Skip to comments.New push to deregulate energy: Schwarzenegger electricity plan fuels fears of another debacle
Posted on 10/11/2003 8:32:00 AM PDT by Pokey78Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is preparing a push to deregulate the state's electricity markets -- a move embraced by business leaders and some energy analysts but criticized by many Democrats and consumer advocates as a return to the failed policies that sparked California's energy crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
In this day and age we all know that would incite crowd to protest. I even remember a design for a nuclear watch battery clear back from the 60s.
Now if it even has the word "nuclear" in it, people seem to panic. For example, NMRs were renamed MRIs to alleviate patient fear of the word "nuclear".
The cure is champagne! After half a magnum they don't seem to mind drinks that are fission.
Me too. Very informative and plausible, especially regarding the "constitutional loophole." More evidence that Milton Friedman was right when he said that regulatory boards are usually overtaken by the corporations that they are purported to regulate, usually with an eye to keeping out competition.
Thanks for that info too.
"Runs with Chainsaw"
You won't believe how long it took me to type that out, first thing that came to mind (after inhale) was this one is a Nanny Cops Worst Nightmare. Sorry that is just flat too funny.
My husband worked for ARCO for 25 years, and I have to tell you that the employees hated MTBE. They knew the dangers, but were told that it was government mandated.
I don't doubt it. I also don't doubt that most of the middle level managers didn't know the truth about it either. I worked as a project engineer in a chemical plant and remember well the lengths to which we would go to protect customer safety. As I noted in the piece, it isn't the companies that are the problem as much as it is the owners.
As I recall (and my recollection might be faulty), MTBE was developed by ARCO to avoid having to buy ethanol from ADM because of the government mandate. ARCO thought that their profit margins were too low at the time and that the ethanol mandate was going to kill them. That was at the same time that Lod Cook was increasing the ARCO debt to fend off the takeover of the company.
I have always felt that the takeover that did finally happen, was somehow illegal. The fact that all the members of the board were paid millions of dollars. to approve the take over, just didn’t seem right. Then there was that crazy deal that based the price for ARCO on BP stock price and the illegal Chinese IPO that BP supported, about two weeks before the take over, that caused BP stock to drop like a rock.
Protection from American lawyers?
I really feel for the chemical engineers who knew MTBE was a problem and tried to stop it. I've been in a similar career-limiting position.
My husband was the environmental adviser for ARCO marine in the mid eighties. He spent the year before the Valdez spill trying to convince BP and EXXON execs that the odds indicated that they were over due for a major spill and that they were totally unprepared to deal with it. He even ran a spill drill with almost the exact scenario that actually occurred six months later.
BP lawyers threatened to destroy him in court if he dared to testify against them.
I was able to force a division VP to let me fix the relationship with BAAQMD because the chief environmental regulatory officer backed me up. Else I would probably have been fired and would have had to go find a lawyer.
It all worked out. They got the product in ten months from concept to production, legally, and made a lot of money. Implementing the project required a tricky process with an almost impossible construction job. I didn't get a dime for it, because I'd been "difficult."
I know how he feels.