AP Online, July 30, 2001; Monday, 6:00 AM, Eastern Time, Domestic,
????non-Washington, general news item, 365 words, Calif. Sees $4B Less in
Power
????Refunds, KAREN GAUDETTE, SAN FRANCISCO

THE ELECTRICITY DAILY, July 30, 2001, Monday, Vol. 17, No. 20, 350 words,
????NERC Alters Reliability Bill, Puts FERC In

Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2001 Monday, Home Edition, Page 1, 1353 words,
????Sempra Unit Pulls in Profit, and Scrutiny; Energy: The trading arm, which
????has come under increasing criticism, raked in $310 million in the last 18
????months., DAVAN MAHARAJ, TIMES STAFF WRITER

The Associated Press, July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle, 7:50 AM Eastern Time
????, Business News, 368 words, Federal energy order leaves California with $4
????billion less in power refunds, By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer,
????SAN FRANCISCO

The Associated Press, July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle, 7:49 AM Eastern Time
????, Business News, 261 words, Texas inches toward power deregulation as
pilot
????program goes into effect Tuesday, By NATALIE GOTT, Associated Press
Writer,
????AUSTIN, Texas

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle,
????2:39 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 471 words, Federal order limits
????potential state refunds by $3 billion, By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press
????Writer, SAN FRANCISCO

CBS News Transcripts, CBS Evening News (6:00 PM ET) - CBS, July 29, 2001
????Sunday, 582 words, California's energy crisis fizzles, SCOTT PELLEY

Contra Costa Times, July 29, 2001, Sunday, CC-BIZ-LISTING, 1631 words,
????Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif., Business Listing Column

Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 1, 3106 words,
????Energy Landscape Is Forever Altered; Electricity: Deregulation and the
????state's emergence as a buyer have changed how Californians get power.,
NANCY
????VOGEL, TIMES STAFF WRITER, SACRAMENTO

Sacramento Bee, July 29, 2001, Sunday, Pg. A3;, 1205 words, She's the
????governor's right-hand man Tough, loyal, workaholic, Lynn Schenk advises
him
????on every major decision., Emily Bazar Bee Capitol Bureau

Sacramento Bee, July 29, 2001, Sunday, Pg. L5;, 890 words, Cocky operative
????needles Davis with secret funds, Daniel Weintraub

Chicago Tribune, July 29, 2001 Sunday, CHICAGOLAND FINAL EDITION, Magazine;
????Pg. 12; ZONE: C, 4233 words, CUTTING THE CORD; HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS? TAKE
????NOTE: THESE CALIFORNIANS ALMOST HAVE THE UTILITIES OWING THEM MONEY, By
????Karen Brandon. Karen Brandon is a Tribune staff reporter.

The Associated Press, July 28, 2001, Saturday, BC cycle, Domestic News, 822
????words, California lawmaker enjoys utility's largesse; makes no apologies
for
????taking contributions, By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer,
????SACRAMENTO, Calif.

SECTION: Domestic, non-Washington, general news item

LENGTH: 365 words

HEADLINE: ?Calif. Sees $4B Less in Power Refunds

BYLINE: KAREN GAUDETTE

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:

???California will receive refunds for overpriced electricity, but not as much
as it had asked for.

??A closer reading of last week's order from federal energy regulators shows
the amount the state will receive could be slashed to just under $4 billion
less
than half what the state requested.

??Gov. Gray Davis plans to appeal the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
decision Monday, state officials said. Refunds could help prevent the state
from
raising electric rates to cover its power buying costs, which are now beyond
$8
billion.

??''We found a number of disturbing things that lead us to believe FERC may
not
be so pro-refund as they want Californians to believe,'' said Nancy McFadden,
an
adviser to Davis.

??For months, Davis and other state officials have asked the commission to
rule
electricity prices charged since May 2000 to be unjust and unreasonable prices
which climbed 10 times higher than past years.

??The state stands to lose a portion of the billions it has spent buying
electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers and two other
financially
ailing utilities. Power companies maintain they did not work together to drive
up power prices to unreasonable levels.

??The commission's 40-page decision confirms it will only order refunds for
power bought since October 2000, rather than May 2000. That means $2 billion
less than the state, utilities and others could hope to receive, McFadden
said.

??In addition, the commission also said it will not issue refunds for power
the
state Department of Water Resources bought directly from power companies. FERC
only will recognize purchases through the state's now-defunct power market or
from the manager of the state's power grid.

??That stripped another $3 billion off the potential refund amount, reducing
the refund by a total of $5 billion. State officials had hoped to receive up
to
$9 billion in refunds.

??A call to FERC for comment was not immediately returned Sunday.

??The commission has ordered an evidentiary hearing, to be completed within 60
days, to determine the size of the refund from providers of wholesale power.

??___

??On the Net:

??http://www.ferc.gov

??http://www.water.ca.gov

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????3 of 77 DOCUMENTS

???????????????????????Copyright 2001 Elsevier Science

????????????????????????????THE ELECTRICITY DAILY

????????????????????????????July 30, 2001, Monday

SECTION: Vol. 17, No. 20

LENGTH: 350 words

HEADLINE: NERC Alters Reliability Bill, Puts FERC In

BODY:

??Apparently spooked by Congress, the North American Electric Reliability
Council has modified its proposed reliability legislation to increase the
authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the proposed new
reliability agency. This is in contrast to NERC's earlier legislative
proposal,
set to be marked up in the Senate, which would make the new North American
Electric Reliability Organization virtually autonomous.

??NERC had engineered an industry consensus to move the organization from
voluntary to self-regulatory. Sources say that the new proposal is a direct
result of growing uneasiness on Capitol Hill with deregulating the industry in
the wake of the California crisis, especially in the newly Democratic Senate.

??Section 11(b) of NERC's new draft says FERC "shall have jurisdiction over
the
Electric Reliability Organization, all affiliated regional reliability
entities,
all system operators, and all users of the bulk-power system, for purposes of
approving and enforcing compliance." NERC is reportedly hoping its language
will
mitigate an effort by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to cut
NERC out of a self-regulatory role altogether. According to a white paper
developed by the new chairman, Sen. Jeff Bingaman(D-N.M.), "legislation should
authorize a system for assuring the reliability of the grid that is mandatory,
that requires sanctions and penalties for failure to comply with the rules
that
institutions for that purpose develop, and that is subject to federal
oversight."

??Opponents of self-regulation, such as the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland
Interconnection, say NERC/NAERO should not be granted this control, but that
FERC should regulate reliability through the regional transmission
organizations
that are currently being mediated. According to a PJM position paper, "FERC's
authority should not be limited or impaired in any way, including its
exclusive
authority to determine rates, terms, and conditions of transmission services
subject to its jurisdiction." [DW]

LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2001

??????????????????????????????4 of 77 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????July 30, 2001 Monday ?Home Edition

SECTION: Business; Part 3; Page 1; Financial Desk

LENGTH: 1353 words

HEADLINE: Sempra Unit Pulls in Profit, and Scrutiny;
Energy: The trading arm, which has come under increasing criticism, raked in $
310 million in the last 18 months.

BYLINE: DAVAN MAHARAJ, TIMES STAFF WRITER

BODY:

??While the state's two largest utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and
Southern California Edison Co., are struggling for survival, the parent of San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. is racking up record profit from the state's energy
crisis, thanks in part to a subsidiary that buys and sells energy on the
wholesale market.

??In the last 18 months, Sempra Energy's trading subsidiary has raked in $310
million in profit. That's $120 million more than the sum Sempra paid for the
trading outfit 3 1/2 years ago. And analysts expect profit to climb higher as
the trading arm continues to take advantage of volatile energy markets in
California and across the United States.

??The trading activities of San Diego-based Sempra are drawing increasing
scrutiny from regulators and consumer watchdogs who question why the state is
doling out attractive energy contracts to a company that already is flush with
cash. Records recently revealed that a Sempra power generator sold all its
capacity at attractive prices over an extended period to the California
Department of Water Resources, which has been procuring power for the state's
largest utilities.

??"Sempra has become like the multimillionaire that refuses to tip," said
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in
San Diego. "There seems to be a fundamental violation of the principle of
fairness whereby Sempra's trading arm is hugely profitable at the expense of
consumers."

??Sempra insists its trading business is a worldwide operation that deals in
not just electricity but oil, gas and other commodities. Only a small portion
of
the trading unit's profit comes from California and the Western region, said
company spokesman Doug Kline.

??State records revealed this month that Sempra Energy Trading--and several
other wholesale electricity merchants--charged California some of the highest
prices for electricity during the first three months of the year. Sempra
officials say they were only procuring power for the state when supplies were
critically low, but critics want Sempra to refund the alleged overcharges.

??Separately, Sempra is battling lawsuits that it conspired with several gas
and pipeline companies to eliminate competition, drive up natural gas prices
and
discourage the construction of electricity generating plants in California.

??Sempra's activities have come under scrutiny because critics say its trading
subsidiary was influential in driving wholesale electricity prices to levels
that helped ignite California's energy crisis. These high prices helped saddle
its own SDG&E, PG&E and Edison with billions of dollars in debt.

??PG&E and Edison also have energy-trading businesses, though they are not as
lucrative as Sempra's.

??California's 1996 deregulation law created a competitive marketplace where
more than 100 energy traders now buy and sell electricity. Energy traders
serve
as middlemen, buying power from generators and reselling them to utilities and
commercial power users. Some middlemen are connected to firms that own power
plants, but others are speculators, such as Morgan Stanley Capital Group.

??Traders may buy a block of electricity a day, month or year ahead of time
and
resell it to another broker, a city or a utility. In California's energy
crisis,
a single electron might be traded a dozen times before it reaches a
ratepayer's
home.

??Sempra acquired a trading unit when it bought American International Group
Inc. for $190 million in 1997. Sempra Energy Trading earned $13 million in
1998
and $19 million the next year.

??As the energy crisis exploded, Sempra Energy Trading's profit soared to $155
million in 2000. For the first two quarters of this year, the trading unit has
accounted for $155 million in profit.

??Critics say Sempra can maximize profit for its trading arm--and various
other
business units--by knowing the direction of the market.

??For example, if executives in Sempra's trading arm know that its sister
subsidiary, Southern California Gas Co., is planning to buy large supplies of
gas for storage, they could structure their trades to take advantage of
anticipated higher prices, consumer watchdog groups say.

??"What you have is a back-room, cottage industry for information whereby
affiliates and generators of the same holding company secretly trade in a
market
that they have been able to manipulate to exact exorbitant profits at the
expense of those customers who don't have access to that information," Shames
said. "It's classic insider trading for which people like Michael Milken
served
time in jail, and yet these holding companies get to build palaces."

??Sempra and its subsidiaries have denied allegations of insider trading and
insist that all of the company's activities have been legal. Strict Public
Utilities Commission rules prohibit Sempra from sharing information among its
business units, said Chairman and Chief Executive Stephen L. Baum.

??Baum, however, acknowledged that it isn't "particularly healthy" for
Sempra's
trading arm to sell electricity in the California market, where purchases by
the
state are eventually billed to SDG&E ratepayers.

??"I don't like being embarrassed to announce earnings in some of my business
units of Sempra because people are suffering in San Diego in the electricity
crisis," Baum said. "That's not a healthy corporate situation."

??Baum has hinted that the parent company might decide to spin off Sempra
Energy Trading or other business units to create shareholder value and avoid
perceived conflicts of interest.

??For now, the parent company is contesting allegations that Sempra's business
units are cashing in on insider knowledge.

??In a recent filing with the state Public Utilities Commission, a group of
primarily municipal generators detailed how the Gas Co. may have acted to
drive
up the price of gas for customers so it could rake in additional profit.

??In mid-2000, the gas utility paid $16.5 million for option contracts that
entitled it to buy gas at the end of the year. The contracts gave the Gas Co.
an
incentive to buy "abnormally high" volumes of gas at the California border
during the winter months, said Norman Pedersen, an attorney for the Southern
California Generation Coalition.

??High border purchases by the Gas Co. drove up border prices, Pedersen said,
allowing the utility to take in $70 million from the deal.

??The Gas Co. has vigorously denied that the $70-million gain was related to
California border transactions.

??"Customers were not only protected by, but directly benefited from [our] . .
. options programs," the utility's lawyers said in a response filed with the
PUC.

??Under a state incentive program that rewards utilities for keeping costs
down, the Gas Co. is required to split savings--such as the $70 million--50-50
with ratepayers whenever the company's gas costs fall slightly below market
levels. Because the Gas Co. has consistently beaten the market, those savings
have multiplied nearly tenfold during the state's power crisis.

??Pedersen's clients, which include the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, want the PUC to reconsider the incentive program, saying that it "may
have contributed to recently disproportionately high border prices" and higher
gas costs.

??Last month, the Gas Co. told the PUC it would accept only $30 million of the
$106 million it was due under the state incentive program. In return the state
must agree to continue the incentive program, according to the Gas Co.
proposal.

??Analysts who follow Sempra's stock, which is trading near its 52-week high,
said Sempra is being unfairly targeted for being successful.

??Merrill Lynch energy analyst Donato Eassey said Sempra moved more quickly
than PG&E and Edison to take advantage of the state's law that deregulated
California's energy market and invested the proceeds in trading and other
profitable operations.

??"There is nothing illegal about making profits," said Eassey, who recently
upgraded Sempra's stock to "buy." "People in California need to pay the damn
bill and shut up."

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????6 of 77 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????????????????The Associated Press

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

???????????????????????July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????7:50 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: Business News

LENGTH: 368 words

HEADLINE: Federal energy order leaves California with $4 billion less in power
refunds

BYLINE: By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:

??California will receive refunds for overpriced electricity, but not as much
as it had asked for.

??A closer reading of last week's order from federal energy regulators shows
the amount the state will receive could be slashed to just under $4 billion -
less than half what the state requested.

??Gov. Gray Davis plans to appeal the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
decision Monday, state officials said. Refunds could help prevent the state
from
raising electric rates to cover its power buying costs, which are now beyond
$8
billion.

??"We found a number of disturbing things that lead us to believe FERC may not
be so pro-refund as they want Californians to believe," said Nancy McFadden,
an
adviser to Davis.

??For months, Davis and other state officials have asked the commission to
rule
electricity prices charged since May 2000 to be unjust and unreasonable -
prices
which climbed 10 times higher than past years.

??The state stands to lose a portion of the billions it has spent buying
electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers and two other
financially
ailing utilities. Power companies maintain they did not work together to drive
up power prices to unreasonable levels.

??The commission's 40-page decision confirms it will only order refunds for
power bought since October 2000, rather than May 2000. That means $2 billion
less than the state, utilities and others could hope to receive, McFadden
said.

??In addition, the commission also said it will not issue refunds for power
the
state Department of Water Resources bought directly from power companies. FERC
only will recognize purchases through the state's now-defunct power market or
from the manager of the state's power grid.

??That stripped another $3 billion off the potential refund amount, reducing
the refund by a total of $5 billion. State officials had hoped to receive up
to
$9 billion in refunds.

??A call to FERC for comment was not immediately returned Sunday.

??The commission has ordered an evidentiary hearing, to be completed within 60
days, to determine the size of the refund from providers of wholesale power.

??On the Net:

??http://www.ferc.gov

??http://www.water.ca.gov

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????7 of 77 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????????????????The Associated Press

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

???????????????????????July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????7:49 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: Business News

LENGTH: 261 words

HEADLINE: Texas inches toward power deregulation as pilot program goes into
effect Tuesday

BYLINE: By NATALIE GOTT, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: AUSTIN, Texas

BODY:

??After several delays, the entrance of Texas into the deregulated electricity
market is set to begin Tuesday.

??Under a pilot program, officials of the state's electrical grid will begin
switching some customers to new power providers at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.

??The Legislature created the pilot program to give power companies several
months to test their systems before full-scale deregulation, which is
scheduled
to begin Jan. 1 in most of the state.

??Industry officials have promised that deregulation will be smoother in Texas
than in California, where it has been blamed for rolling blackouts and
skyrocketing utility rates. They say the recent construction of several new
power plants in Texas will help the state avoid supply shortfalls that have
plagued California.

??The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the state's grid,
gave the go-ahead for the pilot program last week.

??Deregulation allows customers to choose their power provider much like they
select a long-distance telephone carrier. Under the Texas pilot program, up
to 5
percent of electric customers can switch power companies.

??The pilot program is getting under way nearly two months after its first
scheduled start date of June 1. Numerous delays were caused by computer
problems.

??While the delays were unfortunate, "we think waiting until all the systems
are ready will let us provide good customer service," said Eleanor Scott,
spokeswoman for Austin-based Green Mountain Energy.

??On the Net:

??Electric Reliability Council of Texas: http://www.ercot.com

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????8 of 77 DOCUMENTS

???????????????????The Associated Press State & Local Wire

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

???????????????????????July 30, 2001, Monday, BC cycle

?????????????????????????????2:39 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 471 words

HEADLINE: Federal order limits potential state refunds by $3 billion

BYLINE: By KAREN GAUDETTE, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO

BODY:

??California will receive refunds for overpriced electricity, but not as much
as it had asked for.

??A closer reading of last week's order from federal energy regulators shows
the amount the state will receive could be slashed to just under $4 billion -
less than half of what the state requested.

??Gov. Gray Davis plans to appeal the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
decision Monday, state officials said Sunday afternoon. Refunds could help
prevent the state from raising electric rates to cover its power buying costs,
which are now beyond $8 billion.

??"We found a number of disturbing things that lead us to believe FERC may not
be so pro-refund as they want Californians to believe," said Nancy McFadden,
an
adviser to Davis.

??For months, Davis and other state officials have asked the FERC to find
electricity prices charged since May 2000 to be unjust and unreasonable -
prices
which climbed 10 times higher than past years.

??The state stands to lose a portion of the billions it has spent buying
electricity for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers and two other
financially
ailing utilities. Power companies maintain they did not work together to drive
up power prices to unreasonable levels.

??The FERC's 40-page decision confirms the commission will only order refunds
for power bought since October 2000, rather than May 2000. That means $2
billion
less than the state, utilities and others could hope to receive, McFadden
said.

??In addition, the FERC also said it will not issue refunds for power the
state
Department of Water Resources bought directly from power companies. FERC only
will recognize purchases through the state's now-defunct power market or from
the manager of the state's power grid.

??That stripped another $3 billion off the potential refund amount, reducing
the refund by a total of $5 billion.

??The DWR bought most of its megawatts directly from power companies after a
FERC ruling in December abolished the Power Exchange, the state's key entity
that bought and sold power. The Independent System Operator, keeper of the
state's grid, then began adding a surcharge on big purchases, McFadden said.

??All told, the most the state could expect to get back would be roughly $3.9
billion, said Barry Goode, a legal secretary to Davis. And despite the
overcharges, some of that money has to pay power companies for past power
deliveries at a price FERC determines is just and reasonable.

??State officials had hoped to receive up to $9 billion in refunds.

??A call to FERC for comment was not immediately returned Sunday afternoon.

??The FERC has ordered an evidentiary hearing, to be completed within 60 days,
to determine the size of the refund from providers of wholesale power.

??---

??On the Net:

??http://www.ferc.gov

??http://www.water.ca.gov

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????12 of 77 DOCUMENTS

????????????????Copyright 2001 Burrelle's Information Services

?????????????????????????????CBS News Transcripts

??????????????????SHOW: CBS Evening News (6:00 PM ET) - CBS

?????????????????????????????July 29, 2001 Sunday

TYPE: Newscast

LENGTH: 582 words

HEADLINE: California's energy crisis fizzles

ANCHORS: SCOTT PELLEY

BODY:

??SCOTT PELLEY, anchor:

??This was supposed to be the summer of California's discontent, dog days
without power, because of the state's infamous shortage of electricity. But
something completely unexpected is happening. ?The California energy crisis
has
fizzled. ?The power is back on. How it happened is the subject of our Weekend
Journal.

??Unidentified Man: His plan includes 105 recommendations to help the energy
crisis, and California heard 38 of them before the power went out.

??PELLEY: Just a few months ago, the rest of the country was laughing about
the
power woes of California, the nation's largest state and the fifth-largest
economy in the world.

??Governor GRAY DAVIS (Democrat, California): There's no question that a lot
of
people thought we had very little chance to get through the summer without
massive blackouts. ?I don't want to jinx ourselves; we still have some hot
days
ahead. But so far, so good.

??PELLEY: Better than good. ?California had only six days of rolling blackouts
this year, and since summer began, no blackouts at all, despite predictions
that
hot weather would bring disaster.

??So what happened?

??Mr. RICHARD LAUCKHART (Henwood Energy Services): Fear got people to react.

??PELLEY: In January, Richard Lauckhart, a consultant with Henwood Energy
Services, was forecasting 300 hours of blackouts this summer, but now...

??Mr. LAUCKHART: We see the crisis is pretty much behind us.

??PELLEY: Henwood found the lights stayed on for three key reasons. ?The
drought in the Northwest, which had depleted reservoirs and sapped
hydroelectric
power in the West, ended. ?New power plants came online faster than
anticipated,
and Californians started seriously conserving energy.

??(Excerpt from commercial)

??PELLEY: Residents went from cutting their electricity use by just over 5
percent in January to 14 percent during peak hours in June, an energy saving
of
2.5 million megawatts. ?But keeping the lights on has proved costly.

??Mr. PETER NAVARRO (Economist): This is an economic crisis. ?It's not an
electricity crisis. ?It's not a blackout crisis.

??PELLEY: Economist Peter Navarro has tracked the effects of energy
deregulation since it became law. ?He says while California escaped a
disastrous
summer, it was forced to buy power from out-of-state producers at inflated
prices. ?It will be saddled with debt for at least a decade.

??Mr. NAVARRO: What we've had is power costs going up by 10 times. ?The amount
of money is staggering; $50 billion, minimum, have been taken from this state
through higher energy costs.

??PELLEY: Critics say part of that state debt comes from Governor Gray Davis'
decision to enter California into long-term contracts with power producers.
Davis says it was necessary to protect California from future price gouging
and
blackouts.

??Gov. DAVIS: The long-term contracts have shrunk the amount we have to buy
every day and given us a sense of reliability. ?I would ask people to think of
them in terms of an insurance policy.

??PELLEY: And Governor Davis, sometimes considered a possible presidential
candidate, got a huge political hangover.

??Gov. DAVIS: And what are the lessons for other states? ?Don't even consider
deregulating unless you have more power than you need. ?We didn't, and it's
been
a nightmare.

??PELLEY: Now the state of California is fighting to get $8.9 billion in
alleged overcharges back from the power producers.

??We'll be back in just a moment.

??(Announcements)

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????13 of 77 DOCUMENTS

??????????????Copyright 2001 Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
???????????????????????Copyright 2001 Contra Costa Times

??????????????????????????????Contra Costa Times

????????????????????????????July 29, 2001, Sunday

KR-ACC-NO: CC-BIZ-LISTING

LENGTH: 1631 words

HEADLINE: Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif., Business Listing Column

BODY:

??THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS or corporations filed fictitious-business-name
statements in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Times makes every effort
to
ensure accuracy but cannot be held responsible if there are errors or
omissions
in this list. The Times gathers information from fictitious business name
filings with the counties; not all listings are new businesses. These listings
are a public service and do not satisfy requirements that business owners
advertise legal notices of their business names. To satisfy this requirement,
owners should call the Times classified advertising department.

??Nina Maria Peles, Nina Peles Inc. (a California corporation), Nina Peles,
132
Regent Place.

??Paragon Real Estate and Paragon Mortgage, Timothy Powers, 1451 Danville
Blvd.
#107.

??Visiting Angels, Living Assistance Services, J&M Homecare Services LLC (a
California limited liability company), Frank Miller, 3239 Danville Blvd. #E.

??Thousand Oaks Financial, Ellice Kaminsky, 1225 Solano Ave.

??A&M Landscape Lighting, Michael Worden, 5037 Carbondale Way.

??Beckert Electric, David Beckert, 2105 Silverado Drive.

??Broken Aero Delivery, Tabatha Pimentel, 1008 Mission Drive.

??BT Auto, Marvin Young, 4951 Star Mine Court.

??His Voice Missionary Intercession Ministry, His Voice Missionary
Intercession
Ministries (a California religious corporation), Dorothy Archuleta, 2943 El
Monte Way.

??Jiara's Evening Care, Angela Johnson, P.O. Box 2141, 1901 Mahogany Way #112.

??Perfect Pour, Toreano Norris, 5220 Fairside Way.

??Terilyn Records, Lacey Chaines, 5065 Longhorn Way.

??Vital Solutions, Edwin Jackson, 4525 Shannondale Drive.

??E&G Hauling & Recycling, Eddie Williams, 1908 Calaveras Drive.

??Westcoast Aquaculture, Mary Nicolini, 1540 Taylor Road, P.O. Box 1677.

??Barbary Coast Upholstery Repair, Bill Andrade, 6330 Brentwood Blvd.

??Bella Donna Diamonds, Donna Booher, P.O. Box 1119, 993 Country Glen Lane.

??Circle 'R' Food Mart, Pervaz Raja, 8401 Lone Tree Way.

??Ferguson's Gift Gallery, Briant Ferguson, 1130 Amanda Circle.

??Integrated Business Solutions, IE:, Sandra Davis, 746 Valley Green Drive.

??Ms. Gina's Learn & Play Child Care, Gina Cadrette, 236 Amberleaf Way.

??Oakview Shutters and Blinds, Joseph Quintero, 1236 Comice Parkway, P.O. Box
1915.

??Phlebotomy West, Sheila Clover, 4605 Ford St.

??Racing Xcitement, Gary Brummer, 686 Crossridge Court.

??Proforma Corporate Source, James Heninger, 2022 Montauk Court.

??At Your Door Mobile Dog Grooming, Vivien Pace, 2943 Ponderosa Drive.

??Concord Pet Hospital and Concord Veterinary Hospital, Lawrence Rothe, 3554
Concord Blvd.

??Courtney's Deli, Amelia Fung, 2190-D Meridian Park Blvd.

??Diablo Appraisal and Estate Sales, Hospice of Contra Costa Foundation. (a
California corporation), 5350 Clayton Road.

??E B Sources, Frank Engelsbel, 3726 Salsbury Lane.

??Editing Consultants, Shannon Ayres, 1114 Crest Ridge Lane.

??Elite, Troy Ruth, 1151 Crowe Place.

??GameWonder, Sophia Field, 3119 Lonee Court.

??Me & Mom's Dog's, Dena Jones, 4057 Lucas Lane.

??MHC Properties, The Querio Trust, Michael Querio, 1420 Royal Industrial Way.

??Red Velocity, Micha Coen, 1423 Bel Air Drive #A.

??Shooting Sports, James Stone, 4701-B Sunny Place.

??Technology Resource Partners-Beefyboyz.com, Jim Eccles, 2010 Smith Lane.

??The Karma Kanic, Jorge Rico, 2655 Monument Blvd.

??WWW.Beefyboyz.com, James Eccles, 2010 Smith Lane.

??Vintage Silhouettes, Janene Fawcett, 1301 Pomona St.

??Custom Moments, Karen Henrich, 126 Entrada Mesa Road.

??Escrow Experts and Escrow Xperts, Susan Cooper-Tobia, 344 Paraiso Drive.

??KLM Marketing Group, Kirk McKee, 23 Copperfield Lane.

??Penguin Cleaners, Songchi Kim, 413 Railroad Ave.

??Steward Consulting, John Steward, 89 St. Beatrice Court.

??Tucker Investments, Terry McCully, 1077 San Ramon Valley Blvd.

??Visions of Elegance, Joseph Morte, 301 Hartz Ave.

??Winecentives, Michael Svdia, 416 Antelope Ridge.

??Disco Software, Susan Gieseke, 1555 Riverlake Road #D-159.

??Insight Construction; Inside Out Construction; Insight Interior Design and
Insight Home Systems, Noel Dagle, 1415 Discovery Bay Blvd.

??USAir Conditioning/Heating Co., Richard Stevenson, 5410 Fairway Court.

??Deals On Wheels Automotive, Shishie Lathi, 7000 Village Parkway #3.

??M&S Roofing, Kathryn Avery, 6542-F Cotton Wood Circle.

??Platinum Productions, Matthew Marks, 4346 Westport Way.

??Political International, Justin O'Donnell, 7172 Regional St.

??City Express Taxi; Airport Yellow Shuttle and Yellow Cab Airport Local,
Sarbjit Singh, 1726 Lexington Ave. #5.

??Fortune Building Material Brokerage, Tsui Tung Mui, 11228 San Pablo Ave.

??PLP Productions and Multi Media; Platinum Plak Productions and PLP Beats
Music Publishing Co., Preston Pinkney, 10545 San Pablo Ave. #D.

??Silverback Media Group, Traci Donaldson, 5805 Alta Ponta.

??BioTechsources, Yanchu Fang, 2448 Diane Drive.

??E-Nvia.com LLC, E-Nvia.com (a California limited liability company), Jorge
Masferrer, 4365 Santa Rita Road.

??Gold Star Painting, Fred William III., 4355 Bermar Ave.

??Hercules Dynamite Baseball, Roni Itagaki, 187 Cardinal Way.

??McCray Services and Crane Practice Management, Lola McCrary, 401 Forest Run.

??Pure Life Fitness and Consulting, Mark Smith, 6 Whitten Lane.

??Seedmusic, Christopher McCooey, 951 East St. #102.

??D&K Administrative Solutions, Karen Miller, 1642 Linden St.

??Fulcrum, Howard Hastings, 4435 First St. #352.

??Green Valley Landscape Maintenance, Samuel Fernandez, 1751 4th St.

??MG Designs, Eduardo Posada, 990 Madrone Way.

??Oriental Rugs Import, Faisal Khan, 1017 Aberdeen Ave.

??Tri Valley Circulars, Mary Meza, 3989 1st St. #C.

??Van Gecko, Santos Rodriguez, 388 Martin Ave.

??White Crane Winery, Gary Ventiling, 4590 Tesla Road.

??A Touch of Nature, Judith Esslinger, 912 Court St.

??Briana's Contract Processing, Brian Lozano, 146 Fig Tree Lane #4C.

??Educonsult, Jeannette Dothee, 110 Escobar St.

??Ferro's Woodworking, Steven Ferro, 454 Holiday Hills Drive.

??Living Health Center, Ellen Potthoff, 6528 Parkdale Plaza.

??Party Zone, Ali Ismalzada, 526 Center Ave.

??Visionary Solutions, Johnathan Kaufman, 2110 Lost Lake Place.

??Home Connections, Jude Pierotti, 1720 Walnut Meadows Drive.

??MechTech Precision, Bryan Morgan, 13 Hiromi Lane.

??Silver River Restaurant, Michael Miu, 3100 Main St. #276.

??Aspen Mortgage, Jon Bloodworth, 502 Miner Road.

??Fastdraw Design & Construction Graphics, Nielsen Architects Inc. (a
California corporation), Timerie Gordon, 362 Village Square.

??May Sales, Gregory Fernbacher, 13 Ramona Drive.

??Tri City Home Companion Services, Rosemary Winn, 1439 Hutchinson Court.

??Golden Bailey Co. and Dollar Joes, Myung Kim, 628 Bailey Road.

??R&B Home Gallery, Rhonda Moore, 1200 Alamo Way.

??R.E.O. Networking, Ricardo Ochoa, 1320 Columbia St.

??Residential Housekeeping, Maria Mendoza, 77 West Leland Road.

??Richardson Computer Research, Chris Richardson, 319 Heron Drive.

??The Perfect Gift, Alejandro Fernandez, 2 Marina Blvd. #9A4.

??Clean Impressions Domestic Referral Agency, Traci Behrens, 248 Douglas Lane.

??Flour Power and You Take The Cake, Denise Vickers, 172 Beverly Drive.

??InnerLife Seminars and InnerLife Resources, Melissa Casas, 131 Chilpancingo
Parkway #260.

??Rose's Airport & Limo Service, Norbert Sticht, 112 Poshard St.

??D&D Cleaners, Jae Choi, 3059 Hopyard Road #H.

??Dive Up Sports, Richard Palmon, 2341 Foothill Road #4.

??Kenney Partners LLC, Sean Kenney, 4205 Mairmont Drive.

??M&J Marketing, Jody Samuels, 4847 Hopyard Road #4.

??Ohm Electric Co., Robert Ohm, 3164 Paseo Robles.

??Senior Advantage, Frank Guarascio, 4847 Hopyard Road #4176.

??Tri Technology Sales, Tom Triantos, 7899 Medinah Court.

??Bark Stix, Kathleen Gebhart, 145 Eddy St.

??Advanced Financial Solutions-AFS, Walter Coleman, 448 South 24th St.

??Epperly Masonry Restoration, Peter Epperly, P.O. Box 70004, 117 West
Richmond
Ave.

??Golden Gate Motorsports, Mikial Nijjar, 5200 Huntington Ave. #340.

??Ichiban Center, Roselle Kan, 3288 Pierce St. #C131.

??Majestic Skating Rink & Recreation Center and Majestic Tower, Kimberly
Lewis,
4935 San Pablo Dam Road #205.

??Paradise Jeweler, Oh Kwon, 1215 Hilltop Mall Road.

??Pool Medic, Steven Navarro, 869 Lassen St.

??Superior Import, S&J Superior Imports Inc. (a California corporation), Jack
Dong, 12900 San Pablo Ave.

??Suzhou, Xiao Zhou, 199 Park Place.

??Pacific Star Massage, Hung Tran, 207 Pacific Ave.

??Carniceria Trujillo, Rafael Truillo, 1474 Broadway Ave.

??L'image Salon & Spa, Amad Dias, 14430 San Pablo Ave.

??EFS Water Treatment Services, Enron Building Services Inc. (a Pennsylvania
corporation), Joseph Hrabik, 12647 Alcosta Blvd. #500.

??Mermaid Aquarium, Anne Tran, 46513 Mission Blvd.

??Tina's Transcription Services, Christine Pastran, 265 Reflections Drive #16.

??Ado, Jennifer Schneider, 1241 Dewing Lane.

??Christopherson & Associates, Dean Christopherson, 1111 Civic Drive #380.

??Clinque Venicia, Kathleen Conner, 1406 Mari Lane.

??Georgie's Creek Consulting, Shirley Bergren, 305 Downham Court.

??Golden Bear Building Maintenance, Robert Butler, P.O. Box 3931.

??JK's Interior Accents, Janet Mayfield, 588 Timberleaf Court.

??Jump Start Partners, Dorothea Grigsby, 121 Arlene Drive.

??Modern Technology Institute, Norman Hewlett, 712 Bancroft St. #200.

??Mosaic Blue, Mosaic Blue Inc. (a California corporation), Christopher Nagle,
125 Near Court #504.

??Natalie Rose Gift Baskets, Carol Gilson, 1172 Lindell Drive.

??New Fashion Cleaners, Mi Kyung Son, 581 Ygnacio Valley Road.

??Pack Rat Treasures, Lindsay Wildlife Museum. (a California corporation),
Marc
Kaplan, 1531 Palos Verdes Mall.

??Tice Valley Optical, Richard Powell, 1988 Tice Valley Blvd.

??-----

??To see more of the Contra Costa Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go
to http://www.hotcoco.com/

JOURNAL-CODE: CC

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????17 of 77 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????????Copyright 2001 / Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????????????Los Angeles Times

??????????????????????July 29, 2001 Sunday ?Home Edition

SECTION: Part A; Part 1; Page 1; Metro Desk

LENGTH: 3106 words

HEADLINE: Energy Landscape Is Forever Altered;
Electricity: Deregulation and the state's emergence as a buyer have changed
how
Californians get power.

BYLINE: NANCY VOGEL, TIMES STAFF WRITER

DATELINE: SACRAMENTO

BODY:

??California's immediate electricity crisis seems to have passed. But like a
hurricane that resculpts a tropical island, the crisis has radically altered
how
27 million Californians get their electricity and what they pay for it.

??Not all the state's energy problems have disappeared; a siege of very hot
weather, for example, could still bring shortages. But the degree of change in
the short-term energy picture since the blackout days of early spring is hard
to
overstate.

??A megawatt-hour that once cost hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars now
regularly sells for less than $80.

??There hasn't been a forced outage since May 8.

??Predictions that California would suffer 260 hours of blackouts this summer
now seem ludicrous.

??The state government, which was spending an average of $65 million a day to
buy power in May, now pays an average of less than $30 million a day. Basking
in
unexpectedly cool summer weather, the government has so much power on hand
that
on some days it has had to sell surplus electricity at a loss.

??That sudden shift, from crisis to calm, obscures an equally dramatic change
in California's long-term approach to how electricity gets bought and sold.

??Just three years ago, the state had embarked on a broad deregulation scheme
designed to put most decisions about electricity into the private marketplace.

??Now, the state government itself has become the biggest buyer of power in
the
West.

??The state's two largest utilities, already stripped by deregulation of much
of their ability to generate electricity, are, at least temporarily, also out
of
the power-buying business. Financially wounded, maybe crippled, their role has
been sharply curtailed, perhaps for years.

??Utility rates paid by millions of customers have been raised, and the
state's
utility watchdog, which used to control rates, is poised to yield much of its
authority to an unlikely agency: the Department of Water Resources, whose
principal job until January was running reservoirs and canals.

??And consumers seem almost certain to be saddled with billions of dollars in
debt and contracts to buy power that practically guarantee high electricity
rates for years to come.

??The two sets of changes, the short-term and the long, are interconnected.
Both stem from the state's dramatic entry into the market seven months ago.

??On Jan. 17, blackouts darkened much of the state. Power plant owners refused
to sell electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison,
the state's two biggest utilities, which had been nearly drained of cash by
eight months of soaring wholesale power prices while being prevented by the
state from raising rates for consumers.

??Four private energy companies were warning that they would take the two
utilities into Bankruptcy Court the next day if the state did not begin to
pick
up the bill for electricity.

??Faced with the options of rationing power, shocking California's economy
with
a tripling of electricity rates or opening the state's checkbook, a grim-faced
Gov. Gray Davis signed an emergency decree to allow the Department of Water
Resources to use its budget to buy electricity that would then be sold to
consumers.

??That act, later broadened and formalized by the Legislature, opened the door
for taxpayer money--$8 billion and counting--to be used to buy electricity.

??"It's our obligation to provide power to the homes and businesses that drive
California," Davis said at the time. "I'm disappointed the utilities can't do
it. We have no choice but to step in, and we will do it."

??The involvement of the state in buying power changed the political
calculations involved in setting electricity rates. For months, the private
utilities had complained that California's rates, which were frozen as part of
the state's deregulation law, were lower than the cost of buying power. But
raising rates to help the utilities was politically unpalatable; the Public
Utilities Commission in January gave them just a fraction of what they sought
by
raising rates for PG&E and Edison residential customers by 9%.

??After the state began buying power, though, it was California's treasury
that
was at risk. Pressure built quickly for more rate hikes. In March, the PUC
approved the largest increase in its history, boosting the rates of some
customers by more than 40%.

??Those increases showed up in bills last month. The higher costs and
conservation efforts have reduced demand. Cooler-than-expected weather lowered
demand even more. Californians used 12% less electricity last month than in
June
2000, after adjusting for weather and economic growth, according to the
California Energy Commission.

??Seven months after the state began buying power, January's sense of urgency
has dissipated. Buyer's remorse is setting in. Grumbling grows louder about
how
deeply the state has inserted itself into the electricity business.

??It was a "huge mistake" to let the Department of Water Resources become the
buyer of most of the electricity used by California, said Bill Booth, an
attorney for the California Large Energy Consumers Assn., a group of heavy
industry manufacturers that pushed hard for deregulation in the early 1990s.

??"I would hope that the state as an entity chooses to get out of that role
sooner rather than later," Booth said. "The state has shown zero capability of
doing that well," he said, voicing a criticism also made by Republican
lawmakers.

??Davis and his advisors argue that they had little choice but to jump in and
buy power on behalf of the utilities. And they insist that their intervention
has stabilized the market.

??Long-Term Contracts Called 'Insurance'

??After the state government began buying electricity, officials moved quickly
to get the state out of the exorbitant spot market by locking up $43-billion
worth of long-term power contracts, some lasting more than a decade. Lawmakers
and consumer advocates are growing increasingly critical of those contracts,
some of which are now more expensive than the falling prices in the spot
market.

??But Davis administration officials insist that spot market prices are
falling
only because the state is now buying 40% of its power under contract, rather
than bidding up prices by seeking all of its electricity in the market.

??"Insurance is insurance, and it costs a little bit, but it's a damned good
thing to have," said S. David Freeman, the governor's top energy advisor and
the
former general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

??"The people in this ballgame that will criticize long-term contracts will
criticize anything with stability in it because God forbid that it may turn
out
to cost a tiny bit more than what the spot market is in the future," Freeman
added. "That kind of thinking leads you to be in the spot market."

??The shift out of the spot market is not the only factor that has stabilized
the situation, however, and some accuse the governor of taking undue credit.

??The change is "clearly explained by the fundamentals of supply, which has
increased, and demand, which has decreased because people are conserving,"
said
Gary Ackerman, executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, a group
of
electricity sellers.

??The price of natural gas, the fuel used to run most of California's power
plants, has fallen by half since early January. There is widespread
disagreement
about why--mirroring the argument over why gas prices spiked in the first
place.

??When prices rose, electricity companies accused gas pipeline companies of
gouging. The gas firms said power generators bid up the price knowing they
could
recoup the cost by selling expensive megawatts.

??Another factor in lowering wholesale electricity prices is that the state's
overall power supplies are more abundant because many power plants that were
shut down this spring are running again.

??At times last winter, more than 10,000 megawatts of capacity were offline.
Recent plant shutdowns have totaled closer to 4,000 megawatts. Three new power
plants have opened this summer, adding 1,415 megawatts to the state's
capacity.

??Statewide demand for electricity has been peaking at a little more than
30,000 megawatts in recent days.

??Again, the reasons for the additional supply are disputed. Generating
companies say their plants were shut down earlier this year for repairs and
maintenance.

??State officials and consumer advocates have alleged that some of the plants
were taken offline to manipulate prices. Today, with less power being bought
on
the spot market, there are fewer incentives for such manipulation.

??A federal wholesale electricity price cap that took effect in June also has
also dampened prices, experts say.

??The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission imposed the cap, now at $92 per
megawatt-hour, after resisting the pleas of California politicians for nearly
a
year.

??"They just did a complete 180," said Severin Borenstein, director of the
University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley, "and if they had done
it
earlier, we would have saved a lot of money."

??The agency that manages most of the state's transmission grid has found that
bids by power sellers dropped after June 21, when the price limit took effect.
But assessing how much of the change resulted from the cap and how much from
other factors "is difficult," said Anjali Sheffrin, director of market
analysis
at the California Independent System Operator.

??The changes in the market--and the debate between the administration and its
critics--involve who pays for risk.

??Little Incentive for Firms to Trim Costs

??Before deregulation in 1998, California's electricity industry was designed
above all to avoid the risk of shortages. Utilities built a cushion of supply,
and regulators guaranteed that they could pass on the cost to their customers.

??Critics said that such regulation left the utilities with little incentive
to
trim costs, meaning that ratepayers paid higher bills.

??Deregulation was supposed to shift the risk of owning power generation to
private companies and those who bought their stock. Proponents said consumers
would benefit as private firms risked their own money to build power plants
and
competed with one another to sell electricity.

??But in practice, competition in California brought price spikes and supply
shortages.

??"The reason why economists have preached that competition is better than
regulation," said Ken Rose, executive director of the National Regulatory
Research Institute at Ohio State University in Columbus, "is that the investor
putting his own dollars on the line will be more careful with those dollars.
The
downside of that is if there's any ability of the suppliers to control prices,
then they'll exploit that advantage, which is what you'd expect them to do.

??"You can't make risk go away," he said.

??Now Californians face a different risk: that a new, largely untested
96-person, $2-million-per-month bureaucracy designed to buy power could run
amok.

??There's no easy way to disband the power-buying operation until the
utilities
get back on their feet financially. That could take years. In April, PG&E
filed
for bankruptcy to fend off creditors. Edison's finances have started to
improve
somewhat, but the company is still seeking help from the Legislature, where no
rescue plan seems to be gaining momentum.

??In the meantime, the Department of Water Resources has little oversight as
it
goes about its newly assigned job of buying electricity.

??The Public Utilities Commission for 80 years has dictated the rates
utilities
could charge. But under new rules proposed earlier this month, the PUC will
essentially become a rubber stamp, adjusting rates for customers of PG&E,
Edison
and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. to match whatever amount of money the
Department of Water Resources says is needed.

??Even PUC officials say such a drastic loss of control is necessary to allow
the state to sell $13.4 billion in bonds. Those bonds are designed to repay
the
state's taxpayers for past power costs. They will be backed by the money that
customers pay PG&E, Edison and SDG&E each month.

??That is just one of the ways in which the drastic actions taken to prevent
an
energy meltdown have hemmed in policymakers trying to envision the future
shape
of the state's electricity industry.

??"There is certainly a lot less room for designing the future than many
people
would like," said state Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey).

??For example, competition--the dream of deregulators--appears dead for at
least several years.

??That's because of the need to pay for the long-term contracts and reimburse
the state's general fund for the billions already spent.

??The owners of steel mills, cement plants and grocery stores blanch at the
cost of the contracts. They are chafing to break from the utilities and cut
their own deals for electricity with private companies such as Enron Corp.
Such
one-on-one deals were banned by the Legislature when it put the state into the
power-buying business.

??"Ultimately, we think our own companies buying power for themselves is the
best solution," said Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers
and
Technology Assn.

??But that move would again shift the risks inherent in the electricity
business. Allowing big firms to walk away from the utilities would mean that
someone else--renters, homeowners and small business owners--would have to
bear
the cost of maintaining a cushion of extra supply for the state. Many
lawmakers
are reluctant to allow that.

??"Any kind of meaningful competition in California has been postponed until
2004, 2005, at which time some of the long-term contracts start ending," said
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in
San Diego.

??Ultimately, Davis said in an interview, "the long-term solution to this
problem depends on having more power than we need."

??Generators base their prices "on how much power they know you do or do not
have," Davis said. To protect consumers from being gouged, he said, the
state's
goal should be to always have at least 15% more power than it needs.

??Private companies will never take on the risk of building the last few power
plants necessary to ensure a surplus, said Davis, so the state must.

??To that end, Davis backed a law that takes effect next month creating a
Public Power Authority. The agency will be able to sell $5 billion in revenue
bonds to build, buy and own power plants and to finance energy efficiency and
conservation programs.

??Ironically, the governor said, this new agency, as the "builder of last
resort," could clear the way for the competition that the state's
deregulation
plan so miserably failed to achieve.

??"We've never really had a chance to test deregulation in an ideal world,
because we've never had more power than we need," the governor said. "My
overriding goal is to keep the lights on and provide Californians with the
power
they need. . . . A byproduct of our efforts will be to put the state in a
position where deregulation works."

??In the hybrid system Davis envisages, the state government will act like a
giant public power agency and control nearly as much electricity as private
companies. That role for California government would have been inconceivable
just two years ago, said Ohio State University's Rose, who tracks the way each
state regulates the electricity industry.

??"I don't know of any other state headed toward that," he said. "But no other
state has had the crisis of California."

??*

??MORE INSIDE

??PG&E Bankruptcy: Legal and other fees in the case could amount to $470
million, one expert says. C1

GRAPHIC: PHOTO: It rained on Pacific Gas & Electric's corporate headquarters
in
San Francisco the day in April that the firm filed for bankruptcy protection
because of mounting debts in California's energy crisis. PHOTOGRAPHER: ROBERT
DURELL / Los Angeles Times PHOTO: State Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) is
upbeat with Gov. Gray Davis in January as they announce the results of an
energy
auction on the Internet to keep electricity rates stable. PHOTOGRAPHER: ROBERT
DURELL / Los Angeles Times

LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2001

??????????????????????????????19 of 77 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????Copyright 2001 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.

????????????????????????????????Sacramento Bee

??????????????????July 29, 2001, Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

SECTION: MAIN NEWS; Pg. A3; CAPITOL & CALIFORNIA

LENGTH: 1205 words

HEADLINE: She's the governor's right-hand man Tough, loyal, workaholic, Lynn
Schenk advises him on every major decision.

BYLINE: Emily Bazar Bee Capitol Bureau

BODY:

??Despite her high-profile role as Gov. Gray Davis' top adviser, Lynn Schenk
keeps a decidedly low profile.

??She shuns public attention and refuses to speak to reporters. But Schenk can
often be seen whispering counsel into the governor's ear.

??The attorney and former congresswoman has become a powerful force in the
Democratic governor's administration, winning the trust of a leader who trusts
precious few.

??On every major policy decision, whether it involves health care or law
enforcement, Davis elicits his chief of staff's opinion. When high-stakes
phone
calls need to be made, he entrusts her with the task. During last-minute
negotiations, Davis sends Schenk to represent him at the table.

??"There are no limits on what he expects her to do and what he asks her to
do," said Garry South, Davis' chief political adviser. "She is his eyes and
ears
and the funnel for him of things he needs to know, danger signs he needs to be
aware of, problem areas that appear to be building somewhere."

??Described as demanding, meticulous, hard-working and fiercely loyal, Schenk
mirrors many of Davis' traits. Both are considered moderate Democrats. Both
are
notoriously hard to work for and have a tendency to micromanage.

??Davis' political relationship with Schenk has evolved over 20 years, since
they served together in former Gov. Jerry Brown's administration. Davis was
Brown's chief of staff, the position he has awarded Schenk, and Schenk was
first
deputy secretary, then secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency.
??Though the two took divergent paths - she entered the business world and
served one term in Congress while he began his incremental ascent to the
governorship - they remained friends and political allies.

??After he was elected governor in 1998, Davis asked Schenk to assume the
toughest job in his administration. With her appointment to the
$131,400-a-year
post, Schenk, 56, became the highest-ranking woman in the history of the
state's
gubernatorial administrations.

??Their similarities have led numerous colleagues and friends to call Schenk
Davis' "alter ego," a designation with which the governor would probably
agree.

??"I don't think there's anyone in my administration whose philosophical
perspective is closer to mine than hers," Davis said of Schenk recently.

??As one of the few people Davis trusts, Schenk has moved beyond the duties of
a traditional chief of staff.

??Howard Dickstein, a prominent tribal attorney, described Schenk as focused
and tireless during the 1999 talks to negotiate compacts that regulate
gambling
on Indian lands. She sometimes scheduled meetings at midnight.

??Schenk also was heavily involved in talks last year over a bill by state
Sen.
Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, that would have required police officers to
record
the race and ethnicity of the people they stop in an effort to collect data on
racial profiling.

??Though he wasn't completely satisfied with the watered-down bill, Murray
said
Schenk was responsive to his concerns and, above all, loyal to the governor.

??"You know when you're talking to her, you're not getting her opinion," he
said. "You're getting the governor's opinion."

??Behind the scenes, however, Schenk's influence on policy is palpable,
particularly when she feels strongly about an issue.

??According to Grantland Johnson, secretary of the Health and Human Services
Agency, Schenk was the driving force behind the governor's "Aging with
Dignity"
initiative, which aimed to expand in-home and community-based care for the
elderly.

??"She's very passionate," he said. "When she latches onto an issue, she's
like
a pit bull."

??The child of Hungarian immigrants, Schenk - who speaks fluent Hungarian -
came from relatively humble beginnings. Her father, who survived a Nazi
concentration camp, was a tailor, and her mother a manicurist. Schenk paid for
her studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, by working as a
telephone operator.

??A University of San Diego law school graduate, Schenk was soon working for
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. as an attorney in the early 1970s. The
investor-owned utility currently is embroiled in the state's energy crisis,
which has dominated the administration's attention, and therefore her
attention,
for the entire year.

??Schenk became a player in San Diego's tight-knit business and political
circles, and also emerged as an outspoken advocate for women's rights. She
served as a director of a bank that catered to women, and also joined a group
of
women in the early 1970s that helped break the "men only" lunchtime rule at a
respected San Diego restaurant.

??After her stint in the Brown administration, she was elected a San Diego
port
commissioner and in 1992 to the U.S. House of Representatives. She was
defeated
two years later by Republican Brian Bilbray.

??She ran an unsuccessful campaign for state attorney general in 1998 and
served as an attorney for the international law firm Baker & McKenzie in San
Diego.

??When she became the governor's chief of staff, Schenk established herself as
a sharp thinker and a demanding workaholic.

??She has managed to stay focused despite personal upheaval, including her
father's death last year and her husband's recent struggle with cancer.

??Her work ethic is renowned. "One night in 1993 or 1994, she was reading the
federal budget with a cold can of soup," said her former congressional chief
of
staff, Laurie Black.

??Schenk isn't only tough on herself; she's tough on her employees.

??Known as an extraordinarily tough boss, Schenk has a low tolerance for error
- a trait she shares with the governor - and burns through assistants quickly.

??A former Schenk staffer said Schenk isn't mean-spirited, but expects
employees to anticipate her needs and live up to her expectations.

??"She was a perfectionist herself and she demanded perfection from
everybody,"
the staffer said. "It was very hard for people to adjust to that."

??Many of her colleagues and friends expect Schenk to remain chief of staff at
least through next year's gubernatorial election.

??After that, it's anyone's guess. Schenk, in characteristic style, refused to
be interviewed by The Bee for this story. Davis' spokesman, Steve Maviglio,
declined to authorize interviews with other members of the administration.

??"She really has a lot of the behavior of a good attorney," said former
Senate
President Pro Tem James Mills. "She isn't going to divulge anything that isn't
advantageous to divulge."

??* * *

??Lynn Schenk

??Position: Chief of staff to Gov. Gray Davis.

??Born: Jan. 5, 1945, in New York City.

??Personal: Lives in La Jolla. Married to law professor Hugh Friedman.

??Education: Bachelor's degree from University of California, Los Angeles; law
degree from University of San Diego; studied at the London School of
Economics.

??Experience: Attorney; Democratic candidate for state attorney general in
1998; member of Congress, 1993-95; San Diego port commissioner 1990-92;
secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
1980-83; White House fellow 1976-77; deputy state attorney general 1971-72.

??Sources: Governor's office, Bee research

??* * *

??The Bee's Emily Bazar can be reached at (916) 326-5540 or ebazar@sacbee.com
.

GRAPHIC: Associated Press photograph / Charles Rex Arbogast Lynn Schenk, Gov.
Gray Davis' top adviser, can be seen in the foreground, arms raised,
applauding
a speech by her boss last year at the Democratic National Convention in Los
Angeles. The two moderate Democrats have been political allies since they
served
20 years ago in Gov. Jerry Brown's administration, when Davis held the
position
that Schenk now holds in the Davis administration.

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????20 of 77 DOCUMENTS

??????????????????Copyright 2001 McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.

????????????????????????????????Sacramento Bee

??????????????????July 29, 2001, Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

SECTION: FORUM; Pg. L5; OTHER VIEWS

LENGTH: 890 words

HEADLINE: Cocky operative needles Davis with secret funds

BYLINE: Daniel Weintraub

BODY:

??Scott Reed is one cocky guy.

??From his perch in Washington, D.C., throwing bombs into California's
political landscape, Reed is trying to rattle Gov. Gray Davis. He thinks he's
succeeding.

??Reed is the man behind the television commercials that have been running for
the past month, challenging the governor's take on the energy crisis and
trying
to get voters to blame Davis for the problem.

??"They're working," Reed says of his creations. "They wouldn't be squealing
like stuck pigs if they weren't."

??But it's not just the message in the ads that has Davis and his people
upset.
It's that Reed has found a way to air them while keeping secret the identity
of
the people putting up millions of dollars to buy the television time.

??Reed, a former executive director of the Republican National Committee and
campaign manager for Sen. Robert Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, is head of
something called the American Taxpayer Alliance - the official sponsor of the
anti-Davis ads. The alliance is a tax-exempt organization that was formed
years
ago but was dormant until just before the Davis ads hit the air.

??If the ads are considered educational, the group is not a political
committee
and need not reveal its donors. But if the commercials are found to be urging
the defeat of Davis when he runs for re-election next year, then Reed's group
would have to disclose its backers under California law. Trying to pry those
names loose, Davis has sued the alliance in San Francisco Superior Court.

??"These are political ads," says Garry South, the governor's top campaign
adviser. "They are clearly designed not to influence the course of the public
policy debate in California, but rather to inflict maximum damage on the
governor for partisan political purposes."

??South thinks the ads are being financed by the private electricity
generators
that Davis has made the top target of his rhetoric. If that's true, and it's
exposed to the public, it would not only undercut the message of the
commercials, but also could probably be used against the generators to further
diminish their standing in public opinion. Voters wouldn't be too happy to
learn
that the companies they think have been "gouging" them were using their
electricity profits to rip the governor in television spots.

??But this is more than just a shouting match among political operatives. It's
a constitutional question involving the right to free speech, and at what
point
the government can compel citizens to identify themselves or their political
associates.

??The United States has a long history of anonymous political speech, dating
back to the Revolution and the debate over the Constitution. Even today, some
people prefer to not be identified when they criticize the government. And to
some extent, they have that right.

??But as campaign disclosure laws evolved in the 20th century, the courts
allowed a certain amount of regulation of political communication on the
grounds
that some limits and disclosure were justified to prevent corruption.

??Under federal and state law, independent committees such as Reed's American
Taxpayer Alliance must disclose their donors only when they "expressly
advocate"
for or against a candidate in a particular election. Ads that comment on an
officeholder's performance but do not urge action are protected by the First
Amendment. Otherwise, we would be in the position of regulating the behavior
of
any person or group who wanted to criticize or applaud a government policy.

??Express advocacy is very narrowly defined. According to the state's
Political
Reform Act, it is communication that contains words such as "vote for,"
"elect,"
"vote against," "defeat" or "reject," or which, when taken as a whole,
"unambiguously urges a particular result in an election."

??Here's the text of one of the ads slamming Davis: "He's pointing fingers and
blaming others. Gray Davis says he's not responsible for California's energy
problems. After all, the Public Utilities Commission blocked long-term
cost-saving contracts for electricity. But who runs the PUC? The people Gray
Davis appointed - Loretta Lynch and other Davis appointees who left us
powerless. That's why newspapers say Davis ignored all the warning signals and
turned a problem into a crisis. Grayouts from Gray Davis."

??These ads are clearly designed to damage Davis in advance of next year's
re-election campaign. Even Reed admits that. "His numbers are in the tank,"
Reed
crows, referring to the latest polls.

??But the scripts cleverly avoid using any of the code words that would
automatically trigger disclosure. To be considered campaign ads, then, they
must
meet a federal court test of being "susceptible of no other reasonable
interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a specific
candidate."

??That will be a tough case for Davis to make. With the general election still
more than a year away, it's hard to argue that the text of these ads cannot be
read to be simply criticizing the governor rather than urging his defeat, even
if that is their ultimate goal.

??As much as curious voters would like to know who is really behind these
commercials, a close reading of the law suggests we may never get the names.
It's maddening, but true.

??* * *

??The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or at
dweintraub@sacbee.com.

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????21 of 77 DOCUMENTS

????????????????????Copyright 2001 Chicago Tribune Company

???????????????????????????????Chicago Tribune

???????????????July 29, 2001 Sunday, CHICAGOLAND FINAL EDITION

SECTION: Magazine; Pg. 12; ZONE: C

LENGTH: 4233 words

HEADLINE: CUTTING THE CORD;
HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS? TAKE NOTE: THESE CALIFORNIANS ALMOST HAVE THE UTILITIES
OWING THEM MONEY

BYLINE: By Karen Brandon. Karen Brandon is a Tribune staff reporter.

BODY:

??Nicole and Eric Jorgensen are missionaries in a land ripe with potential
converts.

??Just as an energy apocalypse seems at hand, this husband-and-wife team is
fervently preaching its gospel of conservation, and a growing number of
penitent
energy consumers are making a pilgrimage to the Jorgensens' unassuming tract
house in San Jose, Calif.

??The 1,150-square-foot home is, in fact, a kind of miracle in a state still
reeling from the fallout of deregulation and power-grid breakdown: utility
bills
that nearly dwarf mortgage payments and more blackouts that can hit
willy-nilly
as if this were a Third World country and not the birthplace of the
Information
Age.

??The couple's last utility bill was $11.95, including gas, and most of that
was for standard meter fees. Their electricity is mostly solar- and
wind-generated, and their electric meter actually spins backward. They are
virtually immune to blackouts. When a power outage hit the neighborhood one
day
while Nicole was heating up lunch in the microwave, their only clue was the
blank face of the digital clock on their electric stove, the lone device that
doesn't run on homemade power.

??The Jorgensens' conservation ethos stems from a mixture of outrage over
products they feel shouldn't use as much electricity as they do,
penny-pinching
habits developed while trying to accumulate a down payment in one of the
nation's highest-priced real estate markets, and a certain spirit of
gamesmanship that keeps them asking, "How low can we go?"

??Now they are trying to wean fellow Californians from their profligate energy
consumption one bulb, one outlet and one appliance at a time. Their services
are
so much in demand that Eric quit his day job as a Stanford University
physicist
to work full time as an energy consultant.

??The heart of their message is that conservation need not be a synonym for
sacrifice, nor even, as Vice President Dick Cheney famously remarked, "a sign
of
personal virtue."

??"What we advocate is that you can conserve in such a way that you won't even
know you're conserving," says Eric.

??That would be difficult for most Americans, who have come to view their
appliances as necessities and could not begin unplugging their daily lives
without some feeling of sacrifice. But the couple's methods and mind-set-and
less radical measures adopted by other Californians living at ground zero of
the
energy crisis for more than a year-can be instructive for Chicagoans who also
face steadily rising energy costs and who have experienced enough substation
fires and other sudden outages to doubt the reliability of Commonwealth
Edison's
power grid.

??Long accustomed to enduring one kind of crisis (drought, earthquakes, riots)
or another (brush fires, mudslides, the O.J. Simpson trial), Californians have
been slow to realize that their energy woes are not just another seasonal
nuisance. But official pleas for conservation, persistently high electric
bills
and the prospect of prolonged power outages apparently are beginning to sink
in.

??A recent Los Angeles Times poll found that energy is now considered the No.
1
problem in the state, dwarfing such traditional concerns as education and
crime.
And though the vast majority of Californians believe the electricity shortage
has been artificially created by power companies' manipulating the market to
boost profits, most residents told the pollsters that they are altering their
daily routines- switching off lights more often, using less air
conditioning-to
save electricity.

??The shift in attitude is beginning to show up in a variety of ways, and
electricity use was down by 12 percent-14 percent during peak times -from last
June to this June, according to the California Energy Commission.

??One barometer of the changing mood here is the bottom line at Real Goods, a
California company that includes energy-conserving gadgets and home solar
systems in its inventory. Business has quadrupled from a year ago and the
company has a backlog of 500 e-mail requests for solar equipment, said John
Schaeffer, the company's founder and chief executive officer.

??In San Diego County, Shea Homes has become the first major home builder in
the nation to build a suburb where solar power is a standard feature of the
new
houses. A recently opened subdivision of 300 homes, priced from the
mid-$500,000s, features solar water heating and rooftop electricity panels
that
can generate 1,500 kilowatt hours a year, about a quarter of what the average
home uses.

??Up the coast, the new Santa Rita County Jail has a third of its buildings
covered with nearly 5,000 solar panels, said to be the largest such rooftop
array in the Western Hemisphere. And in tony Carmel, former Mayor Clint
Eastwood
has solar power at his golf and country club.

??Elsewhere, businesses are installing battery-operated lights and skylights,
altering work shifts to reduce power use during peak periods, and running
computers on batteries during peak hours, according to the California Chamber
of
Commerce.

??In some areas, Californians are adopting the spirit of public cooperation
and
theatrical flair they brought to the most recent drought, when they installed
low-flow toilets and shower heads, put bricks in their toilet tanks and even
painted their unwatered grass green. Conservation tips in the current crisis
include sealing ice cubes in plastic containers so frost-free freezers don't
keep trying to defrost them and drying laundry on old-fashioned
clotheslines--though this runs afoul of some apartment regulations and often
bears the there-goes-the-neighborhood stigma attached to the sight of
underwear
drying outdoors.

??This being California, there are some less-conventional ideas floating
around: Installing pressure-sensitive escalators that run only when someone
stands on them; daytime-only baseball; no out-of-state guests.

??One San Francisco Chronicle online reader even offered this ultimate
sacrifice for the cause: "I drink espresso rather than lattes because it saves
the energy of having to steam the milk."

??Despite such inspired suggestions and the signs of changing attitudes toward
conserving power, many Californians are finding old habits hard to break. For
example, energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs get prime display space at
hardware stores, but so do hot tubs. A state official announces that
conservation has to become a way of life, and Disneyland decides to resurrect
its famed Main Street Electrical Parade this summer after a five-year absence.
The governor's mansion sets the thermostat at 78 degrees, while the state
Capitol is cold enough for sweaters.

??Though progress is slow, the Jorgensens believe their less-is-more message
is
finding an increasingly receptive audience. The key to their success is not so
much that they generate most of their own electricity, but that they use so
little-about one-quarter to one-fifth what an average household uses. They
manage to do this, they insist, without serious inconvenience.

??They do not swelter in the summer nor shiver in the winter. (OK. They don't
confront Chicago weather, either.) They do not stumble around dimly lighted
rooms. The soothing sound of falling water can be heard from a pump-equipped
fountain in their back yard.

??"There's this automatic [negative] reaction when you say 'conserve' to
anybody," Eric says. "They think about sitting in gas lines in the '70s for
hours. They think about getting fined if they watered their lawns during the
drought. They think about all kinds of horrible, unpleasant things, about
altering habits and having major inconvenience. [But] there are so many ideas
in
this house that are so unbelievably logical and painless," Eric says.

??"It can actually enhance your style of living," Nicole chimes in.

??Their most shameless energy conservation ploy is the chocolate chip cookie,
given to everyone who tours their home, that was baked in a solar oven on
their
patio. They bought that particular oven for about $250, but they have two
homemade models constructed out of cardboard boxes, aluminum foil, a turkey
roasting bag, old socks and shredded paper. Though one works better in lots of
sun and another works better on overcast days, they all work perfectly well,
the
couple says, for cooking chicken, pot roast, bread, apple pie and whatever
else
an oven is good for.

??The Jorgensens' conservation crusade was launched when they bought a gadget
called a Watts Up? meter to tell them exactly what an appliance uses. They
were
astonished at the money they were spending on power they didn't need or really
want to use. "To me, it's just annoying when you have something that uses
1,000
watts and you could do the job just as well with something that uses less,"
Eric
says.

??"This doesn't just tick us off, either," he adds. "It ticks off everybody we
loan the meter to."

??Most people start out thinking they will just do a few things to save
energy,
but the Jorgensens believe that along the way they will become as incensed as
they were over unnecessary energy costs and will begin to change the way they
live.

??"They end up becoming fanatic like me," Eric says. "If you do everything I
say, you're going to start getting really, really offended when you realize
just
how much power you have to pay for just so some manufacturer can save
2/1,000ths
of a cent on what they're selling to you."

??These corporate cost-saving measures are the reason, the Jorgensens contend,
that refrigerators aren't better insulated, that appliances often don't have
off-on switches, that gadgets frivolously use power even when they are off.

??Gradually, the Jorgensons developed a three-step conservation strategy. Step
1 involves making cost-effective changes that make no difference in the way
people live. Switching from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs falls in
this category.

??Step 2 consists of making changes in daily routines and spending more money.
This could mean something as big as getting a more energy-efficient
refrigerator
or as small as regularly unplugging an electric toothbrush.

??Step 3 is installing solar energy. "That's when you start generating your
own
because you've conserved as much as you can," says Eric. Every dollar spent on
conservation means $5 to $10 you don't need to spend on putting in a
generating
system. "What you want to do is make the system as small as you can get away
with," he says, not only because of the cost but also because of the space
required for scores of photovoltaic panels.

??The couple started off with ordinary conservation steps, such as putting
insulation in every possible nook and cranny of the house, installing good
insulating windows and turning off lights when they left a room. Then
"conservation creep" set in. They started hanging their laundry on the line.
They turned off the screen to the computer when it was downloading files. They
covered the heating vent to a spare room they seldom use.

??They do not believe these measures, including the clothesline routine, are
at
all inconvenient, but they recognize that others might have a lower tolerance
for such things, so they advise their clients to adopt a progression of
energy-use changes, beginning with:

??LIGHT BULBS

??"You can't change a person's habits," Eric says, "but you can change their
light bulbs."

??The Jorgensens replaced almost all of their light bulbs with compact
fluorescents. They know what you're going to say: They're ugly, and the light
isn't as good. But just shop around, Eric says. "Every one on the market is
completely different. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are blue. Some are
pink.
Some flicker. Some don't work when they're cold."

??They recommend starting out by putting the bulbs in places where you don't
much care about the quality of the light, a porch for example, and trying
different brands and shapes until you find one you like. They prefer the bulbs
that vaguely resemble the curlicue shape of a Dairy Queen cone top. "If
they're
in a fixture where you can't see the bulb, you can't tell" that they're not
conventional lights, Nicole says.

??THERMOSTAT

??The Jorgensens installed a cheap ($20 to $40) programmable thermostat for
the
heater, which during the winter they program so it's cool at night when they
don't mind, warmer when they get up, cool when they're gone during the day and
warm again when they get home. San Jose's moderate summer climate lets them
skip
air conditioning.

??One man who came to the house said he was conserving heat by setting his
thermostat at 62 degrees in the winter. "Isn't everybody freezing to death?"
Eric asked. Well, yes, the man said, and his wife and children were always
trying to turn up the heat when he wasn't around, and he was always resetting
it.

??Running his heat this way was costing him more than it would if he used the
programmable settings, the Jorgensens said. "You buy this [programmable
thermostat]," Eric told him. "Everyone will be comfortable, and you'll be a
hero
and you won't be killed in your sleep by your relatives."

??REFRIGERATORS

??"A friend of mine was so proud of his refrigerator. It was like 60 years old
and it was still working as good as the day he bought it because he had spent
years keeping it going," Eric says. But, like other old refrigerators, it was
using more energy than it was worth, in this case more than 6 kilowatt hours a
day. "That's more than our whole house uses," Eric notes.

??If you must have a second refrigerator, he suggests getting a chest freezer
and setting the thermostat so it doesn't freeze but just cools. "Freezers cost
about one-third of what a new refrigerator does and they use about half the
power," he says. "Chest freezers have insulation."

??The Jorgensens have a refrigerator that uses 1,350 watts per day, 20 percent
less than when they bought it because they put about $5 worth of extra
insulation on the back. The material he used, called Reflectix, looks like
bubble wrap sandwiched by aluminum foil.

??"It really ticks me off that a $900 refrigerator couldn't put $5 worth of
insulation in the thing so that it would use 20 percent less power," he says.

??WATER HEATER

??The Jorgensens are fans of tankless water heaters even though they cost
about
$500, roughly double the price of one that uses a tank. The tank heater, Eric
notes, "sits there and always tries to keep the water hot just in case you
want
to use it. It's kind of like leaving your car running in the driveway just in
case you ever want to go for a ride." By contrast, the tankless models fire up
their gas jets only on demand, as water passes through on its way to the
spigot.

??The California Energy Commission does not recommend the tankless heaters,
saying they won't necessarily save much energy or money, and it cautions, "If
you have a large family . . . and need to do laundry and wash dishes at the
same
time others shower, a tankless system probably won't meet your needs."

??The Jorgensens do not have children, so their tankless system has not been
tested by the demands of a large family, but Nicole says their experience
suggests it would make no difference.

??"You don't have to worry about doing five loads of laundry and then running
out of hot water in the shower," she says, because the supply of hot water is
not limited by the capacity of the water heater's tank.

??The Jorgensens estimate their old tank water heater cost $500 a year to run,
the new tankless one about $200.

??PHANTOMS, VAMPIRES AND WALL WARTS

??Some appliances are said to "leak" energy; that is, they use electricity
even
when they're switched off. They include devices with a remote control or
soft-touch keypad and appliances that don't have off-on switches. In a study
two
years ago, Berkeley Lab scientists concluded that consumers would save more
than
$1 billion a year if manufacturers applied proven technologies to reduce the
"leaking" component of electricity use.

??Devices that leak, derisively called "vampires," drive the Jorgensens crazy.

??DustBusters? Evil, Eric says.

??Then there are what he calls "wall warts," the boxes that are part of the
cord for small appliances and keep them warmed up with a small trickle of
electricity even when they are nominally "off."

??To deal with these offenses, the Jorgensens are relentless shoppers. Under
the suspicious gaze of salespeople at one store, the couple tore into the
boxes
of every model of answering machine to look at the cord boxes, which have the
amount of power they use stamped on them. They found the answering machine
that
used the least "phantom electricity," but abandoned it in an instant when they
later discovered a combination of fax and answering machine that used even
less
power.

??They plug their VCR and television into an outlet connected to an off-on
switch, and they put other electrical devices on power strips they can shut
off
entirely.

??They also do not follow manufacturers' instructions on some electricity
vampires. They have electric toothbrushes, which they do not leave plugged in,
as recommended. They have found that if they plug them in for a day every two
weeks, the brushes work fine. They know when the brushes need to be recharged,
about every two weeks, because the motor slows down.

??"A lot of people can't handle that," Nicole concedes, referring to the
prospect of having to regularly plug and unplug devices. "That's just too much
inconvenience. It's a slight change in habit, not horribly painful, but it
adds
up."

??They use battery-run clocks because they consider electrical ones wasteful.
They make an exception for the bedroom, because they have not yet found a
battery-powered clock that glows in the dark.

??SOLAR POWER

??The Jorgensens have a small solar panel that cost about $100 and powers the
back-yard fountain. Another solar panel powers the electric lawnmower. Another
generates the electricity for a shed in the back yard. Yet another one runs an
attic fan.

??Unlike traditional attic fans that people generally turn on when the house
gets hot, this one begins turning slowly in the morning when light first hits
the panel, and gradually turns faster as the sun gets brighter and the day
gets
hotter. Then it slows down as the light diminishes. As a result, heat never
builds up in the attic, Eric says.

??The Jorgensens also are generating electricity from two large solar panels
on
the back roof of their house, and from two small windmills. They paid $13,008
for the system and received a state rebate of $5,275, which would be higher
now
because California recently upped the rebate to encourage conservation.

??They expect the investment will pay for itself in about 10 years. "We use so
little [electricity] to begin with that it's going to take a long time to pay
it
off," he says.

??They could have generated more power if they had installed the panels on
their front roof, but they thought it would have been unsightly and an affront
to the neighbors. As it is, they generate more electricity than they use,
which
is why their electric meter revolves backwards.

??The only distinguishing features of their home visible from the street are
the slender spires of the windmills, which seem to blend in with the
television
antennae that sprout from neighboring rooftops.

??However, the neighbors may soon have to contend with a solar panel-roofed
carport that the Jorgensens contemplate building as shelter and power source
for
their electric car, a Bradley GT built from a kit, that they bought
secondhand.

??Though the Jorgensens are finding a wider audience for their advice, they
may
face a tougher sell down the road. In a recent statewide Field Poll,
Californians said they believed they could lower their energy use only
another 4
percent without causing serious problems in their households.

??And an informal sampling of those who have heard the Jorgensens' pitch turns
up mixed reviews.

??Lori Horn, a real estate appraiser in Burlingame, Calif., came to the
Jorgensens' home as a non-conserver and left a convert, heading out to buy a
bushel of compact fluorescent bulbs and a solar oven.

??"I was in awe over the things he had done, and all the easy things I could
do," she says.

??Shannah McDaniel, an 11-year-old who lives across the street, built solar
ovens for her 5th-grade science fair project.

??Next-door neighbors John and Pat Ellis, a retired defense industry manager
and a school secretary, are considering solar panels for an attic fan and to
charge the battery on their RV.

??They are not keen on the fluorescent bulbs, though, especially after a very
powerful one Pat Ellis put in the laundry room conked out after about a month.
"It was supposed to last 10 years," she says. She also isn't sure about their
usefulness. "I don't know if it's an age difference or what, but I need more
light. I don't like the light particularly. I don't like the ambience, the
color
of the light."

??Various other friends and relatives have been sold on the virtues of
insulation and upgraded windows and solar battery rechargers, but the
Jorgensens
have found that you can't win over everyone.

??Though Eric's parents have heard his impassioned pleas on energy for years,
and they have had a solar water heater for decades, they still refuse to part
with their second refrigerator-a 1960s-era model stored in the garage.

??Talkin' 'bout my generators

??In a house in the redwoods, students push conservation to the limit

??In the kitchen stands the pedal-powered blender, in the living room is the
pedal-powered television, and at various times all manner of appliances around
this unusual 1930s-era bungalow have run on power generated by residents
pumping
away on stationary bicycles.

??The array of such "human energy converters" has included a pedal-powered
laptop computer, a washing machine and, briefly, a can opener, which was taken
out of commission when someone realized it was easier to use a hand-held
version
than to pedal away to run an electric model.

??This is the Campus Center for Appropriate Technology at Humboldt State
University, among the redwoods of remote northern California in Arcata. CCAT
(pronounced SEE-cat) is a fanciful monument to the pursuit of energy
conservation and environmental correctness that knows few limits. (The
bathroom
features a composting toilet, and the published cookbook features tofu pot
pie.)

??Each year, three university students live here and demonstrate the house's
energy-saving measures to visitors. The bungalow uses about one-twentieth of
the
power consumed by the average U.S. household.

??Heat comes both from a wood-burning stove and from warm air from the
greenhouse, which is attached to the south side of the dwelling. Windows are
insulated by homemade thermal curtains of quilt batting and a Mylar vapor
barrier. With the curtains drawn, the windows are about two-thirds as
insulated
as the walls, the students say.

??In a kitchen corner stands an old, unremarkable Kenmore gas oven, but Sean
Dockery, an environmental science student, can go on at length about its
virtues.

??"Either I use natural gas to boil my water or, if I had an electric stove, I
would burn fossil fuel at a power plant in order to make steam to spin a
turbine
to spin a generator to create electricity to send down power lines to flow to
the house to the stove to create heat very inefficiently," he says.

??The students do only part of their cooking on this old stovetop anyway. Once
a dish is brought to a boil, they put it into the "hot box," a drawer lined
with
foam insulation and a wool Army blanket. "It takes about the same amount of
time
to cook" as on the stovetop, says Emilia Patrick, another outgoing
co-director.
"It's really good for stews and rice and beans."

??They also cook in the back yard on the parabolic cooker, a solar-powered
contraption that looks like a large metal satellite dish. "You can make
popcorn
with it in a couple of minutes," says Lisa DiPietro, an incoming resident.

??The refrigerator is so super-insulated that most of the freezer space is
taken up by insulation. But the students insist that don't need to keep much
in
the refrigerator because they use a "cold box," a cabinet with vents letting
in
cool air from the north side of the house. "In the wintertime, it definitely
suffices," Patrick says.

??The house also is heavily insulated, and near the entryway is a cut-out
panel
that allows visitors to see what's behind the walls: blown-in cellulose made
of
recycled newspapers.

??The roof is a busy series of solar panels used to generate electricity, heat
water and power the composting toilet. A wind turbine generates some
electricity, though residents say it needs to be several feet higher to really
catch the breezes. For those few times that their power needs exceed what the
sun and wind can generate, there is a generator that runs on "biodiesel" fuel.
That, Patrick explains, is basically filtered vegetable oil from nearby
restaurants.

??Student Benjamin Terrell and two friends put biodiesel fuel to another test,
driving a van dubbed the Grease Guzzler, running on recycled cooking grease
and
smelling of french fries and chicken, from Berkeley, Calif., to Costa Rica.

??In the spring CCAT newsletter, Terrell wrote of the experience, saying,
"Sometimes I just yell to the sky, 'We are running on vegetable oil!' But it
isn't always only veggie oil; sometimes we stuffed in hard-core animal fat as
thick as cold pudding. I admit, there are moments we are truly going on the
faith of experimentation."

??-- K.B.

GRAPHIC: PHOTOS 10PHOTO (color): Eric and Nicole Jorgensen at home with (from
left) their solar oven, battery-powered lawnmower, electric car and solar
cooler. Two windmills spin on the roof.; PHOTOS (color): The couple's
energy-saving devices can be as old-fashioned as a clothesline or as modern
as a
battery lawnmower (charged off a solar cell) and "reflectix" insulation for
appliances and heating ducts, made from aluminized bubble wrap.; PHOTO
(color):
Solar panels on the roof help make the jorgensens nearly immune to blackouts.;
PHOTOS (color): A solar attic fan spins faster as the sun gets hotter.
fluorescent lights are an easy way to start saving.; PHOTO (color): Sean
Dockery
in the back yard with the parabolic cooker, which makes popcorn in about two
minutes. Photo by Robert Durell/Los Angeles Times; PHOTO (color): ON THIS
PAGE:
Eric Jorgensen hoses off the solar panels on the roof of his San Jose, Calif.,
house, which he and his wife, Nicole, have made so energy efficient that the
electric meter spins backward. (Magazine, page 4.) Tribune photos by Chris
Walker.; PHOTO (color): (A light bulb.)

LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2001

??????????????????????????????25 of 77 DOCUMENTS

?????????????????????????????The Associated Press

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. ?These
materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The
Associated Press.

??????????????????????July 28, 2001, Saturday, BC cycle

SECTION: Domestic News

LENGTH: 822 words

HEADLINE: California lawmaker enjoys utility's largesse; makes no apologies
for
taking contributions

BYLINE: By JENNIFER COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SACRAMENTO, Calif.

BODY:

??Whenever the Los Angeles Lakers play in Sacramento, state Assemblyman Rod
Wright calls around to lobbyists to try to get tickets. Often, Southern
California Edison obliges.

??And the utility's generosity goes beyond basketball tickets. Since Wright's
election in 1996, Edison has donated vans to his impoverished South Central
Los
Angeles district, given him tens of thousands in campaign contributions and
underwritten trips to Europe and South Africa.

??Other than a campaign fund operated by the speaker of the state Assembly,
Wright received more money from Edison in 2000 than any other member of the
chamber, state campaign finance records show.

??With California locked in a power crisis that has resulted in rolling
blackouts, Edison has courted many lawmakers as it tries to avoid bankruptcy.
But none has written legislation as favorable to the company as Wright,
Democratic chairman of the Energy Costs and Availability Committee.

??"Edison is getting a lot of bang for their buck" with Wright, said Doug
Heller, consumer advocate for the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumers
Rights.
"His single largest contributor is the one corporation that his most recent
legislation would directly bail out."

??There is no suggestion that these contributions are illegal; all of them
were
duly reported by Wright and Edison. But Jim Knox, director of the government
watchdog group California Common Cause, said such close ties cause people to
worry the energy crisis is being resolved on the basis of campaign
contributions.

??Wright makes no apologies, saying he will take money from anyone who can
give
it legally. But he refused to say whether he still takes energy contributions,
which many elected officials have declined as too hot to handle since the
energy
crisis started.

??Brian Bennett, Edison vice president of external affairs, said it is
standard
for a committee chairman such as Wright to get larger contributions from a
utility.

??Wright is "a bright, capable member of the Legislature who is interested in
promoting sound public policy," Bennett said.

??So far, the state's second-largest investor-owned utility has avoided
bankruptcy, while Pacific Gas and Electric, California's largest, has not.

??Wright has received overseas trips at the expense of the power
industry-supported California Foundation on Environment and the Economy. The
foundation spent a total of $20,000 taking Wright to Europe in 1999 and South
Africa last year.

??During the South Africa trip, which included an Edison lobbyist, Wright
spent
$7,000 from his campaign treasury at two jewelers. His campaign reported the
expenditures as "campaign paraphernalia."

??An Associated Press analysis shows Edison also gave Wright's campaign
$22,000
last year and $5,000 to a political action committee he supports.

??All told, Edison gave more than $989,000 to California candidates and
related
campaigns for the 2000 election, state campaign finance records show.

??Although Edison officials say they no longer give campaign contributions,
records show the utility spent more than $318,000 on lobbyists in the first
three months of the year.

??The Democratic speaker of the Assembly, Bob Hertzberg, stopped taking
electricity-related contributions at the start of the year and returned
$34,500
he received late in 2000.

??Edison gave Gov. Gray Davis $15,000 during 2000, records show, while
Assemblyman Fred Keeley, the Democrats' leading expert on energy policy,
received $5,000. This year, Keeley said he stopped taking energy money.

??"Everyone has to establish their own policies, but for me it's not
appropriate to be raising funds from folks who have an economic stake in a
crisis that's beleaguering the state," Keeley said.

??Wright's contribution to the debate over Edison's future came this month
with
a bill he called a "straight bailout." Lawmakers and analysts considered it
the
most generous to Edison of four deals the Legislature is considering.

??Wright said he worked "fairly closely" with Edison on his bill, and also
consulted with consumer groups.

??Now stalled in a committee, Wright's bill would have allowed Edison to sell
bonds backed by customers' rates to cover all its debts, estimated to be $3.9
billion. Edison customers would repay the bonds over 10 to 15 years.

??By contrast, a Hertzberg-Keeley bill would have allowed Edison to sell bonds
to cover only about $2.5 billion of its debts and would have required the
utility to sell its transmission lines to the state and give up development
rights on land near its hydroelectric plants. However, in the version of the
bill now circulating in the Legislature, the sale of the transmission lines
has
been dropped.

??If members of the Senate and Assembly have to meet in a conference committee
to settle the Edison matter, Wright will probably be involved.

??On the Net:

??Southern California Edison: www.sce.com

LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2001