California makes history

[neofied]

California Gov. Gray Davis will face a recall election in late September or more likely sometime in October.

They got 1.3 million verified signatures to force an election. It's the first time a California governor has faced a recall vote and first time in 82 years any governor has.

Tomorrow (Thursday) they'll announce when the election will be. The Lt. Gov. also will decide if he will take the place of Davis until the March primary or if he'll have the election for a replacement held at the same time. The Secy of State and most in the administration believe the election should be two-fold. And if Bustamante (the Lt. Gov.) wants to avoid any confrontations, I'm sure he'll do the two-fold election.

Ah-nold Schwarzeneger also is expected to throw in the hat for the job. Of all the Republicans, he is probably the most centric of them all and most likely to win over Democrats. He is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, with a passion for education. Basically the right kind of person for the job.

A handful of other Republicans likely will join in. A few third party (Green and Libertarian) also may join. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few Dems. gun for the job, just in case.

The interesting thing will be that the candidates will only have a short time to file, get the signatures and get on the ballot. Than it's a brief campaign for everyone.

If a majority of voters vote Davis out, than the top vote getter in the second vote would be the new governor. Though, I'm not sure if there'd be a runoff. Doubtful that's the way they'd do it.

It's expected to cost the state some $35 million to hold the election. Under the law, they can't hold it on the traditional November election day (when some jurisdictions will hold mayoral, school board, and other local votes).

Of course, the pro-Davis, anti-recall groups say the Republicans are hijacking everything and say nobody has a right to recall Davis. Yet the the State Constitution spells it out clearly that this is the fundamental right of the people. They argue the people spoke when the voted last November. True, but the people can change their minds.

Sure it's going to cost money, but it is perfectly legal. It is part of the democratic process. If it isn't supposed to be, than someone needs to amend the Constitution -- after the recall election.

Davis only had a narrow victory last November. Had Ah-nold ran than, rather than Simon than Davis wouldn't be in office. Davis basically won because Simon is an idiot.

[neofied]

Gov. Davis, after losing the recall and his seat to Ah-nold:

"I'll be back."

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[JeeberD]

Arnold, to Davis as he's moving out of the Governor's Mansion:

"Hasta la vista, baby."

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

[neofied]

Good one JeeberD. :D

I really think if Ah-nold runs, Davis is out and Ah-nold is Gov.

[MrBug708]

What killed it is they caught Democrats talking about how they were prolonging the budget talks to make the Republicans look worse. Way to go guys. California is having money problems are you are worried about re-election

[neofied]

Regardless of the outcome, it's going to be an interesting time over the next 2 months or so. This could very well be one of the wildest campaign periods and elections in California history.

According to Fox News:


The ballot could be heavy on fringe candidates, since it's not hard to run: Candidates must submit signatures from 65 registered voters of their own party and $3,500, or 10,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee.

65 signatures and $3,500? I think we're going to see plenty of offbeat characters running for office. The ballot will be full of names.

Fox had a few names of possible candidates. Besides Arnold, the other candidate that could score well is Dianne Feinstein. And by winning, she'd also get to choose her replacement in the U.S. Senate. Yeah, she could send Gray to Washington. :D

It's interesting, but there are as many liberal and moderate candidates looking to run as there are conservatives. I think the key will be to get somebody that everyone respects in office to replace Davis. That would send a message to Davis that it wasn't about politics, but about approval and respect for the person doing the job.

[Swaggs]

This seems like a dangerous and wasteful precedent.

Hypothetically, couldn't 1.3M (or however many it takes there) angry democrats from Florida (think they couldn't find them?) call for a recall just go get rid of Jeb? And whether he wins or loses, he would be spending time and money on getting re-elected (again) and not the state of Florida.

[daedalus]

1) You're assuming 1.3M Floridian can manage to sign their name in the right box without FUBAR'ing. You're a very optimistic person.

2) Yes, he'd be spending his cash on the campaign fund. The state would be spending their cash on the re-election itself. I believe I read somewhere that this will end up costing taxpayers in the $50M range. Lovely.

[neofied]

Actually, it depends on what Florida's recall laws are like or if they even have such a law on the books.

Only 18 states have recall laws. Most states require 25 percent of the total number of voters in the last election to sign the recall petition. California only requires 12 percent.

Six states require you to specify a reason for the recall. California does not.

There is no Federal recall law.

Only one state governor has ever been recalled and that was 82 years ago.

In California there have been 31 attempts to recall a governor. All have failed. Overall there have been 117 recall attempts on the state level. Only seven of those made it to the ballot and only four officials were tossed from office. This in the nation's most populous state and a state that is 150+ years old.

It's not easy to force a recall election, in California or anywhere else. The talk of precedent is pretty meaningless, given the history of recall elections and the laws of the land.

How did this recall manage to get this far? Davis has an approval rating of 21 percent, the lowest rating for any California governor.

And I'm sure you'll find a few non-Republican signatures on the Davis recall petitions. He's just not very well liked and got lucky that he won last November. His opponenent was a moron.

[cartman]

There's also some vague wording in the California constitution regarding recalls. Some interpret the meaning that if the governor is recalled, then the Lieutenant Governor becomes governor, and gets to select who is on the replacement ballot. The 65 signatures and $3,500 is what gets you in the door to be considered for the ballot, and it does not automatically get you put on the ballot.

[neofied]

Originally posted by daedalus

2) I believe I read somewhere that this will end up costing taxpayers in the $50M range. Lovely.

$30-$35 million divided between California's 58 counties.

Also, the ballot would include other items, including two referendums.

[neofied]

Originally posted by cartman
There's also some vague wording in the California constitution regarding recalls. Some interpret the meaning that if the governor is recalled, then the Lieutenant Governor becomes governor, and gets to select who is on the replacement ballot. The 65 signatures and $3,500 is what gets you in the door to be considered for the ballot, and it does not automatically get you put on the ballot.

Even Secy of State Kevin Shelley, a Democrat, has advised Bustamante not to take the seat and instead go forward with the two part process on the same ballot.

Simply saying "I'm the governor now, neener, neener" would only piss off electorate even more.

If anyone is stuck between a rock and a hard place it's Bustamante. His decision determines his political future.

[JPhillips]

I read that Bustamante is going to send it to the Cali Supreme Court. There is also something about a small council of the Sen Pres, Speaker of the House, a couple of university Presidents, and a cabinet sec. That commission could also decide who is governor. All in all its far from certain that Issa, who funded the recall, will get a chance to be gov.

Longterm I hope Cali changes the recall to make it harder. In a state that size it just doesn't seem too difficult to get less than 900,000 sigs. I would bet both parties have that many hard core suporters. It wouldn't surprise me to see a recall effort launched immediately after the next gov takes power. This could be ugly for a while.

[QuikSand]

Thinking bigger picture for a moment... doesn't this seem like the best opportunity in some time for a legitmate third party candidate to actually assume a high elected office? (Yes, I know about Jesse Ventura and a smattering of independent Congressmen... you get my point here)

California, as we know, is fairly ripe politically for "alternative" ideas. Plus, here we have a circumstance where there might be 6 or 7 "significant" candidates - many form the same party, all in a one-time, free-for-all style election where only a plurality is needed to win. So, in theory, a good Green party candidate (if there is such a person) could actually win the election with soemthing like 25% of the vote, conceivably. That's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that it is to see such a third party person managing to outpoll both a single D and a single R in an open election among just the three of them-- there, you absolutely must gain 35% or so, and probably more. (Trying to think back to the Ventura results - I think he won with fewer then 40% in MN)

Though it's fairly unlikely that the Greens or any other third party will muster the oprganization necessary to pull this off - it seems like logistically, this is about as good shot as they might be able to conjure up.

[Fritz]

Ack, a plurality vote. That means you have the possibility of some of that crazy European multiparty coalition stuff.


Originally posted by QuikSand
California, as we know, is fairly ripe politically for "alternative" ideas. Plus, here we have a circumstance where there might be 6 or 7 "significant" candidates - many form the same party, all in a one-time, free-for-all style election where only a plurality is needed to win. So, in theory, a good Green party candidate (if there is such a person) could actually win the election with soemthing like 25% of the vote, conceivably. That's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that it is to see such a third party person managing to outpoll both a single D and a single R in an open election among just the three of them-- there, you absolutely must gain 35% or so, and probably more. (Trying to think back to the Ventura results - I think he won with fewer then 40% in MN)

Though it's fairly unlikely that the Greens or any other third party will muster the oprganization necessary to pull this off - it seems like logistically, this is about as good shot as they might be able to conjure up.

[clintl]

A poll last week put Peter Camejo, the likely Green Party candidate, fourth among possible candidates (which did not include include any Democrats, because all of the prominent Democrats have pledged not to run), behind former LA Mayor Richard Riordan, Arnold, and Bill Simon. Camejo was getting 8%; Riordan was at 21%, Arnold 15%, and Simon 12%. Neither Riordan nor Arnold have committed themselves yet, and Simon is very unpopular, so I could see a scenario in which Camejo might possibly win if no moderate Republicans entered the race.

There was also an article last week about a possible attempt to draft Arianna Huffington as a candidate, and Camejo said he might step aside if she enters and runs on a progressive platform. And since she is wealthy, and can finance her own campaign, that could throw another wrinkle into things with respect to independent/third party candidates.

[Swaggs]

From what I am hearing, there will be two votes on this.

The first will be simple vote for or against Davis.

The second would take place if the first vote does not favor Davis.

Is this right?

[JPhillips]

From the Sacramento Bee


Facing the biggest decision of his career, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante said Tuesday he will likely take no more than 24 hours from the day the choice is his to set the date for the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis.

But he said he will leave to an independent commission and the California Supreme Court a decision on whether he becomes governor himself -- without an election to determine a successor -- if Davis is recalled.

Under the California Constitution, the lieutenant governor sets the date for the recall election, which must take place 60 to 80 days from the day the election is certified by the secretary of state.

In an interview, Bustamante said he is leaning toward the 80-day time period.

"The day of the election depends on when the (recall is qualified)," he said. "But right now, I think 60 days is not likely. I would like to give stability to the process and make it work."

The lieutenant governor, however, said he would not call for the election of a Davis successor on the same ballot.

After consulting with lawyers from the offices of the state attorney general and legislative counsel, Bustamante said he believes the California Supreme Court will ultimately decide a successor should Davis be recalled. The interpretation calls into question the widespread assumption that the election would determine a possible successor as well.

"Article 5, Section 10 of the Constitution states the lieutenant governor becomes governor in the event of a vacancy," said Deborah Pacyna, a spokeswoman for Bustamante. "It provides that the state Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine questions regarding succession. And it calls for a body, the Commission on the Governorship, to be created by the Legislature to consider such questions."

The commission has exclusive authority to petition the Supreme Court regarding succession to the office of governor, Pacyna said. The panel's chairman would be Senate President John Burton. The other members would be Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, the University of California president, the California State University chancellor, and the governor's director of finance.

The involvement of the commission and the state's highest court raises the prospect of added confusion about the final composition of the recall ballot.

The law that sets up the commission is one of many under intense scrutiny by California officials and election lawyers.

Prodded by recent court rulings, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has ordered counties to verify petition signatures and report the results to his office by today.

If the number of signatures surpasses 110 percent of the 897,158 required for an election, Shelley will certify that the ballot measure has qualified, and the spotlight will shift to Bustamante. Barring last-minute legal developments, that could occur as early as today.

Bustamante has been busy conferring with lawyers from the attorney general's and secretary of state's offices and said he will decide the election day "probably within a day" of the recall's certification.

Bustamante said he would not run to succeed the governor if a successor election is held. But sources say he has also been calling supporters and friends around the state seeking advice about whether he should enter the race.

Last month, Bustamante joined the state's other high-ranking Democrats in denouncing the recall effort and said he did not "intend" to put his name on the ballot.

Yet privately, some Democrats singled out Bustamante as the most likely member of the party to break ranks.

Bustamante is not a prolific fund-raiser, they said, pointing out that the recall's short campaign could be his best shot at becoming California's first Latino governor.

They cited his high standing in the polls, especially among Latinos, and they noted there is no love lost between the lieutenant governor and governor.

After their public falling-out in 1999 over Davis' decision to mediate parts of Proposition 187 left unresolved, Bustamante called the ballot measure to deny illegal immigrants services "morally indefensible."

In a move Davis' staff claimed was unrelated, the governor's office repossessed parking passes assigned to the lieutenant governor's staff. The chasm has persisted: Bustamante's involvement in Davis' re-election campaign last year was tepid.

On Tuesday, Bustamante's political consultant, Richie Ross, emphasized that under no scenario would the lieutenant governor run in a recall election.

"(That's) been our intention all along, from the time he put out his initial statement," Ross said. "Everyone treated the statement as though Bill Clinton had written it and it needed to be parsed, but we've tried to make it clear to people."

[clintl]

The two votes (if the second one occurs) will happen at the same time; it will be two parts of the same ballot.

Because of some potentially conflicting language in the California Constitution, there's a slight possibility still that there could be only a vote to recall, and the Lt. Governor would assume the governorship if it passes.

[Ufer]

The reason Bustamante and the Dems are floating the "2 elections" balloon is because Davis (and who knows who else in the party) has pressured other Dems to not put their names on the ballot -- the thinking being that if an attractive name is on the ballot (e.g. Dianne F), then some Dems will break ranks and vote yes recall and for Dianne, or maybe some Dem voters won't think it's urgent to vote at all. In other words, go down with the ship. Therefore, if there are 2 elections, and if Davis loses the yes/no recall vote, a Dem candidate can still get in on the second part (who suceeds Davis) after the fact.

Quiksand's idea about a third party governor is certainly more likely if many Republicans run -- one of the burning questions is can the Republican party convince the potential candidates (especially mavericks like Bill Simon) to get behind one chosen candidate -- but (assuming there is one election for both parts) perhaps it's even more likely if NO Dems run, because then the liberal Dem voters who vote no on recall on part 1 may vote for a Green candidate on part 2.

Personally, I think my state has taken the idea of populist government by the masses too far. It's counterproductive. The propositions and referendums we've passed (on all sides of the political spectrum) have hamstrung the government. Propositions are crafted by focus group studies and win by advertising. If they're badly drafted as legislation and work badly, the legislature cannot fix them. Term limits have acerbated the budget crisis and other problems, because our legislators (both Dems and Republicans) have no experience and no personal relationships.

[clintl]

I agree with much of what Ufer said about how excessive use of propositions has made the state much more difficult to govern.

As far as the recall election itself is concerned, I am really pissed at the Republicans for doing this, and if there are no credible Democrats on the ballot to vote for, I will very likely vote for Camejo, the Green Party candidate. The only potential Republican candidate that has even a remote chance to get my vote is Richard Riordan, who might not even run.

[Anrhydeddu]

Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

[JPhillips]

I think its a given that if there is an election at least three big name Repubs will run. Issa funded the recall and certainly is in. I don't see Simon backing out, and either Arnold or Riordan will be the Party's choice. If there is an election seperate from the recall, and if the Dems run one candidate of stature, a really big if, I thik the governorship will stay in the hands of the Dems.

On a side note, did anyone else see that Orrin Hatch has proposed a constitutional amendment to elimante the native born American requirement for the Presidency? From what I've read this is Hatch's attempt to set up a chance for an Arnold presidency down the line. Strange.

[JPhillips]

Adtnmru66o: But wouldn't you at least agree that the threshold for forcing a new election is ridiculously low? Why should twelve percent be able to call a new election? I'd take this more seriously if the cut off were 25% or 30%, but either party can get 12% if they set their minds to it. Issa claims to have spent less than two million on getting the signatures. This just seems like a really easy way for a rich guy to change an election.

[Anrhydeddu]

That's the way it has been in many recall proposals throughout the country. Besides, with 25-30% turnout for state/local elections, half of that number seems pretty good, unfortunately. Having lived in California for a while (including the Prop 13 election), I do agree with the overkill on amendments. Here in Colorado, we have a recent law that each proposition must be short, concise and limited to one specific law.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

Much better than re-electing an incompetent governor a second time (Maryland's former King Parris I).

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yes, shame on them (and probably over a million voters) wanting an incompetant governor out.

Here is the problem I have with what the Republicans did. Last spring, they were stupid enough to nominate one of the worst candidates that ever lived, Bill Simon. Not only did he have NO relevant experience, but he had a long history of questionable business ethics. If they had nominated either of the other two candidates, Richard Riordan or Bill Jones, they probably could have won the election. So it's their own damn fault that they lost the election. They nominated the wrong guy.

However, once they had lost, it took them one month to conceive of, and launch, the recall. Davis had not yet even been inaugurated for his second term. So this was NOT about removing an incompetent governor; it was about the Republicans wanted a second chance after screwing up the first time.

Davis has not been the greatest governor, but the mess is not solely his fault. All four legislative leaders (Democrats John Burton and Harold Wesson, and Republicans Jim Brulte and Dave Cox) are every bit as responsible as Davis, and I would have a lot more sympathy for the movement if those four guys were also targets of recalls.

[heybrad]

Clint,

In regards to your "this is republican led" comments... I'm curious as to what you feel Gray Davis has done for California. I dont mean this jokingly. I really am so against this guy, that I dont understand how the voters fell asleep at the switch at the last election. Well... I guess I partially understand since the only alternative seemed to be Bill Simon and he comes across as a doof.

California was recently listed as the worst fiscally managed state in the US. It has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and yet all I hear is that the problems are due to the republicans causing gridlock on the budget. It seems to me that we as a state have horribly overspent and its time to put a stop to it.

Anyway... I'd be interested to hear a pro-Davis argument that is actually about Davis instead of bashing others. Its interesting to note that Gray Davis is considered one of the biggest smear campaign artists even amongst his own party. If there is anything good about the guy, I'd like to hear it.

[heybrad]

Dola... Clint, keep in mind I was typing my response before I saw your last post.

[cuervo72]

heybrad squared.

[clintl]

Originally posted by heybrad
Clint,

In regards to your "this is republican led" comments... I'm curious as to what you feel Gray Davis has done for California. I dont mean this jokingly. I really am so against this guy, that I dont understand how the voters fell asleep at the switch at the last election. Well... I guess I partially understand since the only alternative seemed to be Bill Simon and he comes across as a doof.

California was recently listed as the worst fiscally managed state in the US. It has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and yet all I hear is that the problems are due to the republicans causing gridlock on the budget. It seems to me that we as a state have horribly overspent and its time to put a stop to it.

Anyway... I'd be interested to hear a pro-Davis argument that is actually about Davis instead of bashing others. Its interesting to note that Gray Davis is considered one of the biggest smear campaign artists even amongst his own party. If there is anything good about the guy, I'd like to hear it.

I am not really pro-Davis. He has been a big disappointment. However, I think the real problem is not so much Davis, but the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget in the legislature. Basically, it makes it impossible to hold either party accountable when things go bad, because the minority party can block passage of the budget. Davis proposed a budget (very similar in approach to what Republican Pete Wilson proposed during similar budget problems in the '90s) in January that the non-partisan Legislative Analyst said would work to close the deficit, and the Legislature basically refused to even do anything with it. In addition, the Republicans are flat out lying when they say the deficit is solely due to overspending. When there was a surplus, they insisted on, and got, some big tax cuts to go along with the spending increases the Democrats wanted. So the truth is that both spending increases and tax cuts contributed to the current situation.

There was a report I saw yesterday by some UC economists that prior to Davis' election, California ranked 24th in the nation in per capita state spending, and it still ranks 24th. And it ranked 46th in per capita state employees before Davis, and still ranks 46th. So this myth that California somehow went wild with spending compared to other states is just that - a myth and another Republican lie. Almost every state has had budget problems. The big difference between California and the other states is that the Republicans in those other states have decided to favor pragmatism over dogmatism.

There are other people I'd rather have as governor than Davis, but I don't see any of them on the list of potential recall candidates so far.

[neofied]

On a side note, did anyone else see that Orrin Hatch has proposed a constitutional amendment to elimante the native born American requirement for the Presidency? From what I've read this is Hatch's attempt to set up a chance for an Arnold presidency down the line. Strange.

I think this should be changed. Many immigrants come to this country, become citizens and productive members of society. They become just as American as someone born here. Yet they're forbidden from running for office. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Back to the subject of this election, there is some wording in the California Constitution regarding recalls. It pretty much said that if there is a candidate to replace the recalled leader, the candidate with the most votes is the replacement. It's all there in black and white.

True, another part of the Consitution says the Lt. Gov. becomes Gov. if the Gov. leaves office. But that doesn't apply in this case, since there is a procedure in place for a recall. Only if someone didn't run to replace Davis would Bustamante become governor.

At this point, Bustamante would have to run himself if he wanted to replace Davis.

Seems the only reason they aren't following the recall election rules, is that the Democrats don't want to field a candidate and stand behind Davis. That's their decision. If they lose they accept the consequences.

My guess is that there will be a two-question election and that the Democrats will be forced to field candidates.

[clintl]

Neofied, I think the State Supreme Court will ultimately decide what the ballot looks like, and I don't blame Bustamante at all for asking them to clarify. Even if he has a stake in the ruling, the state is in the long run better off if the question is addressed before the election, rather than after. I think the Court will rule as you stated, but I don't think it's a 100% certainty that it will.

I also think that there's a good chance some ambitious Democrat (probably from the state legislature if it's not Bustamante) will step forward and run, and if he or she wins, all will be forgiven (it's not like Davis actually has any real political friends). Or, once the Republican field is known for sure, if it looks like Davis is in trouble, the Democrats might recruit someone at the last minute.

[neofied]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
election.
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives
a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate,
nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

Note the last part, where it says "if there is a candidate." We know there are candidates who will be running. Whoever gets the most votes is the replacement.

This is done so that Davis can't run himself. If it is held later, it leaves the door open for Davis to run again. That's why it is done on the same ballot.

If Bustamante or any other Democrat want to replace Davis should he be voted out you must run on the recall ballot and not wait to see if he's voted out. That's what the law is clear on.

I've read that is what the Democrats are waiting for. They feel they won't look as bad by letting Davis simply get recalled and running in a later election. The later election would be held in the March primary.

However, Bustamente's theory is that you hold the election during the March primary. Of course, that would lead to the question, of whether this would be a gubernatorial primary? And would the gubernatorial general election be held with the Presidential election the following November? And would the winner serve a four year term or a two year term as the replacement?

Bustamante's scenario of replacing Davis only applies if he is dies, becomes incapacitated/unable to work, resigns, or is impeached. It doesn't apply in the case of the recall, where there is special procedure in place.

Bustamente this morning said he fears perpetual recall elections, yet he fails to realize just how rare this is. At the same time, if he wants to make it harder to recall than he must change the law. As it stands now and as Kevin Shelley said the current law is in effect and must be upheld.

The best thing that can happen is for a field of Democrats to join the election. And I think this would be a great time for Feinstein to make her move.

Whatever the case, I don't want Bustamante as Governor. If there is anyone as bad as Davis, I think it might be Bustamante.

[clintl]

That is not Bustamante's position, as I understand it. Bustamante's position is that there is a potential conflict between this part of the election law and other parts of the California Constitution, which provide for the Lt. Governor to become Governor if there is a vacancy, and for the specific wording about scheduling the recall election, which uses the specific words, "if appropriate" as far as scheduling the election of replacement candidates at the same time. If the recall is deemed to create a vacancy, then Bustamante would become governor, and there would be no replacement election at all; it basically makes the recall a Davis vs. Bustamante election.

[heybrad]

Clints got it right, but I think it will go to the Supreme Court and they can decide on the legislative intent as it relates to the conflict in the Constitution.

If it were a Governor vs Lt Gov. election in a recall, why have all the recall election language in the Constitution?

[neofied]

"if appropriate" applies to judges. Remember Rose Bird anyone? Since judges are appointed, it is not appropriate to have the replacement vote.

Sure you could argue there is a conflict and Bustamante brings up a good argument. But there is precedent for recalls. In previous recall votes, there has always been the second question.

You also could argue "if appropriate" means "if there is a candidate."

If there isn't a candidate, that is when Bustamante becomes Governor. Makes perfect sense to me.

If 59 days before the recall vote, no candidate has qualified to run on the replacement part of the ballot than that part of the ballot is left off. After the election, there is a vacany. Bustamante becomes Gov., serves out the term, and creates a vacancy for Lt. Gov.

[clintl]

I agree with you, Brad, and I think the Supreme Court will rule that way, but at this point, I think it's in our best interest that they do hear the case and rule, whatever their ruling is.

I also read today that there's another new legal wrinkle; apparently there is a group claiming that voters are required by California election law, to vote on the first part (the recall itself) if they want to vote on the second part (the replacement candidates), and that this provision in the law violates the U.S. Constitution. So they're suing to get the recall process itself thrown out.

[clintl]

Originally posted by neofied
"if appropriate" applies to judges. Remember Rose Bird anyone? Since judges are appointed, it is not appropriate to have the replacement vote.

Sure you could argue there is a conflict and Bustamante brings up a good argument. But there is precedent for recalls. In previous recall votes, there has always been the second question.

You also could argue "if appropriate" means "if there is a candidate."

If there isn't a candidate, that is when Bustamante becomes Governor. Makes perfect sense to me.

If 59 days before the recall vote, no candidate has qualified to run on the replacement part of the ballot than that part of the ballot is left off. After the election, there is a vacany. Bustamante becomes Gov., serves out the term, and creates a vacancy for Lt. Gov.

No recall of a California governor has ever made it passed the petition-gathering stage, so there is no precedent, because there is no other statewide or local office with an automatic successor in case of a vacancy. Ultimately, what "if appropriate" means will be determined by the California Supreme Court. I say, let's just wait, and see what they decide.

As far as a vacancy in the Lt. Gov's office if Bustamante becomes governor - Bustamante appoints his successor.

[neofied]

Actually under California law (and most state laws) you can skip portions of any ballot. All that matters is that the recall go 50 percent either way and that someone gets a simple plurality of the second vote.

There are people who will skip the ballot measures. There are people who will only vote for offices they are familiar with. There are some who vote for President and Governor only. It's your ballot.

The interesting thing will be to see how the new touch screen systems handle the election.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
No recall of a California governor has ever made it passed the petition-gathering stage, so there is no precedent, because there is no other statewide or local office with an automatic successor in case of a vacancy. Ultimately, what "if appropriate" means will be determined by the California Supreme Court. I say, let's just wait, and see what they decide.

There is precedent for statewide offices. If your state senator is recalled, you vote than.

It's logical as it saves the state money. When a state senator leaves office, the governor appoints until such time a special election is held.

The idea there is to save money and essentially hold the special election at the same time.

There also is precedent in the North Dakota governor recall in 1921. Oddly enough, ND was in a similar financial situation as California. The replacement was on the same ballot.

As far as a vacancy in the Lt. Gov's office if Bustamante becomes governor - Bustamante appoints his successor.

True, but only until the next election.

[clintl]

North Dakota's 1921 election laws have no relevance to California's 2003 election laws.

And again, what makes the governor potentially a different situation is that the California Constitution has a provision for an automatic successor in case of a vacancy, something that is not true of any other California office holder.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
North Dakota's 1921 election laws have no relevance to California's 2003 election laws.

If it gets to the Federal level, it might.

And again, what makes the governor potentially a different situation is that the California Constitution has a provision for an automatic successor in case of a vacancy, something that is not true of any other California office holder.

That is true. But than again the California Constitution also has rules in place for when a senator, assemlymember, or a county supervisor is recalled. In all three cases the governor appoints until a special election can be held.

Yet during recalls in those situations, that hasn't been what happened. The vote is held at the same time.

And that provision only applies when the governor is impeached, incapacitated, or resigns.

[clintl]

The federal courts will not get involved unless there is a federal issue, and differences between state election laws are not, by themselves, a federal issue.

And yes, the California Constitution does address vacancies in other offices, but in every case, the governor makes the appointment. There is no one to appoint a successor to the governor, so that's why there is an automatic succession. That's what makes the office of governor different from every other office.

And again, until the Supreme Court rules, no one knows 100% for sure what all this means. You can argue all you want, but the California Supreme Court has the sole power to determine how and under what circumstances the provision applies, and they have not done so yet.

[neofied]

SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the
impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of
the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.
The Legislature shall provide an order of precedence after the
Lieutenant Governor for succession to the office of Governor and for
the temporary exercise of the Governor's functions.
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all
questions arising under this section.
Standing to raise questions of vacancy or temporary disability is
vested exclusively in a body provided by statute.

"When a vacancy occurs" is the key phrase there. However, the understanding is that when Davis is recalled, the replacement election is held if there is a/are candiate/candidates.

After the election, it's up to the Secretary Of State to verify the results.

If Davis is recalled, he leaves office immediately after certification of the vote. If there is a replacement selected, that person takes the office of Governor immediately after certification. There is no waiting until January or big innaugration. The replacement is sworn in immediately after the voting is certified. This would happen within a matter of weeks after the Oct. 7 election.

Because of the above, there is never a vacancy and Bustamante doesn't become governor. The recall provisions have been followed and there never was a vacancy.

However there is chance there could be a vacancy if nobody is confirmed for the replacement portion of the ballot. If Davis were recalled and no replacement chosen, an immediate vacancy would occur. At that point Bustamante becomes governor.

Here are some scenarios

-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement chosen, certified, no vacancy created, replacement becomes governor.
-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement chosen, not certified, vacancy create, Bustamante becomes governor.
-- Davis recalled, certified, replacement not chosen, vacancy created, Bustamante becomes governor.
-- Davis not recalled.

This is how the picture is being painted on the news today. There never is a vacancy for Bustamante if the recall provision goes through without a hitch.

However if there are no candidates or the replacement candidate wins, but is not certified to serve, than a vacancy is created and Bustamante becomes governor.

If Bustamante wants to become governor, his safest bet would be to take out papers and become a candidate.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
And yes, the California Constitution does address vacancies in other offices, but in every case, the governor makes the appointment.

But this has never happened in other recall elections for offices in which the governor would otherwise make an appointment.

There is no one to appoint a successor to the governor, so that's why there is an automatic succession. That's what makes the office of governor different from every other office.

If you put the recall provisions and the governor sucessor provision together, it's pretty simple to interpret how this works.

And again, until the Supreme Court rules, no one knows 100% for sure what all this means. You can argue all you want, but the California Supreme Court has the sole power to determine how and under what circumstances the provision applies, and they have not done so yet.

The kicker is that they have to act fast, within a matter of days for two reasons:

-- Candidates have to certify for the ballot at least 59 days in advance.
-- To allow time for the preparation of ballots.

It's safe to say this will be Florida all over again, with people nitpicking at the law and not taking a FWIW approach.

[clintl]

You are basically repeating the position of the recall supporters. I agree with you that most likely, the California Supreme Court will rule exactly as you say. However, until it does so, it is not a certainty. You seem to be missing the point that interpreting the California Constitution is the job of the California Supreme Court, and that there is a question being raised about the correct interpretation. And the Court, and only the Court, will make the final decision.

Yes, Bustamante would be well-advised to be ready to take out papers, but he has a while still to do that. Papers can be filed up to 59 days before the election, and he has scheduled it for Oct. 7. That gives him (and the Commission and Court) 16 days to litigate, argue, and resolve the interpretation once and for all.

[neofied]

The court also would have to consider state election code which would clearly show no vacancy would be created.

Election law says that the successor MUST be chosen on the same ballot:

11322. In addition to the material contained in Section 11320,

(a) The names of the candidates nominated to succeed the officer
sought to be recalled shall appear under each recall question.
(b) Following each list of candidates, the ballot shall provide
one blank line with a voting space to the right of it for the voter
to write in a name not printed on the ballot.

11385. If at a recall election an officer is recalled, the
candidate receiving the highest number of votes for the office shall
be declared elected for the unexpired term of the recalled officer.

Basically Davis remains in power until the SoS certifies the election. When the election is certified, Davis is out and the replacement takes his place, with no vacancy created.

BUT ... Here's where the Constitution applies and the only situation where Bustamante becomes governor:


11386. If the candidate who received the highest number of votes
fails to qualify within 10 days after receiving his or her
certificate of election, the office to which he or she was elected
shall be vacant, and shall be filled according to law.

The interesting thing here is that Bustamante could lose the replacement portion of the election and still become governor if the winner doesn't qualify.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by clintl
Here is the problem I have with what the Republicans did. Last spring, they were stupid enough to nominate one of the worst candidates that ever lived, Bill Simon. Not only did he have NO relevant experience, but he had a long history of questionable business ethics.


LOL. Instead we elected Enron's top Politician and the man who received the most financial benefits from Enron AS WELL as the guy who A) Has taken California down economically B) The Power Crisis? Before you go blaming Pete Wilson, Every powerplant Gray Davis "built" was a Pete Wilson started project.

It was a bad choice for both parties last election. Simon wasn't elected, not because he was inexperienced or had a questionable background (I'm sure you have seen that email that's been around about the members of Congress and the crimes they have committed), but because he was WAY to conservative for California. He was in favor of limited marriage rights for Homosexuals, Pro-Life, in favor of Vouchers, wasn't that enviro-friendly, and was in favor of guns. He won nearly every county but the two biggest population size ones, which cost him the election.

Right now, Democrats aren't looking so hot in California either. The recorded message of the Budget Committee Democrats discussing whether a Budget impass will help them more this year or next year for the election. California is running out of money, schools are super tight cash wise, especially the JC's, roads are not being worked on, and the Democrats are concerned about how to get re-elected. And here you wanted a career politican as our leader and not a "inexperienced one"

And to let it state, I didn't sign the recall petition nor will I vote in the recall election. California screwed itself and they need to live with the decision. Parties lines is what hurt us last election, and it will again this year

[clintl]

ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 10. The Lieutenant Governor shall become Governor when a
vacancy occurs in the office of Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor shall act as Governor during the
impeachment, absence from the State, or other temporary disability of
the Governor or of a Governor-elect who fails to take office.
The Legislature shall provide an order of precedence after the
Lieutenant Governor for succession to the office of Governor and for
the temporary exercise of the Governor's functions.
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all
questions arising under this section.
Standing to raise questions of vacancy or temporary disability is
vested exclusively in a body provided by statute.


That's just as clear that the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to decide how succession is applied.

[clintl]

Originally posted by MrBug708
The Power Crisis? Before you go blaming Pete Wilson, Every powerplant Gray Davis "built" was a Pete Wilson started project.



The power crisis was caused by the badly-designed deregulation law, and that was Pete Wilson's baby. If there had been no deregulation, there would have been no power crisis. That's not to say we couldn't have been better with off with a good deregulation plan than with no deregulation, but that's not what we got from Pete. Davis deserves plenty of blame for not responding quickly enough once the problems were obvious, but not for anything else about the power crisis. Hell, Wilson even admitted he knew it was a screwed-up plan, but did nothing to fix it before he left office.

I also find it amusing that Republicans get so torqued out of shape about Davis' fundraising, when Bush does EXACTLY the same thing. In fact, Bush is a lot more blatant about giving special access to his donors, and got a lot more money from Enron than Davis did.

I basically agree with you, though, that partisanship is hurting the state, and that both sides are to blame.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl
That's just as clear that the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to decide how succession is applied.

You're 100 percent right. However in the end, I think they'll follow the election/recall laws first since that pretty much shows exactly how things are supposed to progress, up to and including what happens if the replacement election creates a vacancy for the governorship.

[neofied]

Originally posted by clintl

I also find it amusing that Republicans get so torqued out of shape about Davis' fundraising, when Bush does EXACTLY the same thing. In fact, Bush is a lot more blatant about giving special access to his donors, and got a lot more money from Enron than Davis did.

But there is no Federal recall law. The only way to punish Bush is impeach him and as long as the Republicans control Congress that ain't gonna happen.

Anyway CNN just mentioned two interesting successors to Davis ...

How about George Deukmajian or Jerry Brown?

Under California law, they still have two terms to serve, since they were governors prior to the passing of the term limit laws.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by neofied
And I'm sure you'll find a few non-Republican signatures on the Davis recall petitions. He's just not very well liked and got lucky that he won last November. His opponenent was a moron.

Well...so was Al Gore's opponent and he still lost.

(I'm gonna catch hell for that one. :D )

[clintl]

I wasn't arguing that fundraising was a reason to remove Bush from office. I was arguing that Republicans are being hypocrites every time they get upset about Davis and his fundraising, because what he does is no worse than what Bush does.

Anyway, I wondered about Brown as a possibility a week or so ago. Brown left the Democratic Party, and is now an independent, so there's no party loyalty issue involved. Although he was unpopular when he left office, I think he could win if there were no Democrats on the ballot. He hasn't said anything, though.

I doubt that Deukmejian would have any interest in running, unless the Republicans were almost certain to lose if they didn't unite behind one candidate, and drafting Deukmejian was the only way they would agree to do so.

[JPhillips]

Don't forget that the power crisis was really caused by power companies manipulating the system. They consprired to withhold power and jack up the prices. It wasn't the fault of Californians, it was the fault of criminal actions by the power suppliers.

[clintl]

That, too, although the bad deregulation design made it easier to manipulate the power market.

[neofied]

I think Brown would be an interesting candidate. As would Deukmejian.

Apparently the Republican party is urging its members to hold off before filing, just in case any Democrats decide to enter the fray.

The last thing the Republican party wants is one Democrat and 20 Republicans running.

But the following would be a pretty insane ticket:

Issa - Rep.
Comejo - Grn.
A. Huffington - Ind.
J. Brown - Ind.
Feinstein - Dem.
Schwarzeneger - Rep.
McClintock - Rep.
Riorden - Rep.
Bustamante - Dem.
Deukmejian - Rep.
Angelides - Dem.
Simon - Rep.
nobody - Amer Ind.
nobody - Lib
nobody - Rep.
nobody - Dem
nobody - Rep.
write in _______________

[cartman]

Damn, I'm glad I left the land of fruits and nuts just in time. I spent 5 years in Cali, and although the place is beautiful, it's just too strange for me.

I was partially shielded from the power crisis, since I lived close to a Army Reserve Base and a Federal Prision. I was in the "exempt" areas from the rolling blackouts. But it didn't save me from the $275 per month electric bills for my one bedroom apartment!

If I were in Cali still, I'm not sure how I would vote. Sure California has a large deficit, but how is that different that what's going on in DC? The difference is that CA has a balanced budget law on the books, while Capitol Hill doesn't. The ratios are about the same (debt to tax revenues) but California doesn't have the legal authority to float that much in bonds to cover the shortfall.

This is another fallout from the glory days of the dotcom era, when it was taken as a given that companies would grow 50-100% every quarter, forever.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by clintl
I also find it amusing that Republicans get so torqued out of shape about Davis' fundraising, when Bush does EXACTLY the same thing. In fact, Bush is a lot more blatant about giving special access to his donors, and got a lot more money from Enron than Davis did.


Kind of like giving away free nights in the Lincoln Bedroom?


Clint, Neo, do you guys think having Bill Simon as Gov. would have been any worse? Personal issues aside?

I also didn't mean to to imply the power crisis was simply Davis's fault. Wilson def. got the ball going on the whole issue

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Don't forget that the power crisis was really caused by power companies manipulating the system. They consprired to withhold power and jack up the prices. It wasn't the fault of Californians, it was the fault of criminal actions by the power suppliers.

"California and The Nation Still Suffer from the Davis Power Crisis: Californians are paying the highest utility bills in the nation because of Davis’ gross mishandling of the state’s power crisis. This has hurt other states as well as the notoriety of the California Energy Crisis created a disincentive for other states to explore reforms to public power agencies as the means of providing affordable electricity to the public."

In other words, he responded about as bad as possible to the crisis.

Well...so was Al Gore's opponent and he still lost.

Ralph Nader? I fully agree with you. Besides, we may argue about Bush's Yale-based education, he was certainly smarter than Gore in running the campaign. That makes Gore even stupider than Bush. One cannot underestimate how a campaign is run, which is the only reason why Gray Davis won (and why Clinton easily won in 96).

[clintl]

Originally posted by MrBug708

Clint, Neo, do you guys think having Bill Simon as Gov. would have been any worse? Personal issues aside?


Personal issues and even political ideology aside, yes, I do. Simon has no experience in government, aside from being an assistant federal prosecutor for a few years, and I have a problem with believing that someone who has not worked himself up through the ranks has developed the basic skills necessary to succeed as a chief executive. He also has no ties to the legislature, and I doubt that he would have had any more success getting the Democrats to agree to his budget ideas (whatever the hell they were - he never told us) than Davis did with the Republicans. I did not support Al Checchi's candidacy for the Democratic nomination in 1998 for that reason, even though I liked a lot of his ideas. And I think Checchi had a lot more going for him than Simon does. That is why I also dread a Schwarzeneggar candidacy. There's nothing that he has done in his life that makes me think he has the skills to be a successful governor, even though from a purely ideological standpoint, he is the kind of Republican that I could be persuaded to vote for under the right circumstances. I fear he could realistically win, and that he's not capable of doing the job.

I have a lot more respect for the approach of someone like Steve Westley, who moved from a private sector position as a corporate controller for a successful company to state controller. I think that's a move that's well within reasonable expectations of competence, and that as controller, Westley can develop the policy and political skills to be a competent governor. But I would have been skeptical if Westley just ran for governor to start with, like so many wealthy candidates try to do.

I just think that these rich and/or famous people that want to start at the top without having any prior political experience are very likely grossly underestimating the challenges ahead, and the risk for disastrous results is extremely high in a large state like California.

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by clintl
The power crisis was caused by the badly-designed deregulation law, and that was Pete Wilson's baby. If there had been no deregulation, there would have been no power crisis.

Actually there are quite a few documents now to suggest that price fixing as much as a poor law caused the power crisis.

[sabotai]

"Besides, we may argue about Bush's Yale-based education, he was certainly smarter than Gore in running the campaign."

In that one area, sure he did a better job.

"That makes Gore even stupider than Bush."

I hardly think that because Bush did better in one area that means Gore is "stupider" than him.

And on the subject of Cal's power problems. There's enough blame to go around, but most of it falls on the enviromentalist who made it impossible to build any new power plants. Power usage kept going up in huge leaps, but no power plant could be built because of all the red tape.

[clintl]

Originally posted by sabotai

And on the subject of Cal's power problems. There's enough blame to go around, but most of it falls on the enviromentalist who made it impossible to build any new power plants. Power usage kept going up in huge leaps, but no power plant could be built because of all the red tape.

That is demonstrably untrue. The power crisis went away almost immediately after Davis started signing long-term contracts at elevated prices. Without more power plants, there would have eventually been a real shortage, but we were not there yet.

[JPhillips]

Amnbfsatanfgs: I agree that Davis' locking in of prices was really stupid. Its clear though through power company memos and recordings that the power companies deliberately withheld power at critical times forcing the price up. They acted in a criminal manner plain and simple.

I would agree that Gore ran a really bad campaign, but I thik Bush's big edge came in the post election mess. He simply manhandled Gore both in the courts and in the media. As we all know it was the courts where that election was finally settled.

Sabotai: Actually the Cali power market now has a surplus. The message that they didn't have enough capacity was a lie. The power companies shifted the blame away from the real culprits, themselves.

[sabotai]

"That is demonstrably untrue. The power crisis went away almost immediately after Davis started signing long-term contracts at elevated prices. "

Hmm. You say you can demostrate how what I said was untrue, yet in the following sentance you describe how Davis got out of the crisis, not into the crisis (which is what I was talking about)

Fact is if there wasn't so much red tape to build power plants, several would have been built, and there wouldn't have been an energy crisis.

Also, if California didn't half-ass the deregulation, that would have helped a lot too.

JPhillips, don't take this wrong way, but I expect you to be about as honest about these issues as much as I expect Cam to. (IOW, I don't trust anything that comes out of the mouth [hands] of someone who is obviously biased for one side)

[mckerney]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Thinking bigger picture for a moment... doesn't this seem like the best opportunity in some time for a legitmate third party candidate to actually assume a high elected office? (Yes, I know about Jesse Ventura and a smattering of independent Congressmen... you get my point here)

I nominate The Rally Monkey.

[neofied]

I'll second the nomination. Bring on The Rally Monkey.

Seriously though, this is the perfect time for a third party candidate to make a move. I think that is why Camejo is running and why we'll probably see many more third-party candidates and a smattering of non-politico, well-known candidates in the coming weeks.

[JPhillips]

Sab: Where is your evidence of these claims. And where the hell have I been dishonest? You may not agree with me, but I take real effort in trying to find facts to back up my arguments. Also, I think Cam also tries to back up his arguments with facts. I disagree with most of his conclusions, but normally he presents a solid base of facts. Finally, I don't hate everything Rebuplican, which you imply. Just a day or two ago I was praising Paul Bremer. I have a lot of problems with the Bush Admin, but why is it somehow dishonest to disagree with policy decisions? FWIW, I disagree a lotwith what the current crop of Dems do as well, but I guess that's dishonest too.

Here is an article describing some schemes by Enron. Duke(I think is the name) also used similar tactics and have been caught and fined millions.


Memos show makings of power crisis
State sought to lift price caps after Enron manipulated market

Mark Martin, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau <http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/gatemainpages/images/clear.gif> Friday, May 10, 2002 <http://www.sfgate.com/templates/brands/chronicle/images/chronicle.gif>
[Click to View]

Sacramento -- In December 2000, Terry Winter was a desperate man.

As the state official charged with keeping power flowing throughout California, his task was getting tougher. Energy companies were abandoning the state's markets, apparently because prices were curbed and they could make more money in other western states.

So on Dec. 8 -- one day after warning the state for the first time that it might suffer rolling blackouts, a panicked Winter delivered a 50-page plea to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking for price limits to be lifted.

What he couldn't have known was that on that very same day, Enron was acknowledging in internal memorandums that its schemes to boost profits had nearly caused the lights to go out in California.

Winter's plea to the regulatory commission, now referred to in Sacramento as the "palace coup," prompted the commission to act quickly to repeal the price limits, and power sellers returned to California. Winter made the plea without telling Gov. Gray Davis or the ISO board that had implemented the price limits. He believes his action kept the lights on.

But it came at a cost.

For the next six months, Californians saw some of the highest-priced megawatts ever recorded -- and consumers are still paying for them.

Some experts say that day in December had a profound and costly effect on the state's disastrous struggle with energy deregulation, and the Enron memos released this week provide evidence that some power companies tried to manipulate the market to raise their profits, sparking the peak of the state's energy crisis.

"Enron tactics caused the ISO to throw up the white flag," said Michael Shames, a consumer advocate and executive director of the Utility Consumers Action Network. "Their actions contributed to the scrapping of the price caps."

SOARING PRICES

In the first three months of 2001, prices for power rose dramatically: During those months Californians would be charged about 30 percent more than the same months the year before. Megawatts that typically sell for between $30 and $40 at times cost $1,000.

The high prices eventually forced state utility regulators to enact substantial rate increases -- more than 62 percent for some PG&E customers -- that consumers are still paying.

"Dec. 8 was one of the most critical days of the crisis," said state Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Santa Ana. "It ended the last line of defense the state had against the energy-gougers."

Prices remained high until June, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission implemented caps that limited what companies could charge for megawatts throughout the western region of the country. Those caps remain in effect today.

While controversy has swirled around Winter's actions and their effects, this week's release of three internal Enron memos have shed some light on what was really going on in California, some experts say.

"Because of all these games, Terry Winter eased the caps and we all paid a lot more," said Eric Woychik, an Oakland energy consultant who previously served on the ISO board. "Terry Winter was duped."

'RICOCHET,' 'DEATH STAR'

Two Enron strategies may have led to the problems the ISO was facing in December 2000, according to Robert McCullough, a Portland economist who has testified in congressional hearings about Enron.

One was nicknamed "Ricochet" by Enron traders but is referred to as megawatt laundering by many energy experts. The company bought power in California under the state's price limits, shipped it outside the state, only to buy it again and sell it back to the state. Because the energy was coming from outside California, it wasn't subject to price limitations.

ISO officials speculated throughout much of 2000 that megawatt laundering was taking place, Woychik said, and not just by Enron. The practice created the appearance of shortages because megawatts were taken out of the state.

" 'Ricochet' was a huge game in terms of dollars," he said. "It was going on on a massive scale."

Exporting California power in this way allowed Enron to buy one megawatt in the state for $250 and eventually sell it for $1,200, according to an example outlined in one of the Enron memos.

"This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California's declaration of a (power) emergency yesterday," the memo reads.

The other scheme, code-named "Death Star" by Enron, involved Enron traders creating phantom congestion on the state's transmission lines by providing false data to the ISO about how many megawatts it would be buying and selling in a given day.

ISO rules provided fiscal incentives to companies that could help alleviate congestion problems, so Enron could earn money by creating perceived congestion problems and then helping fix them.

BOARD CONDEMNS TACTICS

Enron's board of directors agreed to allow the memos to be released Monday. The board, which was not in place before the company's bankruptcy, has condemned the tactics. Other companies say they have followed all the rules as they did business in California.

While ISO officials are still comparing the Enron memos to trading data to determine if they can show how big of a factor manipulation of the market played in the crisis, Winter said the problems the grid faced in December were real and resulted from several circumstances.

"There was a lack of generation, high natural-gas prices, the utilities were nearing bankruptcy," Winter said. "All of those factors caused a real shortage."

Winter stood by his decision in December 2000 to ask the federal regulators to kill the state's price limits. He said that because his traders were having to buy power from outside the state at sky-high prices just to keep the lights on, price caps weren't working anyway.

Shames, however, said that ending the price limits allowed federal regulators who were reluctant to intervene in the state's problems an easy way to say they had acted. If Winter had not gone to the regulatory commission, the state probably would have seen more blackouts in December 2000.

"But that might have made FERC act in a much broader way sooner," Shames said.

Dunn, who has been investigating the energy crisis for a year and will testify in Washington next week at a Senate hearing on Enron, agreed.

"The ISO should have gone to FERC and made a filing that said the market was chaotic because it was being manipulated -- the suspicions were out there even then," Dunn said. "That might have led to FERC coming in and looking at the entire market structure, not just prices."

[JPhillips]

Sab: Here is an article detailing how there was and is plenty of electricity capacity in Cali.


Power companies say it so often, and with such certainty, that it has become a virtual mantra: "Skyrocketing" energy use by Californians is a root cause of the state's power crisis, and justification for surging electricity prices.

But a computer analysis of electricity usage data by The Chronicle reveals that the mantra is a myth -- that overall growth in electricity demand hasn't been nearly as great as the industry portrays it.

The industry has painted the summer of 2000 as the equivalent of a 100-year storm in meteorology -- an event so powerful and unexpected that the existing infrastructure was devastated by its force.

The statistics show that 2000, taken in total, was nothing of the sort. Moreover, two independent state agencies' assessments of California's power plant capacity appear to show that the growth should have been easily accommodated.

The companies have defended their practice of increasingly taking power- generation plants out of service by arguing that heavy demand and consequent plant usage necessitated major, time-consuming repairs.

"The claims that demand growth is rampant and that it was totally unexpected and due to the Internet economy, to Silicon Valley, or server farms,

or people recharging cell phones -- that's bogus," said Tom Kelly, assistant executive director of the California Energy Commission. "About as bogus as you can get."

The Chronicle's findings are based on data collected by the California Independent System Operator, a manager of the state's electricity grid. They show:

-- Total electricity consumption in California increased only 4.75 percent in 2000 from 1999, a sharp contrast to claims of industry representatives, who have repeatedly relied on isolated, loose or selective comparisons that make growth appear as high as 20 percent. In fact, the single greatest hour of electricity usage in 2000 was actually lower than any peak demand period in 1999 or 1998.

-- Average peak demand -- the average of the highest hour of electricity usage for each day -- increased only 4.79 percent from 1999 to 2000. Even during the months of May to September in 2000, when the greatest spikes in electricity usage occur, demand growth was only 8.31 percent higher than the same period the year before.

-- More than 30 days of critical power shortage warnings, so-called Stage 3 emergencies, and two days of blackouts this year occurred at times of moderate energy use -- levels often below those at which neither warnings nor blackouts have occurred in the past.

The findings appear to buttress suspicions that the "skyrocketing demand" explanation for rising energy prices is a cover for what is really happening --

that power companies have simply started charging more for an essential commodity, regardless of whether it is in short supply.

Presented with The Chronicle's findings, Gary Ackerman, a representative for the Western Power Trading Forum, a trade group representing power companies, said the calculations support the industry position that electricity demand is growing strong.

"That's pretty healthy growth for California as opposed to the long-term historical average, which is close to 2 percent," he said. "To me, that's really strong growth."

Energy demand is certainly on the rise in California -- growth of more than 4 percent is still double what was projected -- and the state has obviously fallen behind in building power plants.

Even though a recent study found California ranked 47th out of the 50 states in per-capita energy consumption, the surging demand explanation has become so accepted that leading officials accept it as gospel. Gov. Gray Davis has made energy conservation -- 10 percent, at that -- a centerpiece of his efforts to solve the crisis.

"Energy use is growing," said state Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, citing the growth of Silicon Valley and high-tech operations statewide. "There's been tremendous growth, whether manufacturing or high tech -- cell phones, faxes, whatever. The stuff is growing."

Yet the energy industry has been steadfast in its insistence that the consumer is largely to blame. In testimony and submissions to government bodies considering prescriptions for the crisis, energy demand growth has consistently been overstated.

Joe Bob Perkins, the chief operating officer of Houston-based Reliant Energy Inc., told the U.S. Senate in January that California's growing economy and high summer temperatures caused electricity use to "surge dramatically" -- a demand growth of 13 percent.

Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Reliant, said Perkins' testimony was based on estimates by the federal Energy Information Administration of monthly retail electricity sales.

"We do stand by that," Wheatley said. "Unfortunately, it does not track with ISO data."

The industry-backed Edison Electric Institute said in a report that electricity demand grew by anywhere from 5 percent to 21 percent during the spring of 2000, compared with the same period a year earlier.

Russell Tucker, an economist for the institute, said the group's figures were derived by identifying the single highest hour of electricity demand for each spring month of 1999 and 2000 and comparing them, finding the May peak rose 21 percent.

Granted, the state Energy Commission uses the same model to determine whether California has enough plant capacity to meet demand. But the presentation makes it appear that overall demand, not just the absolute peak, is growing by 21 percent. When the peak of each day is averaged and compared from year to year, May's figure was much lower: 12.79 percent.

Also, nowhere did Edison's report note that the peak hour of 2000, a load of 43,784 megawatts on Aug. 16, was actually lower than the peak hours of either of the previous two years -- 45,884 on July 12, 1999, or 44,406 on Sept.

1, 1998.

The Chronicle analysis of average peak demand showed that no month last year grew more than June's 15.34 percent, though no blackouts occurred in that month. May and June were the only months when demand growth exceeded 10 percent, the analysis showed. Most months recorded 4 percent or 5 percent, and some -- such as September -- were less than 3 percent.

Two months, October and December, had demand levels lower than the year before -- 4.22 percent less for October, 1.46 percent lower for December.

Mike Florio, a consumer lawyer and board member of the ISO, said that even growth of less than 5 percent from 1999 to 2000 would seem overstated, since 1999 was a relatively mild weather year and 2000 was a much hotter one. "You are quite right," Florio said. " 'Skyrocketing' demand is a myth."

MARKET MANIPULATION?

Consumer representatives and some politicians have long suspected that, rather than dire imbalances between supply and demand, market manipulation is behind the crisis.

Generators and power marketers adamantly deny this, saying they have done everything they could to keep the lights on. They say they ran aging, decrepit plants at higher-than-normal levels last summer to accommodate what they described as unprecedented demand. They also say that, at great expense, they delayed much-needed maintenance in order to keep the power flowing.

Their claims have received some support from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which said in a report last month that it found no evidence power companies were using maintenance schedules to manipulate supply. The report, however, was heavily qualified by the FERC, which said it did not investigate other forms of manipulation. Moreover, the agency acknowledged that the bulk of its investigation was conducted by simply calling power plants and questioning them over the telephone.

The supply side of the energy equation is harder to penetrate, in part because supply data are confidential. Thus, the question of how blackouts could have occurred at such low levels of demand in January is hard to answer. What is clear is that, at times, during the crisis this year, as much as 12, 000 megawatts of electricity supply have been unavailable for use, mostly because of unplanned plant outages -- about four times the level anticipated by the ISO.

Power companies say the old plants they bought were not capable of producing to the levels sketched out by the ISO and the Energy Commission, and that everything from low water conditions, emissions limitations and high temperatures last year caused less energy to be available than was anticipated.

But others suggest that what began as a shortage caused by a withholding of supply to drive up price has turned into one caused by withholdings out of fear of not being paid.

What did go up, unquestionably, were wholesale electricity prices.

While average electricity usage during the heaviest hours last year increased by less than 5 percent, prices charged by power companies to the utilities that deliver juice to consumers increased more than 289 percent.

In June, the cost of a megawatt hour increased more than fivefold, going from the 1999 level of $30.53 to $170.60. In October, prices doubled over the same period a year earlier, going from $53.47 to $111.04. And in December -- despite a 1.46 percent decline in electricity usage from the previous December -- peak wholesale electricity prices hit $425.59. They'd been $31.88 one year before.

Then the pace of price increases began to accelerate within the last six months of 2000. Overall, average peak usage during December was about 31,200 megawatts, about a fifth lower than it was in August. Average prices in December? They just about doubled, to $425 a megawatt hour.

The companies' explanation for rising prices despite falling demand was that more and more plants had to be taken offline for repairs, decreasing supply. Even given the high number of inoperable plants, questions remain about why the existing supply could not cover demand.

On the blackout days of Jan. 17 and 18 fewer plants were offline -- and more electricity was available -- than on days when the state managed to squeeze by without turning out the lights.

Even today, with Stage 3 alerts having faded away, at least temporarily, demand levels remain more or less the same as when California was in a constant state of emergency. Moreover, the lists of offline plants are as long as ever.

AMPLE POWER SHOULD EXIST

The Energy Commission and the ISO have concluded that California's power plants are capable of generating more than 45,000 megawatts of electricity. That means that even with plant repair outages, low water levels decreasing hydraulic generation, air-pollution rules and other environmental constraints, the power companies should be able to accommodate all but the most extreme spikes in demand.

According to industry data obtained by The Chronicle, the Western Systems Coordinating Council, a government-backed trade group in Salt Lake City, concluded California would have considerable surpluses throughout 2000, including margins as high as 39 percent in December, based on data provided to it by the ISO. Even under low water conditions, the ISO reported, the state would have total power resources of 47,532 megawatts in that month. Yet unplanned outages were far higher, and the system began to crash that month and into this year, at far lower levels of demand.

"Clearly," Florio said, "we should not be having a shortage at 2 a.m. on Christmas Eve, when the only person awake is Santa Claus."

[JPhillips]

And finally some exerpts from the FERC report on the matter. Face it Sab, the info that we got, that I too believed was at least part of the problem, turns out to be industry propaganda. The power companies illegally manipulated the markets and have been fined millions for doing so. Also, if it really was such a problem with capacity, why have things cleared up without new power plants?
btw- When I said Duke earlier, I was wrong. It was Williams.

"AES [the operator of the plant] identified a tube leak in February or March, 2000....In two conversations, Williams' outage coordinator, Rhonda Morgan, told an AES plant employee that Williams wanted the outage to run long....

"Later that day, Eric Pendergraft, a high-ranking AES employee, followed up this conversation, expressing his understanding that 'you guys were saying that it might not be such a bad thing if it took us a little while longer to do our work....

"Ms. Morgan agreed, adding 'I don't wanna do something underhanded, but if there's work you can continue to do...' Mr. Pendergraft stated, 'I understand. You don't have to talk anymore.'"


"Shortly after the shutdown of HB2...the engineering firm of Black & Veatch...concluded that 'typical good utility practices should have prevented this type of [buildup] problem.'....

"AES took approximately four weeks to perform the dredging....AES waited until the entire job was completed before restarting the plant. However, according to Mr. Kunz, the part of the circulation tunnels upstream from the traveling screens could have been dredged with the plant running....

"Some of Williams' taped telephone conversations relate to the outage at HB2....The Williams employee laughed, saying, 'that's weird.' The AES employee responded, 'Yeah. They're playing games'....The AES employee explained that ISO [the California regulatory authority] did not want to pay for the NOx credits, so AES 'said screw it, we'll bring on [Alamitos Unit] 4 and we're going to make all the other units unavailable.' He added that 'it's just some big game they're playing right now'....

"When Ms. Morgan explained that she understood that the ISO would not pay AES the current costs of the credits, the ISO coordinator responded, 'So take some of that money that you just raped out of Alamitos 4 and buy some damn credits.' Ms. Morgan laughed and said, 'Good answer, man.'

"Finally...Ms. Morgan and Mr. Pendergraft generally discussed why Williams was not selling units into the market ....Ms. Morgan explained that if the ISO calls 'for 20 megawatts out-of-market, then we can say there is something in the market that would fulfill the need, and we got that bid in at $750, and we're expecting [ISO] to take that. But if we pick up more than what they say they need out-of-market, then they don't have to pay, they don't have to hit our incremental bid [of $750]."

AES and Williams colluded to shut down plants in order to drive up the spot price of electricity. Once the price was driven up (to $750 in this case), then additional electricity could be sold at that price as well. If the plants had been kept online, more electricity would have been available and the price would never have shot up.

[JPhillips]

I lied. Here's an article from the Charlotte Observer on Duke. (I knew I had heard that name.) Here Duke and Relient over a different reason for price increases, the inability of California to pay, making them a credit risk. I don't know whether this has merit or not, but I'm pretty sure that Duke at least was indicted. However, still no real evidence of too few power plants due to environmentalists.

As California reeled toward blackouts early last year, Duke Energy Corp. raised its wholesale power prices, some nearly sixfold in just weeks.

On the first day of blackouts, Duke sought to sell the state power for $1,170 per megawatt hour, according to documents The Observer analyzed. Six weeks earlier, Duke offered the state power from the same plant at $200. Duke also raised prices from its other California plants.

The average Carolinas home uses one megawatt hour per month at a retail cost of $73.

With the price increases, Duke became one of the state's most expensive bidders, according to state documents, which used codes to keep bidders' identities secret. The Observer identified Duke's bids by deciphering those codes.

Critics say the price run-ups support earlier claims that California power producers, including Duke, manipulated the state's electricity market for excessive gain. Generators deny the accusations.

"The bids are a very good indication of what generators believed the state was willing to pay," said Christian Schreiber, an investigator for the California Senate committee probing the role generators played in last year's power crisis. "In addition, it indicates the generators' priority here was never to serve California in a time of need but to exploit California at its darkest hour."

Charlotte-based Duke, one of California's largest generators, denies it raised prices to take advantage of the state's crisis.

Duke says it marked up its prices as much as 80 percent because the agency buying power for the state wasn't paying its bills. Because of that credit risk, Duke says, it tried to sell all its California power to its other customers in the state. But, like other generators, Duke had to sell any available power to the agency when it was needed -- usually when the state's supply was very low.

Duke says it is still owed $266 million for power sold to the agency, the California Independent System Operator, or ISO.

"The fact that our prices went up was related to the (ISO's) credit crisis, not the shortage of power," said Duke spokeswoman Cathy Roche. "These (ISO) bids were a last resort after we tried desperately to sell the power to anyone that would pay us for it."

The Observer also found bids that match sales that another generator has acknowledged making. That data show that Houston-based Reliant Energy Inc. may have offered the state power at an even higher price than Duke did.

The state reports do not show whether California actually bought power at the higher rates, only the prices at which Duke and other energy traders offered to sell it. But federal reports show the state did buy Duke's highest-priced power. And the bids -- some soaring far above Duke's -- provide the closest look yet inside the financial strain California faced as it sought power.

Critics, including lawmakers and lawyers, have decried the secrecy surrounding generators' pricing. The Observer analysis is the first to match a generator with its full bid history. A new federal reporting system starting this month will provide more details on generators' sales.

"The idea that people will be able to hide the truth indefinitely ... is a gamble that will be lost," said Michael Aguirre, a former federal prosecutor who has filed one of several lawsuits against generators. "They won't be able to hide anymore."

California's crisis eased last summer as the state signed long-term power contracts and federal regulators capped prices. Plant fuel costs also dropped, new power plants increased supply, and conservation and unusually cool weather reduced demand.

This week, record temperatures pushed the state's power reserve to the lowest level since last year, prompting calls for conservation. State officials say supplies are adequate. Even Wednesday's breakdown of a large plant didn't tip the state into crisis.

"It's a sea change from last year," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Gov. Gray Davis.

But the industry remains haunted by the disaster that plunged a state into darkness, cost California tens of millions of dollars in higher power prices and derailed electric deregulation in many states, including the Carolinas.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has intensified a broad probe of pricing and sales practices in the Western energy market. The commission also plans an August hearing on California's request for nearly $9 billion in refunds from generators and traders.

The Observer analyzed public bid data from the ISO. The ISO operates transmission lines carrying about 75 percent of the state's power. The agency's job includes buying power to balance supply with demand. The ISO buys power in the volatile, last-minute spot market.

Nationwide, this spot market has seen price spikes, usually caused by weather extremes that drive up demand. The spikes are generally short-lived, but they weren't in California. Prices shot up and remained high for months.

"Some of the increases in price could be explained through legitimate cost increases, but much of it couldn't be," said ISO spokesman Gregg Fishman. "That's why we're asking federal regulators to order refunds of $8.9 billion."

The agency reports how much power its suppliers offer and at what prices. But ISO reports identify suppliers only by code.

The Observer deciphered the code for Duke by comparing ISO bid reports posted on its Web site with power-plant data, federal reports, a known sales price and company information. Citing its confidentiality rules, the ISO would not confirm or deny The Observer's analysis. Duke did not dispute the finding.

Several bidders offered power at prices far higher than Duke's -- as much as $9,999 per megawatt hour. The Observer could not decipher those bidders' codes. The Observer also could not identify bids from Enron Corp., the failed Houston energy giant that has since been exposed as an architect of tactics to manipulate power markets.

On Jan. 17, 2001, the first day of blackouts, Duke sold the state power for $3,880. The Observer has previously identified that as California's highest reported sales price.

The bid data shows that six days earlier, Duke offered power from the same plant at $1,512 per megawatt hour.

Duke says the increase does not constitute price gouging, one of critics' chief allegations.

Duke and other generators say high prices for natural gas -- the dominant fuel for California's non-nuclear power plants -- helped drive up power prices early in 2001. Duke also says its highest price reflected the cost of running one of its least-efficient units. And Duke feared the ISO wouldn't pay.

The ISO buys power from generators such as Duke on behalf of the state's three big utilities. California's deregulation plan froze consumer rates, so utilities couldn't recoup their higher wholesale power costs. That meant they couldn't pay the ISO, and the ISO then couldn't pay companies such as Duke.

"Our prices went up as it became increasingly clear we weren't going to get paid," Duke's Roche said. "Our prices only went up to the ISO."

In California, Duke sells most of its power to customers such as municipal utilities, and other generators and traders. About 90 percent of that power is sold on long-term contracts that typically carry the lowest prices. The company has said its average California price in 2000 was $76 per megawatt hour. Last year, Duke says, its first-quarter average was $136; $145 in the second quarter.

"We've heard about it as a catch-all excuse for ripping off California consumers," Davis spokesman Maviglio said of the credit surcharges. He also said that on the first day of blackouts, the state stepped in to buy power and back the ISO's bills.

"When a state is on its knees, charging that kind of surcharge is pretty outrageous."

The state didn't actually start paying the ISO bills until December -- nearly a year later -- according to the agency making the payments. Duke's prices began dropping sharply in March, long before the payments began. Roche said that by then, the likelihood of getting paid was higher.

Frank Wolak, a Stanford University economics professor and chairman of the ISO's market surveillance committee, also doesn't accept the credit-risk argument.

"I'm not going to say it's completely bogus, but it's difficult to rationalize," said Wolak, who blames federal regulators for not reining in generators as California's crisis worsened. He likens the market conditions at the time to a riot.

"They all knew the television set was going to get stolen," Wolak said. "The only question was who would steal it. That's where you need the cop on the beat."

In the Carolinas, Duke Energy's Duke Power subsidiary is a traditional utility, owning and operating power plants and selling directly to residential and business customers. Duke Energy also owns power plants nationwide, but outside the Carolinas, the company is mostly a wholesaler.

Duke Energy entered the California market in 1998. The company spent $1.1 billion buying three plants, leasing a fourth and modernizing what is now the state's largest power plant. The company plans to invest another $1.1 billion in California.

"We went in there to provide reliable power and earn a fair profit, and that's what we've done," Duke's Roche said.

Reliant paid about $280 million for five California plants in 1998. Last year, Gov. Davis vilified the company after revealing it charged the state as much as $1,900 for power in May.

On the May date when Reliant acknowledges it sold power at $1,900, the ISO lists only one generator bidding that amount. The Observer tracked the ID code for that bidder through other transactions.

In January, under that code, the documents show bids of as much as $5,000 as well as much lower prices.

In response to Observer questions, Reliant repeated previous admissions but would not confirm or deny the latest findings.

"Reliant operated within the rules established by California and ... attempted to make all available power readily available," said Reliant spokesman Richard Wheatley.

Reliant's average California sales price was $117.30 per megawatt hour last year and $88.70 in 2000, he said.

Wheatley said the $1,900 price and previously disclosed bids of $1,500 included a premium for operating plants with severe environmental restrictions. He said Reliant's unpaid ISO bills total $225 million.

"We're proud of our record in California," he said.

[sabotai]

"I nominate The Rally Monkey."

I third!

JPhillips...now, I told you not to take it the wrong way! And applaud you for getting information. That's what I was looking for. I know you and Cam go out and get info. But what I was saying is that you and Cam are also biased. You are, and there's no use in denying it. So trusting you, blindly, with something you say on a subject liek this would be totally stupid on my part. In fact, it's stupid for anyone to trust anyone on anything blindly.

Good, you got a bunch of info. A more appropriate thing probably would have been to post several links to it, instead of filling dozens of screen lengths with it...but, what's done is done.

Why post an article about the manipulation of the power companies? I fully acknowledged that they did bad things. Like I keep saying repeatedly, there's enough blame to go around. And in case I have to spell it out for anyway, the power companies receive some of the blame, too.

Why post an article about California's present surplus in power when I never disputed such fact?

"power companies illegally manipulated the markets and have been fined millions for doing so. "

I never disputed this.

"Face it Sab, the info that we got, that I too believed was at least part of the problem, turns out to be industry propaganda."

It is not industry propaganda that several plans to build power plants sat in government, waiting to cleared of the red tape, for many years.

"Also, if it really was such a problem with capacity, why have things cleared up without new power plants?"

Because the state raised taxes is now buying power from out of state.

Time.com California Power Crisis: A Solution That'll Stick? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,97911,00.html)

A paragraph half way down to pay attention to would be this one:

"Davis now has a matter of days, not only to smooth the feathers of his regional neighbors, but also to put that $10 billion to work on deals with power producers to sustain California for the two or three years before enough new power plants are online to bring supply back up, and market prices back down. "

Sounds to me like Davis is saying they need power plants to come online...

[sabotai]

JPhillips, OK OK OK! Jesus H. Christ, how does anyone put up with your neurosis? ;)

I get it. They illegally manipulated the market. I AGREE! But problems are not so simple. You can't take something like this, find one group who did some wrong doing, and place all the blame on them! A lot of people and a lot of groups royally fucked up on this one.

EDIT: In fact, if you were to find some of my posts on this subject back when this was going on, you'd see that I was critical of the power companies at the time. I'm pretty sure I was very critical on them.

DOUBLE EDIT: But those would be on the old board....and we know what that search function was like...

[JPhillips]

Sab: Sorry about the long posts, some of this is reg only, and I normally get called to post the whole article.

How can I not take a statement that implies I am dishonest about everything the "wrong way"? And I would argue that you are equally biased towards your views. Hell nobody is free from bias. I found it insulting that you picked out me and Cam and claimed that we are both dishonest.

I would like to point out that saying the problem is mostly the fault of environmentalists seems a lot like what you are criticizing me for.

Now I will agree that the dereg was a disaster and I'll agee that Davis, especially with the long term pricing, really fouled things up worse. I won't agree, though, that more plants would have solved the problem. Perhaps if there were more owners and they didn't collude, but as it was the pricing jumped not becuase of lack of capacity, but because of criminal actions. The argument about Cali's regs is really seperate from the energy crisis of a couple years ago.

[Chief Rum]

I covered the power crisis in its early days (as it pertained to the local beat I was covering), and it was well known and documented at the time that a whole round of plants started in the 80s were scrapped by the early 90s recession, which lasted in California a good two years longer than the rest of the nation. Plans for plants were begun since then (in the mid-90s), but have been held up for years by, as sabotai said, red tape and particularly environmental regulations. I no longer have the source material from which this was culled, but it was a well known and supported fact when I was reporting that plants were taking as much as twice as long to be built and certified and operational than they were twenty years ago.

The argument of whether we actually needed the new plants (as opposed to the crisis being merely fueled by the rampant corruption in the power industry) is something I don't know enough about to comment on, although I will say that if we had the power capacity to support California's power demands, why have we been buying power from outside the state for decades? That's not an attack on the position that power companies are corrupt (I know they are), but an honest question I don't know the answer to.

Chief Rum

[sabotai]

There's a specific reason I singled you and Cam out. Because Arles don't come around much anymore and if I named SkyDog I run the risk of getting thrown in the penelty box. :D

EDIT: Edited out since Rummy Rum Rum said it better than I did.

If I asked you to give me a list of problems that enviromentalism (or even just liberals) were responsible for, I wonder how long that list would be...

[neofied]

In regards to the power crisis:

- The state should have trumped any decisions on power plant construction and allowed any needed new ones to be built
- The state should allow bigger power plants and possibly even nuclear plants, possibly building them out in the Mojave Desert
- If the state wants to be in the power business, than it should create a municipal utility of its own and not form risky business relationships with PG&E, Edison, Enron, etal.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by neofied
In regards to the power crisis:

- The state should have trumped any decisions on power plant construction and allowed any needed new ones to be built
- The state should allow bigger power plants and possibly even nuclear plants, possibly building them out in the Mojave Desert
- If the state wants to be in the power business, than it should create a municipal utility of its own and not form risky business relationships with PG&E, Edison, Enron, etal.

I don't know if you're referring to new or old power plant constructions being stopped, but if it's the old ones I referenced to, I think that it was a series of projects started in the late 80s when California (and most of the U.S.) was flush with cash. There were reports of potential impending power shortages in the distant future, and that's why the projects were started. So the danger of power shortages still seemed pretty far away in 1992 or so when they started shutting down the power plant projects they had started. Still a bad mistake, of course.

I don't know if the issue is the size of power plants. If they aren't being built as big as they should be, it's probably because of the environmental regulations, beauracratic red tape, and, of course, the obvious extra cost for a bigger plant. I haven't heard yet that California is building plants inefficiently--just that they haven't been building them at all. As for nuclear plants, we have one at San Onofre--and they are already working to decommission it. Partly it's because of its age (it's about 30-40 years old, was one of the first ones). Actually if you have seen Matrix Reloaded you have seen the San Onofre plant--it's where Trinity goes to shut off power to that skyscraper. Anyway, the other major reason the plant is being shut down--yup, environment nuts.

As for your last point, bring power regulation under direct control and operation of this state? I shudder at the opportunity for mismanagement there. We have screwed up everything else. Heck, it wouldn't even protect us from crooks like the ones they have at power companies, since we all know the government has as many of them as any power company. :(

CR

[neofied]

As for nuclear plants, we have one at San Onofre--and they are already working to decommission it. Partly it's because of its age (it's about 30-40 years old, was one of the first ones). Actually if you have seen Matrix Reloaded you have seen the San Onofre plant--it's where Trinity goes to shut off power to that skyscraper. Anyway, the other major reason the plant is being shut down--yup, environment nuts.

I've driven past the twin boobies a million and one times, seriously. And yeah, San Onofre looks like two big tits sitting next to the Ocean.

Once San Onofre is closed, that leaves PG&E's Diablo Canyon as the state's last nuclear plant. The other big one, Rancho Seco, has been close for several years now. That was due to safety concerns, but it was the environmental whackos who shut her down.

Diablo Canyon will be next. It lies smack dab on the San Andreas. At that point California will have lost a good chunk of its power production and the last of its nuke plants.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by sabotai If I asked you to give me a list of problems that enviromentalism (or even just liberals) were responsible for, I wonder how long that list would be...

I don't know about them but if you ever ask me, it might save time just to post a list of problems & let me strike the ones that the left doesn't hold the majority of the blame for ;)

[sabotai]

"- The state should allow bigger power plants and possibly even nuclear plants, possibly building them out in the Mojave Desert"

Can't really build Nuclear plants out in the desert. They need a large amount of water to cool down the equipment. So they need a constant water sourse like a river or bay to keep the water flowing in.

"I don't know about them but if you ever ask me, it might save time just to post a list of problems & let me strike the ones that the left doesn't hold the majority of the blame for "

Heheh

[JPhillips]

Sab: Where do you get the idea that I am blindly liberal. Its just not true. I supported the Iraq war, although I disagreed with the way evidence was manipulated. The real reasons are compelling enough, but no President should be allowed to mislead the public as to reasons for war. I think a lot of environmentalists are nutso, and I completely agree that regs are a contributing factor in the slowdown of power plant construction, although so far both you and Rum have left out the Not in My Back Yard phenomenon that has also been to blame.

Personally, I don't see any value in a list of problems caused by liberals nor would I see value in a list of problems caused by conservatives. Liberal and conservative don't describe monolithic blocks, and even if they did, a lot of problems have been a result of bipartisan cooperation, i.e. farm subsidies. That being said, I bet I'm far more willing to hit at the crazies on my side than many on this board. Its just amazing to me how you are willing to smear me without any evidence. Why is it so easy for you to say, he's bben liberal/conservative on things and therefore he is dishonest?

As to the power crisis, yes there will eventually be a capacity problem, although I'm not sure if power plant construction has increased enough since 2000 to override that. That, though, has no bearing on the power crisis Cali went through. That was caused by companies withholding power at critical times through criminal actions. If you don't believe me look at the court decisions, the FERC report, the recorded phone calls at Williams, the Enron memos, and the numerous investigative reports. The evidence is overwhelming.

In short, California will inevitably outgrow its power generating capacity, but it had plenty of capacity during the power crisis. You argued that environmentalists caused the power crisis, I refuted that and you called me dishonest.

Disclaimer: Everything I have said is dishonest!

[sabotai]

Dear JPhillips,

Stop being so fucking melodramatic.

Love, Sabotai

PS -

"You argued that environmentalists caused the power crisis, I refuted that and you called me dishonest. "

This is dishonest. I said I don't trust anything given to me by someone who is obviously biased towards one side of the arguement (dem vs rep). THEN, you attempted to refute what I said. I did not call you dishonest after this.

But I guess I could now, since you just showed that you are...

"Disclaimer: Everything I have said is dishonest!"

Ah, good. We're in agreement then!

And according to this:

January 3, 2001 Press Release (http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2001_releases/2001-01-03_new_standards.html)

(bottom two paragraphs):
"The Energy Commission is increasing the amount of electricity that California power plants generate. Last month the Energy Commission licensed its ninth power plant since April 1999. The nine power plants, once constructed, will produce 6,308 megawatts, increasing California's instate electricity generation system by 12 percent. Three plants - totaling 1,350 megawatts - will be producing electricity by this summer, and two more plants - totaling an additional 1,930 megawatts - should be online for the following summer.

An additional 13 power plants - totaling 6,506 megawatts - are currently in the Energy Commission's licensing review process. "

Building power plants seems to have been what the state has been doing since the crisis to combat it.

And in a speech he gave in April 2001, Davis himself also referenced that that no new power plants had been built and contributed to the problem

April 2001 article on speech (http://www.thestreet.com/markets/aarontaskfree/1410771.html)

It also shows, that if the plan Davis had put forward is what went forward, why there would be a surplus today (because they built and put online a lot of power plants). You'll alos notice that the article says the reason that the power plants got approved quickly was "thanks to "emergency" legislation that sped up the permitting process".

[JPhillips]

Sab: You still haven't shown that environmentalists caused the power crisis. I have agreed that Cali regs made it hard to build plants and eventually this will or at least would have led to a problem. That argumenthas nothing to do with the power crisis Cali went through, as I have shown.

I'll be big enough to admit that you did call me dishonest first, of course without a shred of evidence. I honestly didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was poor wording. But even after I provided you with a mountain of evidence I still didn't get an apology. You repeatedly claim I am obviously biased, although I am clearly not. I admit that I am in disagreement with most of Bush's policies and the neo-cons, but I also believe strongly in a split government representing both parties.

I refuse to get in a fuck you, no fuck you fight, so I doubt I'll respond to anything else here. I would just tell you to be more careful labeling people for things they aren't.

[sabotai]

"You still haven't shown that environmentalists caused the power crisis. I have agreed that Cali regs made it hard to build plants and eventually this will or at least would have led to a problem. "

Take a wild guess at who pushed for all the regs...

"That argumenthas nothing to do with the power crisis Cali went through, as I have shown."

I have shown it does.

"I'll be big enough to admit that you did call me dishonest first, of course without a shred of evidence. I honestly didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was poor wording. But even after I provided you with a mountain of evidence I still didn't get an apology. "

So I did everything but state out an apology word for word. But I'll cater to your insecurities for the sake of peace.

I'm sorry I called you dishonest. Looking back, I guess a better word would that I don't expect you (or any dem or any rep) to be objective. Honest was a bad word.

Happy now?

"I refuse to get in a fuck you, no fuck you fight"

No, fuck you!

(that was a joke)