California electricity crisis
The California electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001 followed the partial deregulation of the electricity market in the state. The deregulation was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis's predecessor, Pete Wilson. Part of the process of increasing competition involved the partial divestiture of electricity generation stations by the incumbent utilities, who were still responsible for electricity distribution and were competing with independents in the retail market.Wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices were regulated for the incumbents as part of a deal with the regulator allowing the incumbents to recover the cost of assets that would be stranded as a result of greater competition. Things went well for the incumbents for several years due to the fact that excess generating capacity kept wholesale electricity prices lower than the capped retail rates.
However, rapid growth in demand for electricity soon ate into the excess capacity and in the summer of 2000 two events compounded the situation. These were a drought in the North West states and a large increase in the price of natural gas. California depends on the supply of hydroelectricity from the north and gas fired generation within the state.
When electricity wholesale prices exceeded retail prices, end user demand was unaffected, but the incumbent utility companies still had to purchase power, albeit at a loss. This allowed independent producers to manipulate prices in the electricity market by withholding electricity generation at some plant, arbitraging the price between internal generation and imported (interstate) power and causing artificial transmission constraints. In economic terms, the incumbents who were still subject to retail price caps were faced with inelastic demand. They were unable to pass the higher prices on to consumers without approval from the public utilities commission. The affected incumbents were Southern Califonia Edison (SoCalEd) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Pro-privatization advocates insist the cause of the problem was that the Regulator still held too much control over the market, and true market processes were stymied.
Prior to deregulation, the electricity market in California was largely in private hands. The main players were Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. The problems arose from an inefficient deregulation of the market. Ownership of certain power stations was transferred in order to increase competition in the wholesale market. In return for divesting some of their power stations the major utilities negotiated a deal to protect them from their assets being stranded. Part of this deal involved price caps for retail customers and a prohibition on the utilities from entering into hedging arrangements. The consequence was the PG&E and SoCalEd were forced to buy from a spot market at very high prices but were unable to raise retail rates. They lost billions and were reneging on power purchase deals and limiting supply. San Diego had worked through the stranded asset provision and was in a position to increase prices to reflect the spot market. Small businesses were badly affected.
| Table of contents |
|
2 See also 3 External link |
Perhaps the heaviest point of controversy is the question of blame for the California electricity crisis. Governor Gray Davis's critics often charge that he did not respond properly to the crisis, while his defenders attribute the crisis solely to the corporate accounting scandals and say that Davis did all he could.
Signs of trouble first cropped up in the spring of 2000 when electricity bills skyrocketed for customers in San Diego, the first area of the state to deregulate. Experts warned of an impending energy crisis, but Governor Davis did little to respond until the crisis became statewide that summer.
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 have resorted to such accusations in their 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.
The crisis, and the subsequent government intervention and bailout of the utilities, have had political ramifications, and is regarded as one of the contributing factors to the 2003 recall election of Governor Davis.
Handling of electricity crisis
See also
External link
Manifesto on The Californian Electricity Crisis
