seems there's not a day that goes by, that the man will attempt to zero in on some non-issue, and try to "spin" it to his advantage for political gain.

"We as a nation have to do better on this mmmfffmmffmt........."

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Howard, go get a "stars and bars" license plate, stick it on your bubba pickup truck, and take a drive in the deep south. Please don't stop until you get to Cuba.

"James Carville this week summed up the Dean problem: "He seems not to appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought"

Ken -- FERC.gov is very user friendly. You should have tried it years ago. go to FERC's "elibrary" and do a search for Docket No. PA02-2 (the latest spinoff of El00-95 and EL00-98) FERC finds the utilities guilty and has now been appealed by the utilities in the 9th Circuit and the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). In PA02-2, you will see a Show Cause Order from FERC's ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) finding the utilitites guilty of market manipulation and demanding the utilities to proove otherwise which they had to file sometime in late February (show cause for doing so). December 2000 that is irrelevant...it's now 2004 and alot of discovery prooved otherwise in the past few years because of Bush's appointee Pat Wood backfired on the utilities and found them guilty -- his hands were tied, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence prooving that the California Energy Crisis was a farce and that various utilitites drove it to that circumstance. Don't just search for something you want to see but look at this case openly. This case has been going on for several years.

Paragraph Break for you Larry -- No I'm not Miss Berry, nor hard headed. Big Energy Corporations fund the Republicans and vice versa. What other industry is larger than Energy??? Do the reserach -- search on elibrary from FERC.gov. I can't talk much more about this and feel extremly uncomfortable about this - keep researching and don't stop in the year 2000

If anyone else has another topic, let me know. But for arguments sake, I may just agree to disagree. Energy is my forte'. Go Dean!!!!!

[Ken King]

Ken -- FERC.gov is very user friendly. You should have tried it years ago. go to FERC's "elibrary" and do a search for Docket No. PA02-2 (the latest spinoff of El00-95 and EL00-98) FERC finds the utilities guilty and has now been appealed by the utilities in the 9th Circuit and the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). In PA02-2, you will see a Show Cause Order from FERC's ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) finding the utilitites guilty of market manipulation and demanding the utilities to proove otherwise which they had to file sometime in late February (show cause for doing so). December 2000 that is irrelevant...it's now 2004 and alot of discovery prooved otherwise in the past few years because of Bush's appointee Pat Wood backfired on the utilities and found them guilty -- his hands were tied, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence prooving that the California Energy Crisis was a farce and that various utilitites drove it to that circumstance. Don't just search for something you want to see but look at this case openly. This case has been going on for several years.

Yeah, I did the search for PA02-2 again (1459 hits) – give me a submission or issuance number associated (a date of the document would be helpful also) with the show cause order you mention so I can find it or do you expect me to read all 1459 items? Adding Pat Wood to the search criteria still gives me 42 documents. A search using “show cause order” produced 0 results. And as it is a show cause order, how does that make anyone guilty? Isn't a “show cause order” an order issued by the court (or in this case the ALJ) requiring a person to appear and show why some action should not be taken. It proves nothing.

Your insinuation that the Bush appointee (Pat Wood) would try to sweep this under the carpet indicates true bias on your part. What proof do you have that this person would do such a thing? Based on your claim that he has found someone guilty of manipulating the market and demand certainly doesn't support that allegation. To me it sounds as if Bush got people in place that know what they are doing, like he did with State, Defense, and Justice.

The relevance of 2000 is that is when this all started and is important as it indicates which administration's FERC allowed an environment for this to occur. When the FERC conceded their authority in 1996 to California they made a big mistake. They allowed California to set the system up and left many loopholes in the process, now FERC is making punitive rules after the fact and I am certain that is one of the reasons for the appeal, though until I locate the specific documents I am unsure. I intend to continue the research.