|
 |
| This memo (transcribed below) was given to Vice President Dick Cheney by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay last April. It spells out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing price caps or other measures sought by California officials to stabilize runaway electricity prices. (Click image for full, high-resolution scan.) |
While the White House insists that details of its talks with Enron officials remain secret, a memo outlining those discussions reveals the extent to which the Houston energy giant lobbied to influence government policy.
The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle, was handed by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney last April when the two met to discuss the administration's response to California's energy crisis.
The White House acknowledged last night that aspects of the memo resembled elements of Cheney's energy plan, but it refused to say whether the document was included in notes that Cheney now refuses to divulge to congressional investigators.
The General Accounting Office is threatening to sue the administration if it doesn't disclose details of its talks with Enron officials.
The three-page document contains eight points spelling out Enron's case for why federal authorities should refrain from imposing price caps or other measures sought by California officials to stabilize runaway electricity prices.
A number of the positions in the memo subsequently made it into Cheney's energy plan or were reflected in comments by senior administration officials.
"Events in California and in other parts of the country demonstrated that the benefits of competition have yet to be realized and have not yet reached consumers," the memo argues.
"The following actions need to be taken," it continues, outlining positions on a series of matters. Some of the topics, such as equal access to transmission grids and interconnection of power networks, are largely technical in nature.
The key point as far as California was concerned was whether soaring wholesale power prices should be limited or whether such prices were merely a reflection of normal supply-and-demand dynamics.
"The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power," the memo says.
It adds that even temporary price restrictions "will be detrimental to power markets and will discourage private investment."
The memo blames California officials for having made only "limited progress" in tackling the state's power woes. It says that if the administration were to follow all of Enron's recommendations, the measures "would mitigate this crisis."
An Enron spokesman confirmed that the memo had been given by Lay to Cheney during their one-on-one talks.
Mary Matalin, an adviser to the vice president, said Cheney's energy plan included input from many sources. "Just because some of the things (in the memo) are included in the plan doesn't mean they were from the talks" between Cheney and Lay, she said.
Still, as far as price caps go, the administration was quick to fall into lockstep with Enron's opposition to any federal regulatory moves. "We think that's a mistake," Cheney said just weeks after his meeting with Lay.
Nevertheless, federal regulators finally imposed price limits in June based on the cost of the least-efficient, and thus most expensive, generating plant. Democrats in Washington had threatened to act on their own if the regulators did not come up with a remedy for California's troubles.
Cheney also echoed Enron's position on the culpability of California's leaders in exacerbating the state's energy problems.
"When the problem became obvious last year, over a year ago, they didn't respond," he said in May.
Noting that California had experienced rolling blackouts and the bankruptcy of its biggest utility, he also said, "I don't think that's a sterling record of leadership, I would guess, on their part."
To be sure, Cheney, Lay and President Bush, as well as other industry players, shared a belief in deregulation well before the lights went out in California. But the memo underscores the broad kinship between Enron and the administration in drafting official policy.
Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis, said it came as no surprise that Enron had substantial clout in formation of the Bush administration's stance on California's difficulties.
"What the federal government did during the energy crisis was pretend that the problem didn't exist and say that the markets can solve everything, and that's the same thing Ken Lay told the governor," Maviglio said.
He added that "the administration was espousing what Enron was espousing -- that the markets should fix themselves."
Whatever else, it's extraordinary for a private company, particularly one accused by California officials of having gouged the state with wildly inflated energy prices, to have played such a prominent role in the White House's response to the crisis.
"If the administration was allowing Enron to guide its policy during the California energy crisis, consumers should be outraged," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union in Austin, Texas.
"It's not unusual for a company to hand policymakers their ideas for what should be done," she added. "Things break down when policymakers refuse to admit that they used what was brought to them by industry."
Cheney's argument, as he told an interviewer Sunday, is that revealing details of his talks with Enron would undermine "the ability of the president and the vice president to solicit advice from anybody they want in confidence."
Bush echoed this sentiment a day later, saying that confidential talks are necessary to "get good, sound opinions." He reiterated that stance yesterday in a meeting with congressional leaders.
Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group, called it laughable for the administration to cast its secrecy as a defense of high-minded principle.
"All they're fighting for is to keep the wraps on how much clout Enron had over Dick Cheney's energy plan," he said.
The 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPA) intended to introduce competition into the wholesale market for electric power by providing transmission access. Events in California and in other parts of the country demonstrated that the benefits of competition have yet to be realized and have not yet reached consumers. To realize the vision set forth in the EPA, the following actions need to be taken:
In Order No. 888, the FERC attempted to formulate fair terms and conditions of access to the transmission grid for all users. However, the FERC failed to extend its jurisdiction to transmission services bundled together with retail sales. Consequently, distinct rules apply to different parties for use of the same transmission asset and such rules provide vertically integrated utilities the opportunity to use their transmission assets to disadvantage third party generators and wholesalers.
To achieve robust competition in wholesale power markets, the FERC must actively exercise jurisdiction over all aspects of electricity transmission in interstate commerce and place all uses of the grid under the same rates, terms, and conditions. Moreover, FERC jurisdiction must extend to the terms of access applicable to transmission systems owned and operated by non-FERC jurisdictional entities including Federal Power Marketing Associations (PMAs), states and municipalities.
To improve reliability, the FERC has encouraged utilities to combine transmission facilities into large Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and to assign the responsibility for operating RTOs to an independent management team. Properly structured RTOs can ease the movement of power between states and between users with a state, and will enhance reliability, commercial activities, and competition in the energy industry.
However, the FERC has refused to make RTO participation mandatory. This, coupled with the lack of non-discriminatory open access terms, has weakened the RTO initiative. Therefore, the Administration must encourage the FERC to approve only those RTOs with sufficient size and scope and with non-discriminatory terms and conditions for access and to require that all transmission owners participate in an RTO. Finally, the Administration should revise those tax provisions that prevent the transfer of assets to new, stand alone independent, for-profit transmission companies (Transcos).
Governance of the North American electric Reliability Council (NERC) is cumbersome and places new market entrants at a competitive disadvantage. There is a necessary role for FERC oversight of a new Independent Reliability Organization (IRO).
Legislation to establish a new IRO is required. However, the "consensus" reliability language in the proposed Murkowski bill is ineffective since it establishes an unsatisfacctory procedure to resolve conflicts between the IRO and the various RTOs established by the FERC.
Legislation that permits the FERC to delegate authority to develop reliability standards and enforce those standards, establishes an appropriate funding mechanism, includes a limited States' savings clause and provides the IRO participatns with anti-trust immunity will accomplish the shared goal of establishing an effecctive IRO.
The Administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power. Price caps, even if imposed on a temporary basis, will be detrimental to power markets and will discourage private investment by significantly raising political risk. Similarly, a return to cost-based wholesale rates will be extremely difficult to implement and will effectively negate significant investments made by new market entrants made in reliance on the presence of deregulated wholesale power markets.
Competitive generation (including Distributed Generation "DG") and wholesale power markets have been hindered by grid interconnection policies and procedures that restrict new entry. The lack of a uniform and effective interconnection policy creates uncertainty, delay and unnecessary costs in development of new generation capacity and DG technologies. To correct this problem, FERC must develop and enforce standardized, non-discriminatory interconnection procedures.
An efficient and reliable interstate wholesale market requires construction of new transmission and generation facilities. Siting and permitting problems have frustrated construction of new facilities. Consistent with rules for certification of natural gas facilities, granting condemnation rights to private parties that have obtained federal authorization to construct facilities can significantly reduce these problems. In addition, Federal Agencies and Tribunal governments should streamline the regulatory processes to enable expedited construction and efficient operation of energy infrastructure.
The Administration should mandate the creation of a regional demand exchange (implemented by mandatory RTOs) that would allow large consumers to post bids for the recution of demand. If implemented expeditiously, such a mechanism can have an immediate impact in reducing demand this summer.
The political leadership in California has made limited progress in solving its power crisis. All of the above items would mitigate this crisis.
There are concerns that natural gas supplies may not be adequate to meet market demand. Yet all studies indicate that remaining economically recoverable resources in North America are ample for decades to come. These supplies can be further supplemented by imported liquified natural gas. This will allow natural gas to continue to provide an increasing share of the total energy needs to the U.S.