Who's really in charge?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread



May 25, 2001

Power Trader Tied to Bush Finds Washington All Ears

By LOWELL BERGMAN and JEFF GERTH

Curtis Hébert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation.

Mr. Hébert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said that Mr. Lay, a close friend of President Bush's, offered him a deal: If he changed his views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him in his new job.

Mr. Hébert (pronounced A- bear) recalled that Mr. Lay prodded him to back a national push for retail competition in the energy business and a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron.

Mr. Hébert said he refused the offer. "I was offended," he recalled, though he said he knew of Mr. Lay's influence in Washington and thought the refusal could put his job in jeopardy.

Asked about the conversation, Mr. Lay praised Mr. Hébert, but recalled it differently. "I remember him requesting" Enron's support at the White House, he said of Mr. Hébert. Mr. Lay said he had "very possibly" discussed issues relating to the commission's authority over access to the grid.

As to Mr. Hébert's job, Mr. Lay said he told the chairman that "the final decision on this was going to be the president's, certainly not ours."

Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in Washington, especially at the commission, the agency authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business.

Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron.

And it appears that Mr. Hébert may soon be replaced as the commission's chairman, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration's point man on energy policy.

Mr. Lay has weighed in on candidates for other commission posts, supplying President Bush's chief personnel adviser with a list of preferred candidates. One Florida utility regulator who hoped for but did not receive an appointment as a commissioner said he had been "interviewed" by Mr. Lay.

Mr. Lay also had access to the team writing the White House's energy report, which embraces several initiatives and issues dear to Enron.

The report's recommendations include finding ways to give the federal government more power over electricity transmission networks, a longtime goal of the company that was spelled out in a memorandum Mr. Lay discussed during a 30-minute meeting earlier this spring with Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Cheney's report includes much of what Mr. Lay advocated during their meeting, documents show. Both men deny discussing commission personnel issues during their talk. But Mr. Lay had an unusual opportunity to make his case about candidates in writing and in person to Mr. Bush's personnel adviser, Clay Johnson. And when Mr. Bush picked nominees to fill two vacant Republican slots on the five- member commission, they both had the backing of Enron, as well as other companies.

Mr. Lay is not shy about voicing his opinion or flexing his political muscle. He has transformed the Houston-based Enron from a sleepy natural-gas company into a $100 billion energy giant with global reach, trading electricity in all corners of the world and owning a multibillion- dollar power project in India. He has also led the push to deregulate the nation's electricity markets.

Senior Bush administration officials said they welcomed Mr. Lay's input but did not always embrace it: President Bush backed away from curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, an effort supported by Enron, which had looked to trade emission rights as part of its energy business.

"We'll make decisions based on what we think makes sound public policy," Mr. Cheney said in an interview, not what "Enron thinks."

The Bush-Lay bond traces back to Mr. Bush's father and involves a personal and philosophical affinity. Moreover, Enron and its executives gave $2.4 million to federal candidates in the last election, more than any other energy company. While some of that went to Democrats, 72 percent went to Republicans, according to an analysis of election records by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group.

"He's for a lot of things we're for," said Mr. Johnson.

But when it came to deciding on nominees for the commission, Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Lay's views were not that crucial. The two most important advisers, he said, were Andrew Lundquist, the director of Mr. Cheney's energy task force, and Pat Wood 3rd, the head of the Texas public utility commission.

As governor, Mr. Bush named Mr. Wood to the utility commission. This year, when the White House filled the two Republican slots on the federal agency, Mr. Wood was the first choice, Mr. Johnson said.

Consumer advocates and business executives praise Mr. Wood. But Mr. Lay also had a role in promoting him. Shortly after Mr. Bush was elected governor in 1994, Mr. Lay sent him a letter endorsing Mr. Wood as the "best qualified" person for the Texas commission.

In all, there are five seats on the commission, two held by Republicans, two by Democrats and one held by a chairman who serves at the pleasure of the president. Mr. Hébert, who became a commissioner in 1997, was named chairman by Mr. Bush in January.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's mandate to ensure fair prices in wholesale electricity and natural gas markets makes it crucial to sellers like Enron as well as consumers.

The movement toward deregulation sometimes leaves the commission caught in a tug of war: power marketers like Enron are trying to break into markets and grids controlled by old-line utilities, which operate under state regulation. The commission's chairman has considerable latitude in setting its agenda.

As part of its oversight of the wholesale electricity markets, the commission ordered several companies to refund what it considered excessively high prices this year in California. One lesser offender named in the commission's public filings — $3.2 million, of a total of $125 million — was an Enron subsidiary in Oregon.

Enron owns few generating assets, but buys and sells electricity in the market. Many of those transactions resemble the complicated risk-shifting techniques used by Wall Street for financial instruments.

Mr. Hébert, after he became chairman, initiated an examination into the effects those techniques have on the electricity markets. "One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," he said, adding, "we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results soon."

William L. Massey, one of the agency's two Democratic commissioners, said he supported the inquiry but had not been aware of it — an indication of the chairman's ability to set the commission's agenda.

Finally, the commission is trying to speed the pace of electricity deregulation by opening up the nation's transmission grid, much of which is owned by privately owned utilities that enjoy retail monopolies. Some Enron officials say the commission has been moving too slowly to open the grid. They attribute some of the problem to utilities. But they also fault Mr. Hébert.

"Hébert still has undeserved confidence in some of the vertically integrated companies coming to the table and dealing openly" with transmission access issues, said Richard S. Shapiro, an Enron senior vice president.

The utilities, however, maintain that they provide cheap and reliable service for their customers. Washington lobbyists for one Southern utility said that Enron was really interested in focusing on the utility's big-business clients, which under state regulation pay higher rates than residential customers.

Since 1996, about half the states have moved to open their retail markets to competition, and the commission has begun to make it easier for outsiders to use the nation's transmission grid. But the promise of cheaper rates has been largely unfulfilled. So the push for more deregulation, in which Enron has been a leader, has slowed, especially when California's flawed program led to skyrocketing rates and chaotic markets.

Mr. Hébert is a free-market conservative who favors deregulation but also recognizes the importance of state's rights. A former Mississippi regulator, he is a protégé of Trent Lott, the Senate Republican leader from Mississippi. Mr. Hébert said Mr. Lott was instrumental in his nomination to the commission in 1997 by President Clinton.

President Bush elevated Mr. Hébert to chairman on Inauguration Day, a move Mr. Lay said he told the White House he supported.

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, said that Mr. Lott and Mr. Hébert had both been told that Mr. Hébert could remain chairman at least until the administration's nominees — Mr. Wood and Nora Brownell, a Pennsylvania utility regulator — are confirmed by the full Senate. The Senate energy committee voted earlier this week to approve the two nominees, after a hearing last week indicated strong support.

It is widely expected that President Bush will name Mr. Wood to replace Mr. Hébert as chairman after the Senate acts.

In an interview for a forthcoming episode of "Frontline," the PBS series, Mr. Cheney suggested as much. "Pat Wood's got to be the new chairman of the F.E.R.C., and he'll have to address" various problems in the electricity markets, he said.

Mr. Hébert said that no one had told him he was being replaced. If someone else is named chairman, Mr. Hébert can remain a commissioner until the end of his term, which expires in 2004.

It was a few weeks after President Bush made him chairman that Mr. Hébert said he spoke by telephone with Mr. Lay.

Mr. Lay told him that "he and Enron would like to support me as chairman, but we would have to agree on principles" involving the commission's role in expanding electricity competition, Mr. Hébert said of the conversation.

A senior commission official who was in Mr. Hébert's office during the conversation said Mr. Hébert rebuffed Mr. Lay's offer of a quid pro quo. The official said that he heard Mr. Hébert's side of the conversation and then, after the call ended, learned the rest from him.

Mr. Hébert said that he, too, backed competition but did not think the commission had the legal authority to tell states what to do in this area. Concerning the issue of opening transmission access through the creation of regional networks, Mr. Hebert supports a voluntary process while Enron seeks a faster and more compulsory system.

Mr. Lay said that while he might have discussed issues relating to the commission's authority concerning access to the grid, "there was never any intent" to link that or any other issue to Mr. Hébert's job status.

The commission is a quasijudicial agency, so decision-makers like Mr. Hébert must avoid private discussions about specific matters pending before the commission. Mr. Hébert and Mr. Lay both said that line was not crossed, but Mr. Hébert said he had never had such a blunt talk with an energy-industry executive.

Mr. Lay added that his few recent conversations with Mr. Hébert were nothing special. "We had a lot of access during the Clinton administration," he said.

And he said that while making political contributions "probably helps" to gain access to an official, he made them "because I'm supporting candidates I strongly believe in."

Last June, Enron executives were asked to make voluntary donations to the company's political action committee. The solicitation letter noted that the company faced a range of governmental issues, including electricity deregulation.

This year, some people who sought but did not get nominations to the commission said that Mr. Lay and Enron had had a role in the process.

One was Joe Garcia, a former Florida utilities regulator and prominent Cuban-American activist. He said he had been "interviewed" by a few Enron officials, including Mr. Lay, who he said had not been as "forceful or insistent" as the other Enron officials.

But in their conversation, Mr. Garcia said, Mr. Lay made clear that he would be visiting the White House, adding that "everyone knew of his relationship and his importance."

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, could not cite another company besides Enron that sent him a list of preferred candidates for the commission, but he remembered hearing the views of Tom Kuhn, who heads the utility industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute. Mr. Kuhn was a classmate of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bush at Yale.

As for his conversation with Mr. Garcia, Mr. Lay said he was comfortable with his candidacy but "I'm not sure what I told him about my friends at the White House."


Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company


-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

Answers

Think it time we revisit this post and set of links:http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=004ddx from that dude DocP. Read the TAC pdf cited.

Thanks for posting the NYTimes article Cherri.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


Oh my god! An American energy company with White House influence!!

The HORROR OF IT ALL!

Oh please, take us back to the days when the White House was OWNED by the Peoples Republic of China!

You traitorous liberal scum should be shot on sight! Cherri, you are a disgusting example of an American gone bad.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


So you think making exagerated shocked noises will distract people from the illegalities of the situation? Too BBaad Judicial watch doesn't think so, with Clinton out of the picture they are sniffing the tails of the repugs,

TUNE IN TO THE JUDICIAL WATCH REPORT TV SHOW ON THE RENAISSANCE NETWORK DICK CHENEY HOLDS CLINTON-TYPE FUNDRAISER AT VICE-PRESIDENT’S RESIDENCE

(Washington) Join hosts Larry Klayman and Tom Fitton on The Judicial Watch Report, the fastest growing legal affairs television program. Topics tonight: Judicial Watch uncovered the illegal fundraising tactics of the Clinton Administration in 1996, now Judicial Watch has been forced to take action legal action against similar Republican tactics. Vice President Dick Cheney held areception at his official residence Monday night for donors who contributed $100,000 to the Bush Campaign. Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause, will discuss this disturbing illegal fundraising trend.

and again another little problem.....

KEY SENATOR RESIGNS FUNDRAISING POST AFTER JUDICIAL WATCH COMPLAINTS

Senator Peter Fitzgerald Pulls Out of National Republican Senatorial Committee Post Senate Fundraising Committee Had Offered Access to Bush Administration Officials In Exchange For Campaign Contributions

(Washington, DC) Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) was reported today in The Hill to have cut off ties to a fundraising arm of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), complaining to The Hill that he is “uncomfortable having my name connected to the (NRSC’s Republican Senatorial Trust) without the ability to vet what the trust was doing.” Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, late last week threatened legal action over the NRSC’s fundraising pitch which sold access to high level Bush Cabinet officials in exchange for $1,000 gifts to the NRSC. Fundraising events with Bush officials at foreign embassies were also offered for sale.

Judicial Watch had already taken legal action against Congressman Tom Delay and the Republican fundraising arm in the House of Representatives (the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)) over similar fundraising tactics. In response, Speaker Dennis Hastert refused to attend a NRCC event where meetings with Bush officials were also offered for sale. Speaker Hastert also announced that he would carefully review future fundraising solicitations from the NRCC, to prevent misuse of his office and name.

“Senator Fitzgerald and Speaker Hastert deserve praise for doing the right thing in repudiating their party’s illegal and unethical fundraising tactics. Judicial Watch, through its strong legal actions, has forced these unprecedented actions,” said Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

“Now if only the Bush White House would stop offering our public officials for sale through the congressional fundraising committees, perhaps the stench of Clinton’s fundraising practices finally can begin to be lifted from this town,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.



-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


http://www.carlylegroup.com/

http://www.geo cities.com/burningbush2000/24.html

To the Dimbulb,

China in the WhiteHouse? ROFLMAO!

Next you're gunna tell me these jerks presented to the American People every 2-4 years simply "work their way" there. That they are not what they are, handpicked by the NWO crowd. You actually think a choice exists? Too funny.

Wake-up!

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


BTW, Fo rmer FCC Chairman Kennard to Join The Carlyle Group.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


After some research, I have concluded Judicial Watch is a PAWN. A cheap way for the NWO crowd(Multi-National Capitalists) to accomplish several objectives.

One: JW provides a sort of US Political "herd thinning". JW tends to make the sloppy crook a done crook. Which saves the Big Boys the trouble and helps avoid any renegade Journalist from exposing these inferior ones later on in a more traditional manner. Something which can be messy. Rare to be sure, as we do not really have a free press anymore at the National Level, but we do still have some local-yokels which gain ink sometimes. Many call the Internet home.

Two: JW helps keep a balance between philosophically different crooks by being really non-partisian. They tend to focus on the philosophy in power. This acts as a balance between crooks.

Three: JW's most valuable contribution is with Public Opinion. They are masterful at increasing internal bickering and dissention among the Aware American Public(25 million or so). They provide the proof to back-up the beliefs that there are crooks in our Government. Course ALL the jokers in our Government are crooks, but most still openly think otherwise, or want to believe so.

JW's strategy is myopic, targeted. They do not focus "big picture". Their ways keep alive the internal disagreements amongst the Sheep (American Public)so necessary as a cover for Global Crooks. They produce Martyrs, living examples for the Sheep to point their finger at. In doing so most of these sleepwalkers never understand where there is smoke, a fire is raging.

JW is a powerful force as long as they are deemed useful. Because ultimately JW needs the exposure afforded by the NWO media outlets.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


Eyeroller, let me tell you something.

Right now, I'm working for the US NAVY. Switched over from the army last year, if you must know.

A number of the current and former codes officers were pretty vocal about that plane landing in China. Two things they were pretty blunt about.

1. Orders are that such technology shall not fall into enemy hands, by whatever means necessary. I've had one of these guys look me in the eyes and tell me he would have given the pilot five minutes to radio their location, and then hit the 'dump' switch that fries all the electronics. Pilot could either land it in the water under power, or without power, it would not have mattered to him.

2. Only way those orders can be changed is by getting a new set. So, these guys were ordered by their superiors to land in China, with a plane load of secret technology.

So, theorize as you will about Clinton being owned by the Chinese, you have to account for these facts, whether you like them or not. And Clinton was nowhere near the White House when this one started.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


Ahh, I said ALL of them are compromised. What is to theorize about?

We have been "helping" China since Nixon. Is the "party" affiliation of the NWO frontman in the power supposed to make a difference? on the Global scene? doubt it and there is 4 decades of history on my side showing as much. Domestically one can see policy differences, but globally?

I would contend the recent China deal was about teaching Junior a lesson. A lesson to show him his place in the NWO pecking order. As you know, he tends to be a bit reckless. He is afterall pretty green and unsophisticated.

The secret electronics deal is NOISE, MHO. Your info only tends to confirm as much. How "advanced" is electronics which needs two dozen onboard techies to monitor? Better question maybe why are we risking such "valuable" electronics on a such a sitting duck of an aircraft?

Why was the disabled plane left out in the open by these strippers of goodies? Cause the point was to let our satellites take some neat photos of it showing how the little Communist buggers were stripping it of all that supposed "valuable" equipment. Public ate-it-up. This was diversion. If the goal was the equipment, wouldn't it have made sense to take it inside where they could have better lighting and better dismantling tools handy?

We just had a Ma href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200- 5811285.html?tag=lh">bunch steal the best Lucent can offer. Call me cynical, but I doubt little on that plane worth anything.

China happened. Dubya had his realignment. The rash of "mysterious" military accidents is over(one stuck) and life goes on.

That is my opinion.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001


Davis would have crashed and died. I like that.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001

10-4 to that Carlos. Might as well enhance that fantasy and put the ‘eyeroller’ somewhere on that same aircraft….wheel-well perhaps?

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


I can't recall the last time we had a president that I agreed with 100% of the time. Yes, this bears watching. While I do believe that the energy crunch is due, in large measure, to our refusal to prepare for the future over the past few decades, there's also no doubt that energy companies would love to capitalize on the crisis. They haven't been happy with the situation for some time.

But (on a related subject) by the same token, while I certainly *like* paying less for gasoline (who doesn't?[g]), I've said for some time that our gasoline prices here in this country are artificially low. We pay the lowest prices in the world for energy in general.

There's going to be a shakeout. We just have to keep an eye on it.

Maybe the Senate changing hands will help in that regard. :)

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


Poole:

I've said for some time that our gasoline prices here in this country are artificially low. We pay the lowest prices in the world for energy in general.

You might say it, but that doesn't make it true. It reminds me of the SUV mantra that comes from the libertarians. A few days ago I e-mailed some friends in the UK. I asked them what gas cost them per liter and what the tax was. After some complicated math, I came up with the answer that the gas that they were buying was approximately $1.20/US gallon without taxes. Add the average of 40 cents/gallon tax in the US and you get 1.60/US gallon. Number sound familar.

I am one liberal who believes that taxes should be used to collect money for needed services; not to model citizen behavior. I guess that is where I disagree with the libertarians.

It is even a bigger treat when you consider that we have counties that are larger than the UK; with no alternate forms of transportation.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


"I am one liberal who believes that taxes should be used to collect money for needed services; not to model citizen behavior. I guess that is where I disagree with the libertarians."

Where do you get this idea?

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


Lars:

I get it from our local libertarian party. I get the same thing from our local green party.

My point is to stir up some discussion on this matter. Most of the people posting here have followed this mantra [Unk, excluded].

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


As neither a Liberal or a Libertarian, my impression has always been that it is Liberals who are prone to use taxes as a policy tool for achieving social goals (ie, cigarette taxes) whereas it is Libertaians who prefer to collect the least taxes in the most direct way (I think they disagree among themselves as to whether that would be a low rate flat tax or a VAT).

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ