> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Kevin Tarr > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:26 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct > > > >A more accurate assessment seems to be that Enron used exorbitant, > >unfair fees to blackmail California consumers and threatened to withhold > >power if they weren't paid. > > > > >From an article in the SF Chronicle, quoted on corpwatch.org: > >http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=2530 > > > >Jon > > > Right, so the people who want to blame the current federal government > are...surprise!...wrong.
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.
> Kevin T. - VRWC > but don't let that stop you
Don't worry, I won't. :-)
I'm curious about Brad DeLong's opinion on this. Brad, you around?
Jon
Okay, again I see all of that. But I'm assuming (and keep in mind I'm completely inebriated right now) that the Cal people agreed with a certain plan, then when things got tight, they wanted to change the plan. I'm not saying that business profits should trump all, but that a government should not have carte blanche to change the rules whenever it feels like it. I have an example right outside my back door. A business made an agreement with the local government that was to last for 99 years. Things changed and the business sued to get out of the contract and won! A bad example for me: the courts saw that it was a bad contract and voided it, but that doesn't make it right.
Kevin T. - VRWC Enough for now, time for three hours of sleep
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
