Subject: Re: California Power Issue
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:55:00 -0700 (PDT)

FYI, John Bryson is on the board of the LA Times.

Gavin Dillingham@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
08/10/2000 02:55 PM
To: Joe Hartsoe@ENRON, Sandra McCubbin@EES, Susan Mara@EES, Paul Kaufman@ECT, 
Karen Denne@ENRON, Jeff Dasovich@EES, Mark Palmer@ENRON, James D Steffes@EES, 
Steven J Kean@EES, Richard Shapiro@EES, Elizabeth Linnell@EES, Jeannie 
Mandelker@ECT, [email-masked]
cc:  

Subject: California Power Issue

Following is an excerpt from a LA Times article illustrating a different, 
more negative point of view concerning deregulation compared to earlier 
articles I had sent. 
The whole article is attached at the bottom. 

Overconfident lawmakers even inserted as Section 330A of the Public Utilities 
Code: "It is the intent of the Legislature that a cumulative 
rate reduction of at least 20% be achieved not later than April 1, 2002, for 
residential and small commercial customers from the rates
 in effect on June 10, 1996."

Fat chance! And under deregulation, with production of electricity in 
independent hands, separated from the major utilities,
 there is a division of responsibility: When things go wrong, it is nearly 
impossible to assess whom to blame.

So where do we go from here?

Already, while ostensibly resisting re-regulation, utility officials are 
suggesting they need help. This is not surprising. Deregulation
 is one of the most oversold concepts in American life. Without a continued 
government hand, things frequently run off the tracks.

When John E. Bryson, chief of Edison, came last week to The Times to meet 
with reporters and editorial writers, he expressed 
mystification that market prices have been so high, even at times when demand 
is relatively low.

He called for a federal investigation of the price levels.

In the meantime, he and aides suggested, some price ceilings might be 
temporarily 
in order.

I suspect they might not be all that temporary.

If after joining in a $40-million utilities campaign to defeat a quixotic 
ballot initiative that would have stifled
 deregulation, Edison leaders are now proposing so much regulation, it shows 
not only a commendable candor but also 
how grim they realize the immediate prospects are.