No, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush
administration tried to stop California from fighting Enron with price
caps and we can safely assume that this was in part because Enron was
lobbying the Bush administration to do so as reported in AP:
(http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020131/53224.html) Consumers
definitely got screwed because of that and the general attitude at the
time from the administration seemed to be 'blame the victim', which was
simply inappropriate once the truth about Enron's business practices was
made public.
Some googled sites:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr002556.php3 http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/irps/innews/sdut-040401.html http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c020601.html
If this were a normal situation, price caps would have been a terrible
idea that would have made the situation worse over time. Economists
publishing in Fortune, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal
all gave very clear and impassioned arguments as to why caps would
encourage corporate disinterest in increasing supply or making upgrades
to current equipment in CA. But afaik, they did so before the truth
about Enron's price gouging was revealed. Since Enron was deliberately
creating a crisis by boosting energy prices through the roof, price caps
weren't just appropriate in this case, they were an absolute necessity.
Also worth considering are the extremely close ties Bushco has to the company. I believe I remember reading that Enron CEO Kevin Lay and the Shrub attended each others family functions on a regular basis, and that the Bush administration recruited something like a dozen Enron employees for top-mid level positions so it isn't as if these people were strangers to one another.
Doug
Beyond suspicious.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
