Jump to content

Talk:2000–2001 California electricity crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awful Article

[edit]

This is one of the worst, most biased, most poorly cited articles I've ever encountered on wikipedia. It is a bit of a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbroiler1981 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time for this

[edit]

To sit and read through hundreds of lines of text. Can someone please put together a more succinct introductory paragraph? I know there was a crisis, etc, but I do not have a month to sift through this article. Please write a clear introduction, though the chronology is very helpful, thank you for that at least. -- ZP in Phoenix, Ariz68.109.156.229 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added content from other articles

[edit]

During my revisions of several other articles, I have found additional information about the California electricity crisis that I have added to this article. Some of the information is duplicate information or simply phrasing of what has already been stated. I've tried to reduce the repeat information and I will keep trying but I would greatly appeciate any help from other editors in this effort. Thanks! calbear22 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out the bit about President Bush, because the crisis started in 2000 and Bush didn't become President until January, 2001. The FERC inaction spanned two administrations. --Gangster Octopus 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a first time commenter here, so patience please. I read the part about sigining my name but am not even sure I have that right. I work in energy policy for the State of CA and enjoyed the article. There is much good and correct info here. I can understand not wanting to cater to unfounded conspiracy theories about the Republican admin, but as it is written now, it is far too lenient. Besides, factual things can be pointed too. Before getting the Bush administration, I take exception to a nonpartisanship approach based on the point that the problem started in the Clinton administration. Go ahead and tag the Clinton administration for earlier failures. Bush did come aboard into a crisis -- how he handled it is in question. I can't say the exact date, but I believe it was about a week before Bush's fist inauguration. Perhaps he was still on the heals of his BS campaign motto (approximately) "I'm not a divider." So he addressed the California issue saying that the Federal government was going to help California. Then I believe his soon to be appointed energy advisor whispered in his ear and Bush, BEFORE his inauguration said approximately, "California has made this problem for themselves and they are going to have to fix it themselves." I suppose it is conspiracy theory say that that energy advisor whispered, "You can take down one of your main opponents (Governor Davis) by letting California twist in the wind on this issue." Although this seems obvious to me, it is not essential for condemnation. Of course letting California rot for your own political gain is a monumental offense. What we do have factually, among other things, when Bush said that California would have to take care of its own problem, was that Bush was, in fact, a huge divider from inception. The Wikipedia article, in the section about "Deregulation" stated that the FERC felt understaffed to deal with the issue. Whether or not this is true, this is a particularly weak excuse. The truth is that the FERC and Bush are entrusted to uphold laws and they failed to do so. This is complete dereliction of duty. Governor Davis did not have the cajones to take on Bush, but what is a Wikipedia writer scared of? LMIrwin53 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping of Jan 2005

[edit]

I seriously revamped most of this article in January 2005. Also expanded it. The most serious problem before revamping was the lack of any logic and a disjointed structure. Neither the nature of the crisis nor its causes were actually explained clearly. In case anyone is upset about the loss of "their" piece, I retained most of the original text and ideas - but moved them around so much that someone familiar with the previous article might not find them. Open to discussion. Caravaca 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Dispute of Nov 2009

[edit]

This is absoutle bias through and through, there is all this rubbish about no new power plants during the crisis, what about the fact that the power shortages started during the lowest usage time? Or perhaps that de-regulation as a whole is the cause of the problem? Or possible political motivations(Davis running in 2004)? In short watch Enron:the smartest guys in the room.

I don't know what "nonsense" the previous user "blanked", but the article as of today takes the POV that:

  • California's changes to the electricity market were in no way to blame for the crisis
  • Bush should have helped, but refused for no good reason
  • Republicans were to blame

I don't think this is an objective look at the situation. Other analyses paint different pictures.

We should investigate a bit more, so we can report WHOSE IDEA it was to force utilities to "divest" themselves of their power generation plants. And WHAT BENEFITS these advocates claimed would accrue to rate-payers or others.

We should not bury the opposing POV in one short sentence at the end of the 3rd or 4th paragraph.

An alternative POV about the restructuring of California's electricity market is that:

  • it was doomed from the start, because it continued to regulate retail rates but not wholesale rates
  • it was not a case of "deregulation" at all
  • it was an experiment in socialism which failed, as in the Soviet Union where shoes and toilet paper always had low prices (but were rarely available)

This is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen at Wikipedia, and I've been here over 2 years! --Uncle Ed 19:42, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I really have no idea what you are talking about, if you read the article, it clearly lays blame for the crisis at the hands of a partial deregulation (i.e. dereg of wholesale but not retail). There were shenanigans on the part of the private sector as well, which were enabled by the partial deregulation. To get more into WHOSE IDEA, the utilities lobbied the legislature and it passed unanimously I believe. Steve Peace, the legislator who wrote/sponsored the law, I suppose could be blamed (coincidentally, he also brought the world Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.), but he hardly acted alone. Bush didn't bail them out, isn't that a good thing? dml 04:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ed, the blame for the crisis lies with the failure of the legislators to deregulate, or rather re-regulate, the electricity market properly, the utilities for cutting a high risk deal to preserve their postion on stranded assets, the problems associated with environmental approvals for new transmission and generating plant, the rise in the price of gas, the drought in the northern catchment areas, the venal behaviour of some energy traders, the failure of the state to react properly to the crisis, the inappropriate intervention when it occurred and the lack of understanding by most of the parties as to the risks they were running in going ahead with the reforms.

I agree with you that the crap about Republican conspiracy should be removed and I have transferred the offending paras to here as they add nothing to the sum of human knowledge about what actually happened, but may be of interest to future editors:Tiles 05:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"During the crisis, calls for Federal assistance were rejected by the Bush administration, and Davis was forced to agree to an enormous payout, costing the public billions. Despite the scandal's bringing of fraud indictments for a few CEO's, the energy corporations themselves were not held civilly liable for money some say was in effect stolen from the people of California. The deal that Davis made in effect wiped out any future chance for Californians to claim compensation by legal means.

Some even go so far as to charge that the entire energy crisis was orchestrated by Republican-allied corporate interests, to strike a political blow to the nation's strongest Democratic state, pointing to the fact that many of these energy companies were based in Texas and had close ties to the Republican Party and the Bush administration, and that the exact details of the Bush administration energy policy remains private (see Larry Klayman). It is not clear how many people actually believe this. No direct link has been proven, and neither Davis nor Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante resorted to such accusations in their 2002 re-election campaigns.

Many Republicans resent the accusation that the scandal was especially tied to their party, noting that Enron collapsed very early on in Bush's presidency, so that the majority of the fraud occurred under the Clinton administration. Furthermore, they point to the many corporate ties to the Democrats. For instance, the liberal Paul Krugman once sat on Enron's advisory board"

Trying to shift the blame solely to the Democrats is just as disingenuous as placing the blame solely on the Republicans in the first place. Both parties deserved blame: Gore defender in Bush v. Gore, David Boies, actually represented Fastow in November 2003 and George W. Bush's largest campaign contributor in 2000 was Enron c/o Ken Lay, so there's plenty of blame to go around. However, the California energy crisis was bigger than the typical age-old red vs. blue, donkeys vs. elephants, right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative debate. It was about greedy, opportunistic CEOs and a herd of obedient, equally greedy and opportunistic jackals and underlings, RAPED the richest, most prosperous state in the Union, just because they COULD, all in the pretext of "deregulation". The whole episode was a window into the ugly side of greed, indifference and ignorance. Ericster08 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of crisis, rolling blackouts, etc.

[edit]

I took a quick look at these articles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/03/20/national1227EST0568.DTL http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/19/california.blackout.02/ http://www.iasa.ca/ED_news_LosAngelesTimes/LAtimes09.html http://news.com.com/Rolling+power+blackouts+darken+California/2100-1017_3-251091.html

..and added the dates I saw for rolling blackouts. There may have been other dates. Certainly, there were other important events in the crisis that should be added to the timeline. Please feel free to do so.

These URLs might also be added as external links, though some of them may represent copyright violations, so perhaps there are better sources.

--Beland 01:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is all over the place and very confusing. Hopefully I can clean it up.--Gangster Octopus 20:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Role of Governor Davis

[edit]

Did he really say that he "inherited" the problem? I thought he advocated the bill which he signed - the one which restructured the electicrity generation industry in such a way that retail prices were capped (the article says "regulated", but this is vague) while wholesale prices were allowed to soar (the article says "deregulated").

I don't see any point more important than the disconnect between capping 'retail' prices while allowing wholesale prices to exceed them! How could Davis not know this would happen? Didn't he read the bill before signing it?

I'm not advocating anything here, but I wish this article would shed light on these questions. Uncle Ed 03:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deregulation legislation was passed prior to Davis' election by the Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor Wilson — a bipartisan created mess. Since it predated Davis' authority, the phrase "inherited" is correct. -- Cjensen

End of crisis

[edit]

This article really needs a desciption of why the crisis ended. Note that the crisis peaked during spring, prior to the peak summer electricity usage -- a fact that an adequate explaination needs to address. Paul Krugman's described one possible reason here [1]. I assume there are other views that need to be described also. -- Cjensen 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One source says that Enron's bankruptcy ended the problem. In fact, when Enron went bankrupt and "suddenly" and "coincidentally" prices got back to normal, first suspicions about Enron began to circulate. This factoid needs more confirmation, however. Caravaca 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not many serious economists think price controls lead to long term solutions. Especially in this case, since price controls may have actually caused this crisis. Enron was simply responding the the incentives created by government regulations. BTW, Krugman did not win the Nobel prize in price controls, or energy trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.61.178 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation and Deregulation

[edit]

The last paragraph in this section seems to just repeat several points made in the preceding paragraphs without adding or expanding on anything. This might be better deleted. Sdpurdy 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Markets

[edit]

I think a lot of people are unclear as to how power markets actually work. An article or series of articles describing how power is generated and procured would help a lot. I believe there are twelve regions in North America under NERC.

I added more concise explanation in "Causes" section. In nutshell, price regulation created shortage of supply which provided ample opportunity of market manipulation. Vapour —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain it a better, because it is not clear how price regulation "forced" suppliers to ration power.--Gangster Octopus 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Enron Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year

[edit]

Does the title need some year? Has there really only been one? I know I've heard about blackouts in CA multiple times.

PSE&G

[edit]

Isn't NJ's PSE&G tightly affiliated with the culprits?

Meaning of deregulation

[edit]

I'd like to clarify the who and what of the so-called deregulation.

Who called the new rules "deregulation"?

What parts of California's electricity industry were released from government control, and what parts came under greater government control?

Is there any public dispute over whether the new regulations increased or decreased government control? (By "public" I mean outside of this talk page, of course! :-)

And has there been any public dispute or controversy over whether the new regulations were a good idea? If so, we should report this discussion. For example:

  • British economist Rob Inhood predicted the new laws would make electricity more plentiful and affordable for the average Californian resident.
  • Kiep Itfrei, of the Danish Society, said the requirements were self-contradictory and would lead to economic disaster.

Note that I made up some funny names so no one would google for them. We need real sources; I'm just making suggestions of form. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The demand side of the electricity market, however, actually became more regulated during “deregulation.” [2]

Can I use the above source? Also, the Center for Media and Democracy blamed the California crisis on the deregulation advocacy of the Heritage Foundation, but a superficial glance at the CMD analysis and what HF said seems to show some differences. HF called for "open access" that would open markets to competition, and they specifically opposed "the exclusive state franchising of electric company monopolies".

I'd like to see a point by point comparison (somewhere in Wikipedia, if not in the present article) between the principles advocated by the Heritage Foundation and the plan adopted by California. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote from the same man:

  • California’s ill-fated idea of hampering the creation of new generation stations and then deregulating the supply side without deregulating the demand side is a bad idea. Deregulation itself is not a bad idea. [3]

I think this leaves us with a controversy or dispute over whether "deregulation" is a good idea, especially as applied to the electricity market. Our readers will be well served by explaining carefully which aspects of the electricity market were and were not deregulated. We don't want to endorse or oppose deregulation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Be that as it may, the changes in the rules were widely depicted as deregulaiton, including by its proponents. While it's valid to point out that regulations still existed, and that the degree of deregulation is debatable, deleting the word "deregulation" from the article entirely would be incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Father of deregulation"

[edit]
  • For many critics of the bill, the focus frequently returns to Peace, who played a significant role in the 1996 legislation deregulating California's electric utilities. "So now the father of deregulation has an even better idea. He's going to save our San Diego air system," the [San Diego Unified Port District]'s [Peter] JanopaulJanopaul said. "It's bad enough that deregulation failed." Peace has insisted repeatedly he was not the driving force behind deregulation.
    • Port steps up fight against legislation for airport authority; [1,2,3 Edition] Ronald W. Powell and Philip J. LaVelle. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Sep 9, 2001. pg. A
  • [Peace] oversaw hundreds of hours of negotiations on energy deregulation now etched in Capitol lore as the "Steve Peace Death March."
    • NEWSMAKER PROFILE / Steve Peace / Davis' finance chief skilled at raising hell / Brash ex-senator a bold pick; [FINAL Edition] Mark Martin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Dec 22, 2002. pg. A.1
  • And state Sen. Steve Peace, the El Cajon Democrat, the architect of deregulation, was getting the kilowatts beaten out of him. People phoned his office to gripe. They shouted at him in airports. He gave up the idea of running for secretary of state; in his own town they said he couldn't get elected dog catcher.
    • INSIDE POLITICS; More Psychic Than Miss Cleo--at Least on Enron; [Home Edition] PATT MORRISON. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 11, 2002. pg. B.2
  • Yes, you read that right: Steve Peace, author of the 1996 deregulation bill. Peace approached energy deregulation with such passion and command of the details that his marathon negotiating sessions became known as the "Steve Peace Death March." The bill eventually breezed through both houses without a dissenting vote. Peace contends that the deregulation scheme is not to blame for the debacle that is costing the state many billions of dollars. UPSHOT: By all accounts, Steve Peace is a policy wonk who has few peers when it comes to mastery of budget matters. Still, does Davis really think the father of energy deregulation is the one to lead the state out of a $35 billion budget mess?.
    • POLITICAL WATCH / WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?; [FINAL Edition] San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Dec 24, 2002. pg. A.14
  • As a politician who has made a career out of rushing in where others fear to tread, state Sen. Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista) took the lead in shaping the state's effort to deregulate the electricity industry. Now the plan is a fiasco, and Peace's political future is in doubt... But Alpert and Davis were only bit players in deregulation, compared to Peace, considered the father of the 1996 bill, someone that his colleagues looked to for expertise about the complexities of the energy business.
    • California and the West; POWER PLAYERS: Key figures in California's energy crisis; Prospects Dark for Deregulation Architect; Power crisis: Sen. Steve Peace had considered a run for secretary of state. But some experts say his political career is all but over.; [Home Edition] TONY PERRY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 3, 2001. pg. A.3
  • Sen. Steve Peace (D-El Cajon), who led the Legislature's 1996 drive to deregulate electricity, ...
    • California and the West; Lawmakers Contending With Power Crisis Have Holdings in Electric Firms; [Home Edition] RONE TEMPEST, MIGUEL BUSTILLO. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 8, 2001. pg. A.3
  • The outcome has all but ended the political career of another legislator, Sen. Steve Peace of San Diego County. Peace, who was chairman of the Assembly-Senate conference committee that crafted the bill, has become known as the architect of electricity deregulation. He has dropped plans to run for statewide office and is hardly involved, at least in public, as the Legislature grapples with the crisis.
    • Deregulation bill author unscathed; [HOME Edition] Daniel Weintraub. Daily Breeze. Torrance, Calif.: Feb 1, 2001. pg. B.5
  • Peace, of course, is best known as the father of California electricity deregulation.
    • Big Hang-Up With BofA; [FINAL Edition] Adam T. Saracevic. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Mar 4, 2001. pg. B.2
  • As late as 1999, Freeman wrote to state Sen. Steve Peace, D-La Mesa, the father of deregulation, and spoke of his "good faith effort to (have the DWP) join the ISO," which is the acronym for the California Independent System Operator, one of the two entities created in energy deregulation.
    • DWP'S FREEMAN SHOULD REMEMBER HIS DUTY TO L.A.; [VALLEY Edition] Nate Holden. Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 2, 2001. pg. N.11
  • Fair or not, Sen. Steve Peace has become known as the "father" of California's electricity deregulation law. For that he has had to endure unending heat from colleagues, consumers and constituents.
    • Grillings are common fare for bureaucrats Series: howard.0513; [1 Edition] John Howard. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: May 13, 2001. pg. Cal
  • Peace eventually worked his way back into Brown's good graces, and won election to the Senate, where he worked on what would become California's disastrous deregulation plan....Peace, frequently and wrongly identified as the originator of deregulation, was ridiculed by San Diegans, whose utility bills doubled....
    • The State; State Crisis Will Test Finance Chief's Theory; Steve Peace has written that a budget emergency would be a great chance to reform government.; [HOME EDITION] Nancy Vogel. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 22, 2002. pg. A.1

So Peace has often been called the "father" or "architect" of California's deregulation bill, even though defenders say he was just trying to make it a better bill.   Will Beback  talk  18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wrong from the very first sentence. It has a faulty premise.

[edit]

This article is a horrific distortion of the truth. There was never, ever a "shortage" of electricity. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I am reluctant to mess with this article until I understand the process better, but when the premise of an article is wrong it is hard to remain silent, and this is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The electric shortages were intentionally created and highly profitable. For a more balanced view see http://www.newsbatch.com/electric.htm Glen Slaylarch (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, the article is accurate in its portrayal. There WERE actual shortages of electricity supply. However the causes for these shortages were completely artificial, as there was certainly enough capacity to produce sufficient power. By deliberately limiting the production of power, Enron was able to create shortages and subsequently manipulate the spot price.59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right that there was no real shortage. I changed the first paragraph to "... artificial shortage ...", and supported that by cited changes in subsequent paragraph (both went as one edit). But some people keep reverting my changes. Can you help?
Vinnie (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my recent "clarify" edit

[edit]

The heading for that section says that power generation in California failed to keep up with demand but the paragraph below it implies that instate power supply per capita went up, since population increased by 13% and supply went up 30%. One can argue demand per capita went up, or that California failed to conserve energy. So I see this as confusing.Rich (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence (and thus your clarify tag) as I found the sentence contradicted the rest of the paragraph. If someone can explain it that would be good.
Here is the sentence I removed: In-state power output failed to keep up with demand[clarification needed]. I removed it from the beginning of this section: California_electricity_crisis#Supply_and_demand. 59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PG&E bankruptcy

[edit]

I have read that PG&E's holding company made record profits while PGE went into chapter 11. In fact I thought I tried to put it int this article a year or more ago, but I can't find it in the history, so maybe I didn't.Rich (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. Please include it in the article with citations.
Vinnie (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV dispute

[edit]

I read through the discussion page looking for the POV dispute that was tagged in Aug of 09. All I could find was this unsigned paragraph:

"This is absoutle bias through and through, there is all this rubbish about no new power plants during the crisis, what about the fact that the power shortages started during the lowest usage time? Or perhaps that de-regulation as a whole is the cause of the problem? Or possible political motivations(Davis running in 2004)? In short watch Enron:the smartest guys in the room."

All of the issues raised by this anon poster seem to have been adequately addressed so I am removing the POV tag. The market manipulation aspect is well covered, as is the topic of how the partial deregulation directly contributed to the crisis.

If a POV dispute still remains by all mean reapply the tag and give your reasons below. 59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree the article is biased. I tried fixing things for which I had the citations and time. But some people keep reverting my changes. We all need to contribute our two cents to fix the POV.
Vinnie (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening premise of this article blames the blackouts on everybody but California, and then proceeds to provide "facts" to support this POV. The bulk of the article focuses on Enron and out of state power companies for California's troubles. While Governor Gray Davis' standing might be of some peripheral interest, it should be in a section perhaps titled "Political Solutions and Results".

"The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis' standing."

The first fallacy that jumped out at me was the numbers for generating capacity and demand. As you can see from this chart, overall yearly demand was over 47GW, not 28GW. The gross capacity was 51GW. A second state of California report has the capacity at 55GW. Either way, the demand and the capacity are very close. Any spikes would result in more demand than capacity. At that point California would buy power from other states, which is where the large costs were incurred.

"California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage."

The bulk of the article content focuses on the out of state purchases. Virtually no information is provided on the decisions that led to California whether it be shutting down coal plants, or not building new generation facilities. The "deregulation" is not well explained. An article by CATO clearly explains the major components of the "deregulation", which in fact was greater state control. The article does mention the "capped retail electrical prices", but there are numerous conclusions without citations to misinterpret why power was not being generated such as incentives to create scarcity, instead of the cost of generating the electricity, specifically the purchase of fuel, exceeding the sale price.

There is so much opinionated content without citations, it might be best to rename this article "Blaming Enron for all of California's Energy Problems", and start a new article from scratch. However, barring that, perhaps we could restructure the article. IMHO, the Enron component is more an effect or result of the crisis and how California chose to deal with it. It should be relegated to a section at the end of the article and not be peppered throughout. Most Wikipedia articles have an introduction or background, as well as a History section. Starting with a "Causes" section screams opinion. So, we start with an outline and reorganize the content. We look for citations where they are missing, but if the facts are wrong, we correct them, and if they can't be found, we remove them. Some of the content might be better as separate articles, such as "Deregulation of California Energy Sector". There should also be a section on how the crisis increased prices for the consumers in the surroundings states as California demanded power, a point raised in this article by the Electric Power Research Institute.

As an aside, please bear with me, as while my wife and I have donated to Wikipedia for years, I just created this account. This is my first entry anywhere on Wikipedia, so my understanding of how to work with the other contributors is nonexistant. --rolloutq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolloutq (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Governor Pete Wilson

[edit]

Since greed fueled by deregulation was the only cause of financial crisis related to energy crisis, so there should be a detailed paragraph on the role of Republican Governor Pete Wilson's deregulation policy. Also there is no mention of Davis turned down by Bush when he requested federal help. Vinnie (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tapes

[edit]

POV, OR, tone, ref-improve.

Enron Trader Tapes

[edit]

The 2004 release of transcripts of taped conversations among Enron electricity traders in the summer of 2001 revealed that company insiders not only knew they were stealing from California and other states, but gloated about it. The release of thousands of hours of tapes was a powerful indictment of the energy companies that looted California and Washington of close to $11 billion.[1][2]

At a time when streets in Northern California were lit only by head lights, factories shut down and families were trapped in elevators, Enron energy traders laughed:

"Just cut 'em off. They're so fucked. They should just bring back fucking horses and carriages, fucking lamps, fucking kerosene lamps."

In another tape a trader laughed when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices:

“I just looked at him. I said, ‘Move.’ (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, ‘Look, don’t take it the wrong way. Move. It isn’t getting fixed anytime soon.”

When a forest fire shut down a major power line into California, cutting down power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders were heard laughing and celebrating, singing ‘burn, baby, burn.’

During the winter of 2000, electricity loads were drastically lower than summer due to, among other things, the lack of need for air conditioning. The capacity for energy production in California was nearly four times what was actually used. Still, the rolling blackouts continued. Traders became very creative in finding ways to cut the supply of electricity (generally during peak usage hours or when assistance of maintenance was unavailable), such as in the following conversation at Enron (between traders Rich and Bill):

Bill: "This is gonna be a word of mouth kinda thing, tonight, when you finish your normal queue, when you get ready for tomorrow, I want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to go down [referring to shutting down the turbines].

Rich: "Ok"
Bill: "Is there anything you want to do over there?"
Rich: "Um yeah, there is some stuff we could be doing tonight"
Bill: "Thats good"
Rich: "Um, we need to come down and inspect this switch on the steam turbine, um this one switch on the induction steam valve has been failing us, we need to be down to pull the switch and adjust it"
Bill: "No shit"

Rich: "yeah, and our electrician has to be on shift today so that works out real good"

Regularly, phone calls were made directly to the power plants asking the supervisors to shut down during peak use hours, as in the following conversation:

Trader: “If you took down the steamer [from a generating unit], how long would it take to get it back up?”

Supervisor: “Oh, it’s not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let’s put it that way,” another says.

Trader: “Well, why don’t you just go ahead and shut her down.”

Soon afterward, the following conversation took place by another two Enron traders. It appears to acknowledge that Enron executives were involved in the trading, were aware of the illegality of it, and were involved in covering it up.

Trader 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago..."

Trader 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth..."
Trader 3: "I'd get in trouble."

Trader 4: "You'd get in trouble."

Another conversation went as such:

Trader 1: “They’re fucking taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?”

Trader 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man. But she’s the one who couldn’t figure out how to fucking vote on the butterfly ballot."
[Laughing from both sides]
Trader 1: "Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

[Harder Laughing]

In an Aug. 4, 2000, conversation, Enron trading executives John Lavorato and Tim Belden discussed a dispute involving traders who worked for Lavorato. The two Enron executives appeared to acknowledge the illegality of the trading.[3]

Lavorato: “I’m just, ah fuck, I’m just trying to be an honest camper, so I only go to jail once.”

Belden: “Well, there you go. At least in only one country. (Laughs.)”

Lavorato: “Yeah, [unknown] this isn’t a joke”

--ends--

Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference tapes-cnn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference tapes-nyt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Los Angeles Times, Business, February 04, 2005

No mention of the Bush administration?!

[edit]

The article is in the category of "George W. Bush administration controversies" but there is not one mention of the Bush Administration in the article except indirectly. There needs to be more direct info on the administration response to the crisis including their statements regarding the crisis, their response to Gov. Davis' request for assistance from the administration, and so fourth. If your going to have an article listed under the category of "George W. Bush administration controversies" then I should be able to search the page for Bush and have at least one use of the word come up in the main body of the article. The Clinton administration is mentioned in the article so why is the Bush administration absent? It seems almost as if the article is trying to whitewash the controversy over the Bush Administration's handling of the crisis. --Cab88 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on California electricity crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on California electricity crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California electricity crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHO started this situation in the first place?

[edit]

I was watching Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room documentary, and I cannot recall who started this epidemic. Was it Enron, California authorities, etc.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.216.220.101 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California electricity crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enron Section

[edit]

This section needs significant re-write. It is largely unsourced and has pretty clear POV issues. The quote offered initially does not appear anywhere in the cited link, even in paraphrase. I'll take a stab at a coherent re-write, but might need to parse out the info into other sections and delete this section if there isn't enough to warrant it by itself. Squatch347 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia. I've contributed a few edits in the Supply and Demand section with government sources, but think that a far more substantial overhaul is needed. FarmageddonNow (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000–2001_California_electricity_crisis&oldid=1196355733"