More energy bill - action/strategy and a plea for participation

[salin]

Okay Duers, time to act. Even if the energy bill feels out of your domain - for most of us (myself included) the details do feel complex, and over the head (leaving one scratching that head). It is too easy to therefor shrug the shoulders and let this train wreck happen.

This is a follow up to this thread where there is good information:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805

Additional information from an earlier discussion can be found here - but it is long (and can be overwhelming -but if your appetite has been whetted - give it a read) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=213825

This thread is to try to summarize information and hopefully make more of it accessible. I am going to try something different for DU threads - so please bear with me. After this thread I am going to post a number of posts (directly linked to this thread) with topics I will list below. Please comment directly to the subtopic so that we end up with a series of minithreads going at once. For example

More energy bill....
1. Summary info on bill (will link a good summary)
- post by xduer - another summary by __________ group
- post by salin - great summary - y point seems especially big
2. Key Issues
- Eminent domain
- post by xduer - before couldn't only govts 'take land'?
- post by duique - I believe that a precedent was set with Z.
- Decreased Regulation (kill PUHCA)
3. Groups currently calling for action
- USPIRG
- Public Citizen
4. Groups who might be likely to support (or call) for action
-
-
5. Sample letters and drafts (or items)

6. Overall Strategy suggestions for DU (How do we kick this into the mainstream?!)

That is both the structure I hope to create, and those are the topic headings I am creating. Please refrain from posting until that subthread/heading has started (I have to go back and keep writing the next section) - so we can at least try to see if this structure works. (Sorry for the confusion).

After the 6 parts are started feel free to add where ever it fits (including linked directly to the top post).

Hopefully across tomorrow - we can create a strategy (or multiple stratgies) - maybe develop some talking points - and have letter templates that people will feel comfortable taking and modifying (or writing there own) so we can get a slew of letters generated.

There was so much in the linked thread that I may miss including some of the highlights here - please add anything I missed.

Thanks all, and I encourage casual readers who may not have yet participated in these discussions - to read, take action, and let us know that you are doing so - that will give those of us digging into this encouragement to keep going. Right now this is NOT getting much discussion and that is discouraging. BUT right now we have the opportunity to try to devise ways of pushing this forward.

Ready? Set... GO!

[salin]

1. 1. Bill Summary

The best I have found is through Public Citizen. It doesn't summarize the costs though. I haven't searched Henry Waxman's subcommittee on governmental investigations yet - last year they did a great analysis of the costs of the house bill. If you (or I) find this please add it.

Public Citizen summary of Key points in the bills: http://www.citizen.org/documents/energybillcomparison.pdf

[salin]

5. from thomas (thanks to bigtree)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#369722

[salin]

2. 2. Key Issues

Here I include the following key issues - please add more - I know they exist (example huge $ towards nonrenewable "dirty" energy (and nuke) and little $ towards r and d or investment in renewable or alternative energy sources {re - moving towards energy independence}.

Listed in no particular order:

a. Eminent Domain
b. Decreased Regulation (particularly Dismantling PUHCA)
c. Nuclear Issues (am defering on this topic to Buddhamama and Bigtree)
d. Money, money, money

[salin]

3. a. Eminent domain

Gives government the authority to take land and give it to corporations for energy transmission (I am less clear but this siezing of public property may also be used for drilling - can someone check or verify that? If not stick to transmission - pipelines and powerlines).

Robbien (620 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 01:26 PM
Response to Original message

14. There is a clause in this bill


that will force private citizens to give up their homes if it is in the way of any drilling or pipelines they may want to do.

See this
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16ENER.html

The GOP is against this, but it is still going to be in the bill.

--------------------------------------------
salin's comment - THIS issue has huge traction with property rights folks.

[shirlden]

27. This has happened in Ohio

Marathon Ashland threatened land owners with "Eminent Domain" if they did not sell M/A right aways for a pipe line. I could not believe this possible and did my own research of Ohio law. Guess what folks....the great state of Ohio allows Private companies to use E.D., and the people were f *ked.

:argh:

[salin]

29. wow. Any way that you might

be able to find a story (google?) that highlights what happened? Might wake some folks up - to have a real example of things to come.

[salin]

4. b. Decreased Regulation (particularly Dismantling PUHCA)

Just think - making it easier for the rest of the country to join california in market manipulation hell (or heaven if you are an energy company).

The best information/summaries on PUCHA are from public citizen.

http://www.publiccitizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/deregulation/puhca/articles.cfm?ID=7324

More Energy Deregulation

March 21, 2002

It is unfortunate that Republicans and Democrats alike propose repealing a key federal consumer protection, the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) just when courts are finally using the law to rescue consumers. At a time when the Enron disaster and the failure of electricity deregulation across the country (a dozen states have repealed or delayed their deregulation laws) illustrate how vulnerable consumers and investors are to impenetrable corporate structures and unaccountable markets, PUHCA’s protections are needed now more than ever.

Enron’s collapse exposed consumers and investors to the dangers of inadequate government oversight inherent in electricity deregulation. The combination of deregulated state wholesale electricity markets, federal deregulation of commodity exchanges and the gutting of PUHCA removed accountability and transparency from the energy sector. California’s recent energy crisis and Enron’s bankruptcy would have been impossible under a regulated system.

PUHCA is the most important protection the federal government provides for electricity consumers. But the law’s potency has been eroded over the last decade, with Enron responsible for undermining the act’s effectiveness by spearheading many of the loopholes. Incredibly, rather than proposing to close these Enron-exemptions to prevent other energy companies from abusing consumers and investors, the response by the Bush Administration and Congress (including the Senate Democrat energy bill) is to repeal the entire law, and replace it with no consumer protections. Repealing PUHCA will lead to a rash of mergers, threatening consumers.

-----------snip
How PUHCA Protects Consumers and Shareholders

PUHCA was enacted in 1935 in response to America’s first Enron-style energy crisis in the 1920s. A handful of energy companies, employing business strategies strikingly similar to Enron’s, held consumers hostage with complex, multi-state pyramiding schemes. These holding companies jacked up prices by purchasing financial, fuel and construction services through a complex web of subsidiaries. Not only were consumers overcharged by these impossible-to-regulate ploys, but investors were robbed because the holding company’s assets were inflated. These pyramiding holding companies finally collapsed, ringing in the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforces PUHCA, which protects consumers by ensuring that multi-state utility companies re-invest ratepayer money into providing affordable and reliable electricity. A corporation must register as a "holding company" if it owns at least 10% of the stock of an electric or natural gas utility. Consumers benefit from PUHCA’s requirements that holding companies only invest in "integrated systems"—utilities that are "physically interconnected"— thereby maximizing economies of scale by operating a single, coordinated system. PUHCA has historically prohibited holding companies from investing ratepayers’ money in areas that will not directly contribute to low bills and reliable service (out-of-region power plants or non-electricity industries such as water and telecommunications).

(more from the link)

also from Public Citizen - PUHCA for dummies
http://www.citizen.org/documents/puhcafordummies.pdf

[buddhamama]

25. excellent,salin

love PUHCA for Dummies! was reading from it today as a matter of fact.

[salin]

6. c. Nuclear Issues (am defering on this topic to Buddhamama and Bigtree)

I know little of this topic and defer to those with more familiarity. bigtree gives a good summary - and additional information/background:
bigtree (156 posts) Fri Sep-19-03 06:12 PM
Response to Original message

113. don't forget the nukes

Edited on Fri Sep-19-03 06:16 PM by bigtree
Subject: don't forget the nukes
The Energy bill aims to facillitate the next generation of nukes and nuke plants. Also, there are countless issues regarding waste storage, transportation, and conversion into new deadly applications, like mini-nukes, bunker-busters, as well as the continuation and expansion of nuclear energy plants.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006: (enter manually and include the : symbol)

Nuclear energy accounts for about 20% of our electricity needs; 30% worldwide. It's promoted as a clean energy alternative. But, the 20-30% could be made up by renewable sources. However, the administration and the nuclear industry insist that we preserve and expand our nuclear program, using "energy security" as their justification.

Here's the hook.

In December 2002 the United States Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum issued "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
(big file, a must read!)

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was named in 1999 the Department of Energy's lead laboratory for Environmental Management, responsible for the long-term stewardship of DOE facilities. The major elements within the INEEL's Environmental Management Program are Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and High-Level Waste. http://www.inel.gov/

In 1999, DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (DOE-NE) designated the INEEL and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) as lead laboratories for Nuclear Reactor Technology. In the summer of 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced the INEEL will serve as the nation's primary nuclear technology center. (The place where the nuclear madness is mushrooming).

The Environmental Management Program (http://www.inel.gov/environment/documents/2003-sep-prog-rpt.pdf) funds slightly over 70% of the work at the INEEL. This includes Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Waste, INTEC, and Validation and Verification. The remaining funding sources consist of Work for Others (WFO), offices of Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Reenewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Office of Science, Nonproliferation and National Security

So, INEEL is deep in Nuclear waste management. And their focus is on the recycling of nuclear waste as opposed to primary immobilization and storage. It doesn't solve the waste issues, it compounds the problem by dispersing degraded, spent, or blended materials to new weapons and new and existing nuclear energy plants. Much of the converted waste will be redistributed outside of the country.

But they are also charged by those in and out of the Bush administration who have an interest in preserving the faltering industry with developing new nuclear technologies to counter the declining support and the disappearing rationale for nuclear power.

So, INEEL is the place where nuke resaerch and development has been centered since 1952. But, in 1989 the EPA placed the INEEL on the National Priorities List of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites because of confirmed contaminant releases into the environment.

Yet, the INEEL is still considered the primary site for nuclear energy research and development.


Current activities are:

Generation IV As the DOE's lead laboratories for nuclear reactor technology development, The INEEL (http://www.inel.gov/initiatives/generation.shtml) and Argonne National Laboratory are organizing and coordinating the Generation IV Initiative.Generation IV Roadmap supporting documents:
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/


The INEEL provides specialized management, applied research, systems analysis, proof-of-concept engineering, technological support, and related services for various offices of the Department of Energy (DOE):

Environmental Management
http://www.inel.gov/environment/

Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#ne

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#ee

Office of Science (SC)
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#sc

Nonproliferation And National Security
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#nn

Fossil Energy (FE)
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

Defense Programs
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

Environment, Safety, and Health
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

All are just fronts for the expansion of nuclear, oil, and hydrogen ambitions; financed by the taxpayer in the Energy bill.

To address the environmental mismanagement and abuse, INEEL was divided into 10 clean-up sites.

(more plus maps: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#370865)

Related issues (not sure which are in the bill or which are indirectly related:

i. Money
ii. INEEL
iii. Modern Pit Facility
iv. Related news

[salin]

8. i. Money (who gets it) in Nuclear Energy section of the bill

again thanks to bigtree: 84. nuclear research section. here's the money shot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#366091


This one is long.

Is anyone willing to take out a calculator and add the various amounts for each year that is being doled out in this section?

[buddhamama]

24. the money broken down

A)SEC. 941. NUCLEAR ENERGY. 5
Secretary for nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 7

total from fiscal year 2004-2008 $1,758,000,000

B)NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.—The following sums are authorized to be 15
appropriated to the Secretary for activities under section 942

total from fical year 2004-2008 $675,000,000

C)ALLOCATIONS.—From amounts authorized under subsection (a), the following sums 22
are authorized: 23

total from fiscal year 2004-2008 $865,000,000

subsection (C) total from fiscal year 2004-2008 $220,600,000

Grand Total for the Nuclear Industry $3,518,600,000
(feel free to double check my math)

[salin]

30. no small change.. and the big winner is...

nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application ...

Wonder how much is for "commercial application" - and what the heck is that - are WE taxpayers funding the manufacture and distribution of by products from nuclear energy production? Perhaps it is looking for other applications of nuclear energy - so we are underwriting business development costs? ???

[salin]

9. ii. INEEL

See above (linked) post.

[salin]

10. iii. Modern Pit Facility

A letter by many interested organizations details this issue - related to the use of these pits to manufacture plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. Note - a whole lot of groups have signed on. Again, I am not sure if this is directly involved in the energy bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#366091

[salin]

11. iv. Related news

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#363705

U.S. to Build Power Plants in Russia, Replacing Plutonium-Making Reactors

[Misinformed01]

7. This is just a kick for you

I am going to pick up the World's Cutest Man at the airport...but, I am definetly interested in reading this thourouly-

[salin]

21. Thanks!

And a big hug from you to he, and he to you - on my behalf. You are both the greatest!

[salin]

12. 3. Groups currently calling for action

The two that I read were Public Citizen and USPIRG. If I overlooked any, please add them here! The more we can participate in existing strategies the better, or that we can utilize their information in ways that can help our own strategies.

Public Citizen

http://www.publiccitizen.org/campaigns/articles.cfm?ID=9943
Late Thursday July 31st, the Senate unexpectedly agreed by unanimous consent to put aside consideration of Sen. Pete Domenici's energy package (S.14) in favor of last year's flawed bill. Lawmakers then approved the measure 84-14. This bill must now be conferenced with the House-passed energy bill, H.R.6.

While in some respects "less bad" than Sen. Domenici’s original proposal, the bill passed by the Senate toes the line of the Bush administration's energy plan, which was hatched secretly with Enron executives and other energy lobbyists. It contains billions of taxpayer dollars in handouts to nuclear, coal, and oil companies, including some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.

Click here to learn more and to take action!

Comparison of Energy Legislation in the 108th Congress. Click here for the analysis.

------------------
Action includes a fax campaign. ALso has a link on how senators voted: http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=317&chamber=S&congress=1081


U.S.PIRG

http://pirg.org/alerts/alert.asp?id=322&id3=alert&id4=USAA&
Phone campaign
New Energy Future
If you've called and asked your senators to oppose the Senate energy bill then thanks! Please give us some details on your call by filling out the form below.

If you haven't called yet, please take a moment to call your senators at 202-224-3121 (just tell the operator which state you're from and they can connect you to your senators - you may have to call twice to reach both senators). Here's a sample message you can leave:

"Hello, my name is _____ and I live in _______. Please oppose the dirty and dangerous energy bill passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee because the bill is loaded with provisions written by and for the utility, nuclear, coal and oil industries that threaten our pocketbooks, public health, national security and environment."

[salin]

13. 4. Groups who might be likely to support (or call) for action

Suggestions from the earlier threads:

MoveOn,
ActforChange,
TrueMajority,
Sierra Club,
Union of Concerned Scientists,
and Corporate Watch.

Others?

[buddhamama]

28. thought of another

SEEN Sustainable Energy & Economy Network

SEEN is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies

http://www.seen.org

[salin]

14. 5. Sample letters and drafts (or items)

linked - drafts from Robbien, parts of drafts from Buddhamama, suggestion (based on Buddhamama and my wordy suggestions) of a concise letter from Nothingshocksmeanymore. Then a link to an item Robbein found that could be a helpful template.

[salin]

15. from Robbien

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=360805&mesg_id=360805#365023

Robbien (620 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 10:05 PM
Response to Original message

62. first try at cutting the release down into a letter


Dear

RE: Vote No on the H.R.6 Energy Bill

I feel this legislation would actually promote nuclear power and further deregulation, making nuclear power even more dangerous to the public.

The report details the dilapidated state of the country’s 103 nuclear reactors and their heightened vulnerability during power outages, debunking nuclear proponents’ claims of reliability. Despite a detailed history of leaks, maintenance problems, weak security and overall deteriorating conditions of U.S. nuclear plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted operating license renewals to all 16 reactors that have submitted applications.

By next summer, the United States will have a 34 percent reserve margin for electricity generation capacity, according to Goldman Sachs & Co.’s managing director, Larry Kellerman.

"This glut of power plants give us no reason to build more nuclear power plants nor keep all the current, dilapidated nuclear fleet running.The same is true for transmission capacity; at the time of the blackout, the grid was only at 75 percent capacity. We don’t need to relicense or build more nuclear plants.

The blackout demonstrated the current bottlenecks and strains on the nation’s electric grid. The transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, free-wheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation, in which energy companies seek to supply power to the highest bidder. Sending power over a much wider area decreases efficiency and burdens a transmission system designed to serve local utilities.

For these reasons I respectfully request you vote no.

Sincerely

what changes are needed?

[salin]

16. Draft sections from Buddhamama

with her permission - these were done over time and in parts - so any lack of smooth transition is due to my compiling them into a post.

beginning:
buddhamama (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-19-03 11:51 AM
Response to Original message

103. i am still working on the letter


actually on working on adding to Robbien's letter.

i don't have a lot of time today
and there are a lot of provisions/issues included in this Bill.
right now i am working on the language to address the repeal of PUHCA.

any help would be appreciated.

hope to have something by tomorrow.

----------
buddhamama (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-20-03 07:51 AM
Response to Original message

126. the opening paragraph


i had started to make revisions but decided to post it here instead and let you all pick it apart. my SO says my anger and disappointment are coming thru and he thinks it should be toned down a little. i have tried to do this but it's not working.
so i'm leaving it up to you.

it's shaping up to be another bust day and i still have some writng to do but i'm going to try to post everything i have by tonite.

anyway here's the opening

"As your constituent, I urge to vote against the Energy Bill H.R.6 that is currently under consideration in conference committee. The House must avoid the rush to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the public. The White House is looking to exploit recent events and push through this legislation that further deregulates our energy markets while repealing key consumer protections and most egregious of all, once again, taxpayers will be asked to bear the burden.
If the past three years have taught us anything it is that, deregulation hasn’t lived up to its promise of cheaper more reliable electricity; and has in fact been the impetus in which market manipulation for profit by Enron and others, power outages and black outs have occurred."

-------------------
buddhamama (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-20-03 08:46 AM
Response to Original message

130. i am not awake yet


posted this above in the wrong place.

more...
i am all over the place with this.

i'm posting paragraph's. everyone can give input in how to bring it all together.

"In section 16011 of H.R.6, the House seeks $100 billion from taxpayers for the construction of new transmission lines. The House Bill ignores the main culprit; once required re-investment in the infrastructure was foregone for higher profit margins. Therefore, responsibility for such upgrades should be placed solely on the Electricity producers and providers."

*Since deregulation was ushered in via the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the ability of states to order utilities to reinvest their profits back into the transmission system has been undermined. In 1990, utilities spent $3.3 billion (in today’s dollars) to upgrade and maintain the nation’s transmission system. In 2000, utilities spent less ($3 billion) at a time when more power was moving through the grid. In addition, deregulation forced the firing of thousands of utility workers, hindering the ability of utilities to adequately staff maintenance and operation.

*Source: Compiled by Public Citizen from North American Electric Reliability Council Data.*



"The House Bill also fails to address the evidence that a larger transmission system is not what is needed. The blackout demonstrated the current bottlenecks and strains on the nation’s electric grid. The transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, free-wheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation, in which energy companies seek to supply power to the highest bidder. Sending power over a much wider area decreases efficiency and burdens a transmission system designed to serve local utilities."

--------------
buddhamama (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-20-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #146

147. i am trying to overcome my wordiness


it is hard. and i am having a hard time being powerful without being angry.

this is just one partial re-write i did, no where near done just playing around.

The House Bill ignores the main culprit for the Nation’s Energy woes, the Industry itself. There is nothing in this legislation for the citizenry. Instead lawmakers favor the Industry by enacting regressive energy policies, funding of projects with taxpayer money with less oversight than ever before; ensuring more Enron style manipulation and plunder, all the while stripping the public of its protections by seeking the repeal of PUHCA.


----------------

[salin]

17. 2 variations on parts

the first was my overly wordy first response to one of buddhamama's early draft sections. The second is a very concise summary from Nothingshocksmeanymore.

All of these are included to give folks ideas. Please post your ideas/reactions... new drafts and the like!

-----------
132. my suggestions make it more wordy


don't know if it is where you want to go. But by explaining rather than alluding to the lessons learned re: deregulation - you can take some of the more colorful language (I love it! but it may be true that it lets your anger bleed through which may downplay the sense of urgency you are going for).

The following suggestion is more in theme than word. Take it for what it is worth - and if you like it - use your wonderful language to make it your own.

-------------
"As your constituent, I urge to vote against the Energy Bill H.R.6 that is currently under consideration in conference committee. The House must avoid the rush to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the public. The White House is looking to exploit recent events and push through this legislation that further deregulates our energy markets while repealing key consumer protections and most egregious of all, once again, taxpayers will be asked to bear the burden.

(great opening - only suggested change is to the second sentence:

It appears that the White House in lobbying very hard to get this bill, that had been on the backburner for a year, to move forward again, is exploiting recent events to push through this legislation....)

If the past three years have taught us anything it is that, deregulation hasn’t lived up to its promise of cheaper more reliable electricity; and has in fact been the impetus in which market manipulation for profit by Enron and others, power outages and black outs have occurred."

(Leave the first sentence - but then instead of allusion - spell out the lessons learned

As a country, in the past three years, we have learned a great deal about the unintended consequences of supporting energy deregulation in the name of lower rates through two big lessons:

First was from a now known to be industry induced energy crisis on the west coast. The scale of market manipulation, that may have initially been spurred by an Enron that saw an opportunity to save itself (though the rest of us did not know of the financial problems them company had), has been upsetting as it appears that the opportunities to manipulate the market to gouge consumers was so irresistable that many energy companies such as ________________ (need to check with Californians for names of companies such as Duke that have been 'caught' in the gaming) jumped into the gaming of west coast rate payers. Any savings initially brought by deregulation were quickly wiped away and left rate payers with higher and higher costs.

Second was the problem of overuse on an aging infrastructure, which lead to one of the broadest blackouts in recent memory. More companies were using the infrastructure without any investment to modernize that infrastructure. It is as if the new energy market was without overhead/infrastructure costs, with the assumption that consumers should pay for the 'cost of doing business' rather than traditional business model of companies' earning profits investing some of those into infrastructure (to increase the ability of earning future profits).

In both cases it appears that rate payers and tax payers will have to foot the bill. This comes at a time, due to the economy, that consumers and tax payers have fewere and fewer resources to foot the bill for higher energy costs.

I ask you to pay particular attention to a provision in the bill that eliminates the last vestage of corporate SEC regulation over companies delivering energy to consumers. the Public Utilities Holding Commission Act (PUHCA) prevents companies providing utility services to consumers from owning a great deal of stock in subsidiaries that provide services to the utilities. Before PUHCA was established, some corporations would use a subsidiary to sell services to the parent company at an exagerated rate thus pushing the overall rates to the consumer up much higher. Shutting down PUHCA opens yet another means for energy companies to manipulate the market in ways that are outside of the view of government regulators. Recent events suggest that rate payers and tax payer interests are still in need of the protection that regulators provide.


(I warned you this was even more wordy - if you can summarize it - or make it more concise - all for the better!)


----------------
nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-20-03 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #132

140. Less wordy not more...they won't read it.


I really think the manner to go about this is to contribute to public advocacy groups that will testify before congress.

Keep the letters shorter rather than longer...and more powerful.

Here is MY rewrite:

I am writing to request your opposition to Energy Bill H.R.6. This bill removes major protections from consumers including their property rights. Any bill that weakens the takings clause of the constitution in favor on the enrichment of private interests in NOT in the interest of the American people.

The American public should not be asked to finance the expansion of the energy grid to the benefit of CEO's who then pull the profit out or pay the shareholders at the expense of the public.

The evidence submitted by the Attorney General of California regarding wide spread market manipulation and fraud should be enough to sour any representative in the house from further removing consumer protections in favor of privatization.

Had the energy companies that had been using the grid invested in the infrastructure all along, perhaps the recent blackout could have been avoided.

It is beyond reason that Americans are being asked to pay 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq but here in America we do not see fit to pour federal money into infrastructure without handing it off to private interests with less oversight not MORE.

If you pass this bill you will be passing the single largest folly of unintended consequences since the railroads companies of the late 1800's were permitted to manipulate commerce in the west.

I urge you to act in honor of the public whose interests seem to continually be sidelined in favor of corporations with less and less accountability to the public which funds them.

IF Ken Lay taught us nothing else, it is more important to keep the American public confident in their markets than to make one unaccountable individual wealthy at the expense of that public.

"There is no reason why good cannot

[salin]

18. helpful information

suggested by Robbien:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0908-05.htm

[salin]

19. 6. Overall Strategy suggestions for DU (How do we kick this into the mains

I am growing to tired to summarize this last section - please bear with me. Here are the related DU comments on strategy.

- (Robbien) Maybe a short form letter outlining what is happening and provide them the link to the story. Then send emails off to left, right and middle organizations and ezines.

- (bigtree) What appeal to use is a Hobson's choice. I say scrap the whole bill, but that probably isn't realistic. There is something for every interest, from alternative energy funding (wind power etc.), to electrical issues, to Indian energy ownership sell-out lures. I don't know where your interests lie.

And there is plenty to oppose. Choose your issue from the legislation. Google your subject; the issues are pretty old. They are just under a new assault from the emboldened majority. But they are soft on the issues of nuclear development, storage, and clean-up. All of their nuclear ambitions are contained in this bill in the guise of research and funding for new revitalization and refurbishment facilities that are to be formatted in the future for the new generation of nuclear weapons.

So, don't be dismayed by the old links. Learn up.
These issues will not disappear, whatever happens with this Energy bill. Watch Bingaman. He sometimes bends towards the energy industry lobby.

Write Your Representative-
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Home Page of the Senate of the United States
http://www.senate.gov/

View the Active Legislation list-
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm

Try the http://thomas.loc.gov/ link again after the storm

give the soldiers what they were promised

- (robbien) refers to ongoing campaigns by USPIRG and Public Citizen (see the post on groups currently calling for action).

- (blm) suggests a new thread that hits all these points and includes your action email and phone guides?

The extra info and actions are lost this far downthread.

thanks (or blame) to blm! this is what inspired this thread!

- points raised in a pm to me by one who was leaving for the day but wanted to chime in ideas focused on content to push:

-COST of the program
-Ramming in through (again)
-Curious timing of Cheney trying to ram through the SC a ruling to keep his energy task force papers quiet
-Use of Immenent Domain for PRIVATE interests not public interests.

[salin]

20. There she is - the outline for the discussion and a framework

for us to take action.

Please weigh in. If nothing else to let us know you are reading (and that I didn't just spend an hour plus trying to organize this information and other DUers contributions in vain ;-) ).

Any ideas, information, thoughts on any of the subjects are greatly valued.

Remember - most of us participating never gave Energy Policy second thought - until we were at Du. Until the issue just came up. And until someone else pushed the topic - and the topic/information was disturbing. It has just been over time, reading threads like these, digging around for more information, that folks have built some knowledge. I invite you to begin the journey with us. And maybe, just maybe, we can help mobilize groups with large membership with natural interests in these issues - to push the issue - and maybe, just maybe, we can contribute to making a difference.

[prolesunited]

22. I'll take a look at this when I get home from work

In the meantime,
:kick:

[Booberdawg]

23. Reading and willing to contribute

I am willing to contribute some time and effort into this discussion, although this issue is completely new to me and completely over my head right now. I had reservations about being of much use and appreciate your courtesy in discussing how and where I might begin to familiarize myself with pieces of this issue and how I might contribute, as well as your encouragement. Thanks. :hi:

I am going to start by simply reading through all the materials and if necessary ask questions, as you suggested, and hopefully be able to contribute more as the thread progresses. I am skipping the nuclear part!

Thank you, by the way, for all the time, effort, and dedication you and the others took to put this together. :toast:

Linda

[buddhamama]

26. thank you,salin

for putting this together into catergories and adding key info.

it is very much appreciated.

And thanks to all who contributed! :thumbsup:

:kick: before retiring for the night.

see y'all tomorrow. :hi:

[Booberdawg]

31. kick

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

32. kick

:kick:

[bigtree]

34. Here's another try at the nukes

I've downloaded the Energy bill (as reported) onto my site for easy access. All of our issues are in there so give it a careful read.
http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

Below I've listed all of the sections in the Energy bill that relate to the expansion of the nuclear program. None of the inituatives deserve support. They are written to confuse. They are the foot in the door for the next generation of nukes; from bunker-busters to 'useable', 'tactical' nukes. Also involved in the research funds are plans for new generation reactors that recycle nuclear waste for weapons and power plants instead of immobilizing the waste and storing it.


Oppose: Subtitle B: Deployment of New Nuclear Plants

SEC. 434. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The project shall include planning,
research and development, design, and construction of an advanced, next-generation, nuclear energy system suitable for enabling further research and development on advanced reactor technologies and alternative approaches for reactor-based generation of hydrogen.

SEC. 433. PROJECT MANAGEMENT.
(b) LEAD LABORATORY.—The lead laboratory for the program, providing the site for the reactor construction, shall be the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (“INEEL”).
(d) COLLABORATION.—Project activities shall be conducted at INEEL, other national laboratories, universities, domestic industry, and international partners.
(1) The project shall utilize, where appropriate, extensive reactor test capabilities resident at INEEL.
(3) The Secretary may combine this project with the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program.
(b) REACTOR CONSTRUCTION.—The following sum is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for all project-related construction activities, to be available until expended, $500,000,000.


Oppose SEC. 441. URANIUM SALES AND TRANSFERS.


Oppose TITLE IX —RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(5) nuclear energy including programs for existing and advanced
reactors, and education of future specialists.

Oppose SEC. 941. NUCLEAR ENERGY.

(a) CORE PROGRAMS.—The following sums are authorized to be appropriated tothe Secretary for nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities, including activities authorized under this subtitle,other than those described in subsection 5
(b) NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.
(c) ALLOCATIONS.

SEC. 942. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
(a) NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE.—The Secretary shall carry out a Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for research and development related to nuclear energy.
(b) NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall
carry out a Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to support research and development activities addressing reliability, availability, productivity, component aging, safety and security of existing nuclear power plants.
(c) NUCLEAR POWER 2010 PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a Nuclear Power 2010 Program, consistent with recommendations in the October 2001 report entitled “A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010” issued by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee of the Department. The Program shall include—

(1) utilization of the expertise and capabilities of industry, universities, and National Laboratories in evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles and fuels testing;
(2) consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and developing nations;
(3) participation of international collaborators in research, development, and design efforts as appropriate; and
(4) encouragement for university and industry participation.

(d) GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INITIATIVE.—The Secretary shall carry out a Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative to develop an overall technology plan and to support research and development necessary to make an informed technical decision about the most promising candidates for eventual commercial application.

The Initiative shall examine advanced proliferation-resistantand passively safe reactor designs, including designs that—
1) are economically competitive with other electric power generation plants;
(2) have higher efficiency, lower cost, and improved safety compared to reactors in operation on the date of enactment of this Act;
(3) use fuels that are proliferation resistant and have substantially reduced production of high-level waste per unit of output; and
(4) use improved instrumentation.

(e) REACTOR PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN.—The Secretary shall carry out research to examine designs for high-temperature reactors capable of producing large-scale quantities of hydrogen using thermo-chemical processes.
(f) NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a strategy for the facilities of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology and shall transmit a report containing the strategy along with the President’s budget request to the Congress for fiscal year 2006. Such strategy shall provide a cost-effective means for—

(1) maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, as needed; (2) closing unneeded facilities;
(3) making facility upgrades and modifications; and
(4) building new facilities.


Good work, everyone!
I'm looking forward to another long thread. Monday should herald a barrage of informed opposition to the Energy bill from this excellent site.

[salin]

40. a couple of questions

there are many references to r&d for next generation of nuclear energy facilities - and the way it is worded (as is always the case with this orwellian administration) sounds reasonable - in the sense that IF we have to do more nuclear energy - the sane thing to do is to make the plants safer, and make the waste less toxic.

You refer to this as a foot in the door to next generation nukes (as in weapons). I don't doubt you (you clearly have a good understanding of these issues). Can you layout - in your opinion - the link of how this r&d allows for (or "foot in the door", if you will) development of new nuclear weapons? A primer in the logic would be helpful to those of us with little understanding of this issue.

A second thing that keeps jumping out at me is that some of the $$$ (gifts to industry) are for development of future commercial applications.

I could be wrong - but this seems to say that taxpayers will not only underwrite (pay for) the development of "safer" nuclear energy plants (and if we HAVE to have nuke plants {ugh}, this makes sense to give incentives to make them safer), but that we are also paying the companies, in developing these technologies - to develop plans (materials, etc.) for reproducing and selling to other companies (US and elsewhere in the world).

This would suggest that we are again underwriting (WELFARE) the cost of business for corporations - who would reap the financial benefits (and with this administration - probably never have to pay any taxes back to the government on any/all profits they gain as a result of OUR welfare to them); AND it would suggest a multiplier effect in terms of increasing reliance (nationally and world wide) on nuclear energy. That is, if you are trying to sell the products one develops in creating 'safer nuclear energy facilities', there has to be customers for it to be commercial. Who would these customers be? Future nuclear energy facilities.

[bigtree]

43. The nuke provisions are a hard read. But they are designed to confuse.

The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their nuclear ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research.

The lead laboratory for nuclear R&D is INEEL. This has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since 1952.
At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and saftey issues and disarnament.

INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.

Right before Bush got in, the industry, still fat from clean-up money (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal)sought to bolster their flagging industry. Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation saftey issues)

So,they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accomodate(recycle)and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it. (The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste creating more opportunity for abuse or mishap)

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The Bush administration has been advocating for the Bunker-busters and the tactical-nukes.

The bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program" This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/

They put together a position paper which is referenced in the bill:
“A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010” http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

INEEL is the lab who has developed most of our nation's nuclear arsenal. Just because they are involved in mandated clean-up hasn't precluded them from their original mission: the development of nuclear weapons

So, hhere is their bid, doublespoken in the Energy bill:

-"RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The project shall include planning,
research and development, design, and construction of an advanced, next-generation, nuclear energy system suitable for enabling further research and development on advanced reactor technologies and alternative approaches for reactor-based generation of hydrogen."

-"building new facilities"

-"making facility upgrades and modifications"

-"Reactor Production Of Hydrogen" ( produced from recycled nuclear fuel)

-"use fuels that are proliferation resistant and have substantially reduced production of high-level waste per unit of output" (dubious)

-"(fuels that)have higher efficiency, lower cost, and improved safety compared to reactors in operation on the date of enactment of this Act" (recycling vs. immobilization and storage)

-"consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and developing nations" (do developing nations need new nuclear plants?)

-"utilization of the expertise and capabilities of industry, universities, and National Laboratories in evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles and fuels testing

((4) The term “National Laboratory” means any of the following laboratories owned by the Department:
(A) Ames Laboratory.
(B) Argonne National Laboratory.
(C) Brookhaven National Laboratory.
(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
(E) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
(F) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
(G) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(H) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(A New Advanced Plutonium Lab For Los Alamos? MUST READ! See article below on 'nuclear pits'
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/CMRreplacement052803.pdf)
(I) National Energy Technology Laboratory.
(J) National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(K) Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
(L) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
(M) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
(N) Sandia National Laboratories.
(O) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
(P) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

-"Uranium Sales And Transfers"
(The U.S. converts the degraded uranium from Russia's decommissioned nuclear weapons into fuel for the nation's remaining nuclear power plants. Nuclear power supplies about 20% of U.S. electricity needs. In 1999, about half the 47.9 million pounds of uranium bought by U.S. utilities for commercial reactors came from the United States and Canada. The other half came from overseas sources. Only one company is contracted perform this task (USEC). The company is floundering and the industry is barely supported by this dubious supply of uranium.

Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of some of the world's biggest companies in the nuclear power field, is working towards an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a new uranium enrichment plant in central Tennessee that would supply enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power reactors. The 20% of our electricity needs that comes from nuclear power could be supplanted by any combination of renewables. Uranium based plants are dinosaurs. They shouln't be 're-generated'.)

Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. The Department of Energy (DOE) announced on September 23, 2002 its intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons. Scoping meetings were held during 2002 and ANA staff and many of its member groups testified and submitted comments opposing this new facility.

The DOE received $5 million from Congress for Fiscal Year 2003 to continue work on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the MPF. Public hearings are planned on the MPF during the summer of 2003. ANA plans to mobilize people to testify at those hearings and submit comments.

Meanwhile, the DOE requested $22 million for the MPF in its Fiscal Year 2004 budget request and Congress funded the request in the House and Senate versions of the Defense Authorization bill, but the House cut over half of the funding for the MPF citing the Administration's failure to issue revised stockpile requirements following the ratification of the Moscow Treaty which will dramatically reduce deployed nuclear weapons.

Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a new pit facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The DOE's Notice of Intent for the MPF also states that one of the functions for the facility will be to have the ability to produce new design pits for new types of nuclear weapons.

Sorry it's so complicated. Just believe the worst from this duplicitous adninistration. New nukes and new nuke plants will restart the worldwide arms race (Iran, Saudi Arabia, NK) and create a new generation of deadly waste.

Bush Jr. Administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review- MUST READ!:
www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/nprbulletin.pdf

List of all nuclear power plants in America:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm

Did you really ask for all of this info?

[salin]

45. Oh my God!

I have only gotten through the first sections of your post. This is meaty enough for me to print up and have to think about.

But it is incredible (thank you)

So far - here is what I get.

While they designate a number of labs (many research institutions - have a physicist friend who has worked with two of these labs and am pretty sure that no weapons work goes on in either), they single out ONE lab in particular as the primary site. INEEL. Why? At least in some areas of physics some of the other labs are seen as central research facilties - so why INEEL?

INEEL had been the premiere site (I gather) for nuc energy development in the past, but in recent years has been involved in massive cleanup (what does that say about all of that early work), to the point where 70% of their budget has been derived from cleanup monies.

So why here? Because of their 'expertise' with cleanup problems they start promoting "productive use" for waste - including Depleted Uranium. Putting a happy spin on the benefits of the 'right kind' of nuclear waste (maybe that is what all of the language about 'commercial applications' is about?).

In addition, INEEL was a leading place for the manufacture of our existing nuclear arsenal - so being the premiere place for nuke energy R&D, when combined with the knowledge of the pushing for new Nuke weapons, at least gives the appearance that it is a two step thing. Bring it back into prominance as a nuclear lab - then add (not in this bill but in others) the nuclear weapons component (commissioning of new weapons).

Am I following the logic?

Give me time, I am sure I will be back with more.

WOW.

Thank you for taking even more time with this - it is getting more clear - and clearly VERY significant.

[bigtree]

46. Wiping away the nervous sweat...

YES! THAT'S IT!

And, Sen.Dominici was on the Senate floor last week bellowing that the money was just for 'research. "No one has suggested in this bill that we start building new weapons", he cried.

Are we to believe that the administration, having already stated their intention to produce this next generation of weapons, has not already laid the groundwork for such future projects?

Dinosaurs! Merchants of death! Like my wife says, "They all crawl out of the same sewer."

[salin]

47. He reacted so vehemently?

That means a) there is recognition by some on the floor of the potential danger here; and b) his over the top (was it over the top) reaction demonstrates, perhaps, that HE knows that it is exactly where this will lead.

[bigtree]

48. Yep. He was exercised, and he's pretty old now.

This debate took place last week when the Senate was considering (and rejected) an amendment by Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts that would have halted the development of "bunker buster" bombs.

Small article:

Senate rejects ban on nuclear tests, "bunker-busters": The US Senate on Tuesday rejected a measure that would have halted the development of "bunker buster" bombs -- small nuclear weapons created for battlefield use -- while also allowing the resumption of underground nuclear tests
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030917011755.h9f4oqph.html

[buddhamama]

63. you've got it,salin

tritium appears to be the 'new' one. the government has experiemted and would like to see tritium producing power plants. tritium is already a byproduct of nuclear plants so it makes you wonder, why do they need more :think:

[salin]

33. Hope more folks are reading this than replying

please chime in - even if the subject feels out of your range. Thanks.

[bigtree]

35. Thanks salin.

you have made a great effort today.

SOME TREES- John Ashbery

These are amazing: each
Joining a neighbor, as though speech
Were a still performance.
Arranging by chance

To meet as far this morning
From the world as agreeing
With it, you and I (and others)
Are suddenly what the trees try

To tell us we are:
That their merely being there
Means something; that soon
We may touch, love, explain.

And glad not to have invented
Some comeliness, we are surrounded:
A silence already filled with noises,
A canvas on which emerges

A chorus of smiles, a winter morning.
Place in a puzzling light, and moving,
Our days put on such reticence
These accents seem their own defense.

[Booberdawg]

36. morning kick

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

41. Digging in

Started reading this morning after a good nights sleep and have everything printed out. There must be some kind of hex on printers from the energy industry on this - mine went a little wild on me this morning.

I have everything I need to dig in - coffee, smokes, two pair of glasses - one with bifocals, and a perfect rainy day for reading.

PUHCA For Dummies in post #4 is a good read for those like me who are unfamiliar with this topic.

:kick:

[salin]

37. Money, money, money.... wash post article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=125387

19 Billion over the next decade.

[bigtree]

38. kick

http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

[JanMichael]

39. The Smash N' Grab Repukes strike AGAIN!!!!

:mad:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. I'll print this out and review it today

[bigtree]

44. kick

:nuke:

[bigtree]

49. I just saw a live report on CNN

about the new generation nuke plant in Idaho.

It didn't go as far to explain where in legislation it would happen, but it was an excellent heads-up. I believe it was part of an upcoming feature about the EPA and the new chief-to-be.

They're smarter than I am, in that, they realize most folks can only take this in small doses.

Boy, do I feel better about making such a fuss.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Sure they feed people a little bite at a time as an aside

since if people knew the whole story and KNEW the contents of the Price Anderson act they would SHIT TWICE!

[salin]

51. can you give a quick primer

on key aspects of Price Anderson?

[bigtree]

55. here's something

Price-Anderson Amendments:
http://www.io.bnl.gov/paaa.htm

It looks like a law that shields the nuclear industry from public lawsuits by requiring contractors to insure themselves against mishaps. Congress amended the law in '88 to give the DOE the power to levy fines- like the one last week against the tank farm contractor at the Hanford nuclear facility- because the industry was getting off scot-free. You can bet that any change in the law supported by this administration would further protect industry wrongdoers.

[buddhamama]

59. P-A was renewed in 2001

(it had reached it expiration date)i remember posting a Petition to stop its renewal on the old Boards.

It was created by the Government to get Utility companies interested
in nuke power. It is important part of the history, because commercial Nuke power plants wouldn't have come about without it. The government had its own nuke plants but that was only for weapons production. The Manhatten Project scientists were put on AEC board to research and promote nuke power after the war.

[bigtree]

60. Insight born of experience. Cool.

How does it protect the industry? What does it do?
Is it like insurance? Premiums?

[buddhamama]

61. the history of P-A

is telling as to the dangers of nuke power.

when the Act passed in 1957, Congress intentionally kept the 'Act' quiet so as not to alarm the public.

No insurance company would touch nuclear power because of its potential danger. Who are the risk experts-insurance companies right. pretty telling that they would have nothing to do with nuke power. So the government established a Compensation Fund of $560 million(in 1957)-total- from Government monies and utility companies.

The Government is basically the insurance co. in this case. the Industry is limited in liability and after that the government will step in.
P-A operates in the same manner to this day.

[bigtree]

64. thanks buddhamama

without the law, no nukes? Not likely, but perhaps the industry would be more responsible if they were more exposed to risk.

It's like rental cars. I'm never as careful with a rental, especially with the full indemnity package. :hippie:

[buddhamama]

65. you're welcome

i do believe that without the P-A there would not be any commercial nuclear power plants. Unless, of course, the federal governement decided to get into the commercial end of nuclear power.

to this day no insurance company will touch the industry.
they wouldn't be able to operate without the P-A Act.

[salin]

68. It is where the neocons fall down on their

'market is the final arbitor' of the worth of anything. I do get subsidizing worthwhile endeavors for the sake of society. I also know (first hand in Indiana) that some Nuke plants were planned and built where they were never economically feasible in the first plant (eg, there was never enough demand, at market rates, to pay for the construction and operation of the plant). Government underwriting likely made numerous plants "feasable". With the safety concerns during operation, and the waste problem not yet solved (except using waste for other products.... say weaponry), was this a good investment of tax dollars? And why are we escalating our spending on this field - which is known to be so dangerous, without the same level of escalation in R&D on other types of renewable energy sources. Oh, thats right, it is only lip service with this administraiton that we are seeking energy independence.

[bigtree]

77. It's like with the uranium transfers from Russia

Russian disarnament was perverted into a deal where we take their blended nuclear waste and sell it to the nuclear power plants here and around the world. One company was contracted to do this on the promise that they would build a new plant (USEC). But they ran short on money and have no immediate plans to build another plant. So, last week I read that USEC is getting a contract, at the behest of Sec. Abrams, to build a 'demonstration' thermonuclear reactor. They would have gotten out of the buisness if the government didn't reach in and prop them up.

USEC ahead of schedule in development of American Centrifuge:
http://ua.pennwellnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=187496&KEYWORD=USEC%20ahead%20of%20schedule%20in%20development%20of%20American%20Centrifuge%20

BETHESDA, Md., Sept. 18, 2003 -- USEC Inc. reported it has manufactured the first centrifuge rotor tube in its development of the American Centrifuge uranium enrichment technology.

"We continue to meet our milestones ahead of schedule as we move toward the demonstration and deployment of what we believe will be the most efficient uranium enrichment technology in the world," said Ron Green, USEC senior vice president. On July 30, 2003, USEC announced that it was accelerating its deployment schedule by one year.

The rotor tube is a long, fast-spinning component of a centrifuge machine, whose performance is critical to the economics of centrifuge technology. Constructed of a lightweight, high-strength material, the rotor tubes will be subjected to extensive functional tests prior to finalizing the American Centrifuge design.

Total estimated costs for the demonstration activities remain at about $150 million.

They abandoned this cash cow for the centrifuge:

USEC ends funding of research on Silex process-
BETHESDA, Md., April 30, 2003 -- USEC Inc. announced that it is ending its funding for research and development of the SILEX laser-based uranium enrichment process.

USEC has been funding R&D on the SILEX process since 1996, when the Company signed an agreement with Silex Systems Limited in Australia. USEC will now focus all of its advanced technology resources on the demonstration and deployment of USEC's American Centrifuge uranium enrichment technology.

USEC Inc., a global energy company, is a supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. More information is available at www.usec.com

[bigtree]

80. here's the centrifuge uranium enrichment technology in the bill

SEC. 962. UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN ITER.
(a) PARTICIPATION.—

(1) The Secretary of Energy is authorized to undertake full scientific and
technological cooperation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor project (referred to in this title as “ITER”).

(2) In the event that ITER fails to go forward within a reasonable period of time, the Secretary shall send to Congress a plan, including costs and schedules, for implementing the domestic burning plasma experiment known as the Fusion Ignition Research Expriment. Such a plan shall be developed with full consultation with the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and be reviewed by the National Research Council.

(3) It is the intent of Congress that such sums shall be largely for work performed in the United States and that such work contributes the maximum amount possible to the U.S. scientific and technological base.

This research for a devastating new nuclear bomb. Sigh...

[salin]

82. check that out

a two-fer... if we don't make enough progress in technology a... embedded is authority to start on plan b...

If these are important developments for "safe nuclear energy" then why the a then b approach? Does sort of look like what you are suggesting.

[bigtree]

84. shell game

:nuke:

[bigtree]

52. bless you for getting to Price-Anderson

Bush Would Use Mini-nukes-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4730.htm

[salin]

54. yikes

from the article:

It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.

he = Professor John Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City.

[Booberdawg]

57. Holy Mother of God

<snip>
Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, has authored an indictment of the Bush administration's foreign policy that includes actual plans to use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons.

It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.

<snip>

The professor insists that Bush is hell-bent on building an American empire as envisioned by the likes of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, his underlings Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, Vice President Dick Cheney and State Department hawks Richard Armitage and John Bolton. The philosophy is pre-emptive war, unilateral action and world domination.

This is some scary shit, but should come as no surprise. Pre-emptive strikes on China and Russia for God's sakes???

I don't know anything about the Price-Anderson Act. (gulp) Obviously it has something to do with nuclear weapons.

[Booberdawg]

53. Some Background Reading

A couple references I found in some of the DU links from June 2002 when this was first discussed. Gives a lot of background material on the subject for beginners. They are pretty long.

This first one, HOAX, is 59 pages. I included the Table of Contents for that

HOAX
How Deregulation Let the Power Industry Steal $71 Billion From California

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................................2
I. A Chronology of the California Deregulation Debacle ......................................5
II. The Myth of the Energy Shortage.............................................................11
III. Turning Off the Juice: What Really Caused the Energy Crisis..................... ...23
IV Turning On the Juice: The Crisis Vanishes...................................................32
V. The Legacy of the Deregulation Debacle.....................................................42
VI. The Way Out of the Deregulation Debacle .................................................53
VII. Conclusion ..........................................................................................57

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/rp/rp002193.pdf

***********************************************************************
This second one, Blind Faith, is 29 pages long. I included the Summary of findings for that.

Blind Faith: How Deregulation and
Enron’s Influence Over Government
Looted Billions from Americans


Sen. Gramm, White House Must Be Investigated for Role
in Enron’s Fraud of Consumers and Shareholders

December 2001

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The combination of unregulated state wholesale electricity markets and federal deregulation of commodity exchanges has removed accountability and transparency from the energy sector, allowing corporations to manipulate price and supply of electricity and natural gas through the exercise of significant market power. California’s recent energy crisis and Enron’s bankruptcy would have been impossible under a regulated system.

Enron developed mutually beneficial relationships with federal regulators and lawmakers to support policies that significantly curtailed government oversight of their operations.

Enron’s business model was built entirely on the premise that it could make more money speculating on electricity contracts than it could by actually producing electricity at a power plant. Central to Enron’s strategy of turning electricity into a speculative commodity was removing government oversight of its trading practices and exploiting
market deficiencies to allow it to manipulate prices and supply.

Dr. Wendy Gramm, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), exempted Enron’s trading of futures contracts in response to a request for such an action by Enron in 1992. At the time, Enron was a significant source of campaign financing for Wendy Gramm’s husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm.

Six days after she provided Enron the exemption it wanted, Wendy Gramm resigned her position at the CFTC. Five weeks after her resignation, Enron appointed her to its Board of Directors, where she served on the Board’s Audit Committee. Her service on the Audit Committee made her responsible for verifying Enron’s accounting procedures and other detailed financial information not available to outside analysts or shareholders.

Following Wendy Gramm’s appointment to Enron’s board, the company became a significant source of personal income for the Gramms. Enron paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in salary, attendance fees, stock option sales and dividends from 1993 to 2001. The value of Wendy Gramm’s Enron stock options swelled from no more than
$15,000 in 1995 to as much as $500,000 by 2000.

Phil Gramm is the second largest recipient in Congress of Enron campaign contributions, receiving $97,350 since 1989.

Days before her attorneys informed Enron in December 1998 that Wendy Gramm’s control of Enron stock might pose a conflict of interest with her husband’s work, she sold $276,912 worth of Enron stock.

Enron spent $3.45 million in lobbying expenses in 1999 and 2000 to deregulate the trading of energy futures, among other issues.

In December 2000, Phil Gramm helped muscle a bill through Congress without a committee hearing that deregulated energy commodity trading. This act allowed Enron to operate an unregulated power auction — EnronOnline — that quickly gained control over a significant share of California’s electricity and natural gas market.

Phil Gramm’s legislation was in conflict with the explicit recommendations of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which is composed of representatives from the Department of Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The Working group expressly recommended against deregulating energy commodity trading because the traders would be in strong positions to manipulate prices and supply.

From June 2000 through December 2000 — prior to the bill’s passage — California experienced significant price spikes but only one Stage 3 emergency (requiring “rolling blackouts”). After passage of Gramm’s energy commodity deregulation bill in December 2000, Stage 3 emergencies increased from one to 38 until federal regulators helped end the crisis by imposing price controls in June 2001. Phil Gramm’s legislation, for which Enron was the primary lobbyist, allowed Enron’s unregulated energy trading subsidiary to manipulate supply in such a way as to threaten millions of California households and businesses with power outages for the sole purpose of increasing the company’s profits.

Because of Enron’s new, unregulated power auction, the company’s “Wholesale Services” revenues quadrupled — from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $48.4 billion in the first quarter of 2001. This remarkable revenue increase came on top of the record revenue gain that Enron posted from 1999 to 2000, when full-year “Wholesale Services” revenues increased from $35.5 billion to $93.3 billion — a 163 percent increase.

Investigations by state and federal officials concluded that power generators and power marketers intentionally withheld electricity, creating artificial shortages in order to increase the cost of power.

Enron took advantage of lax oversight following deregulation and formed a complicated web of more than 2,800 subsidiaries — more than 30 percent (874) of which were located in officially designated offshore tax and bank havens.

President Bush’s presidential campaign received significant financial support from Enron ($1.14 million).

Upon assuming office in 2001, Bush promptly scrapped plans put into place by former President Bill Clinton to significantly limit the effectiveness of these countries as tax and bank regulation havens. This action came at the height of high West Coast energy prices, probably allowing Enron to siphon billions to its offshore accounts.

At the same time, the Bush administration and certain members of Congress waged a legislative and public relations campaign against the imposition of federal price controls in the Western electricity market. Such price controls remove the ability of companies exercising significant market share to price-gouge by effectively re-regulating the market.
Bush’s opposition to price controls unnecessarily extended the California energy crisis and cost the state billions of dollars.

When federal regulators finally imposed strict, round-the-clock price controls over the entire Western electricity market on June 19, 2001, companies operating power auctions (like Enron) no longer had the ability to charge excessive prices and no longer had incentive to manipulate supply.

While price controls clearly saved California, Enron suffered because it could no longer manipulate the market and price-gouge consumers. With no significant asset ownership to offset its losses, Enron’s unregulated power auction quickly accumulated massive debts. At the same time, the curtailed revenue flow made it more difficult for executives and members of the Board to conceal the firm’s accounting gimmicks. Amid the turmoil, CEO Jeff Skilling resigned in August. But shareholders and federal regulators did not learn of the severity of Enron’s financial trouble until November 2001. At this time, Enron’s top executives continued to receive significant bonuses.

Due to Wendy Gramm’s position on Enron’s Audit Committee, she had intimate knowledge of Enron’s financial structure and had access to sensitive financial information not available to Wall Street analysts or average shareholders. It is therefore probable that she knew of Enron’s possibly fraudulent practices for some time and that her husband
would have known as well. Enron’s 874 tax haven subsidiaries allowed Enron to funnel billions of dollars to offshore accounts.

The Gramms’ close involvement with Enron’s corporate and legislative activities, the Gramms’ possible knowledge and/or connection to criminal misconduct relating to Enron’s collapse, and the effects of Enron’s layoffs and other economic impacts on Senator Gramm’s constituents may have been the leading factor in Gramm’s decision on September 4 not to seek re-election to the Senate in 2002. {insert Booberdawgs comment - I just KNEW it! When he decided not to run I just KNEW it had something to do with ENRON! - Freeper co-workers insisted nooooooo, just being a sore loser cause Gore lost the election :eyes:}

http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.pdf

[salin]

56. Those are both excellent reads

For anyone who really wants to understand how the California crisis was set into motion - and why the levels of deregulation in this bill put us all at extreme risk.

[bigtree]

58. good find

more industry-administration nepotism. :pals:

[buddhamama]

62. its amazing how quickly this stuff is forgotten

thanks,Booberdawg

[Booberdawg]

66. Crooks! Crooks! And DAMN Crooks!!

I just finished reading Blind Faith How Deregulation and Enron’s Influence Over Government Looted Billions from Americans

Wendy Gramm is a crook!! Not just a crook, A DAMN crook! Diabolical!
Phil Gramm is a crook!


My favorite quote from
POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE HOUSE by Greg Palast

But then came George the First. In 1992, just prior to is departure from the White House, President Bush Senior gave the power industry one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye: federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of power companies which ponied up $16 million for the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times the sum they gave democrats.

LOL!

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=258

Just checking in. I have to take a break and go get groceries. I need snacks before I start on that 59 page one.

[bigtree]

67. found this in my files. don't know where it's from.

BUSH'S BIG LIE
Caught Red-Handed in Lie to American People!
Will the News Media Wake UP??!

Yesterday, in his press appearance about Enron, George W. Bush stated flatly that Kenneth Lay, CEO of the bankrupt Enron Corporation, supported his opponent, Ann Richards, in the 1994 Texas governor's race, and that he, Bush, only got to know Lay after that election.

But easily obtained reports and records directly contradict Bush's statements. The sources for this information are the Federal Election Commission, the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Responsive Politics, Newsweek, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the New Yorker, and the Nation.

These reports show that Dubya and Lay go back a very long time.
Lay contributed handsomely to Bush's 1978 congressional campaign: a full SIXTEEN YEARS before Bush told the press he got to know the man.

Enron and the families of its top executives donated at least $100,000 to Dubya's gubernatorial campaign in 1994 -- the year, Bush told the press, that Lay supposedly supported Ann Richards. Although Lay may have given money to Richards, he strongly supported Dubya.
Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, is an old friend and financial beneficiary of Kenneth Lay.

After the 1992 election left Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce (and Bush pals) James Baker and Robert Mossbacher jobless, they signed as consultants for Enron.

An article by Seymour Hersh in 1993 disclosed that Neil Bush, another presidential son (hard to keep up with all the members of the Bush Crime Family: Neil is the one cited by federal regulators for conflict-of-interest violations regarding a failed savings and loan), had attempted to do business with Enron in Kuwait.

Yesterday, Bush sat in the White House and told the American people, in effect, "I had no relationship with that man, Mr. Lay before I became governor in 1995. He was a supporter of my opponent in 1994."
OK, news media: will you call Bush and Ari Fleischer on this outrageous lie? Or will you sweep it under the rug?

Yet more evidence of corruption in the Bush administration:

Abraham got thousands from nuke biz:

While it will be at least a decade -- if then -- before radioactive waste begins pouring into Nevada's Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy's decision to recommend the site is a big victory for the nuclear power industry.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Thursday he plans to formally recommend the Silver State site as a new federal repository for nuclear waste -- delighting plant operators and infuriating Nevada businesses, politicians and environmentalists. ...
But get this.

Abraham received thousands of dollars in contributions from the industry in his campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate from Michigan in 2000. In addition to NEI's $4,000, private nuclear-plant operators DTE Energy with $5,000, Exelon at $2,000, Constellation $2,000, and FirstEnergy also $2,000, ponied up for his failed bid.

Abraham also accepted at least $9,500 from energy-trading company Enron between February of 1999 and October 2000.

Although Attorney General John Ashcroft recently recused himself from involvement in the criminal probe of Enron because he had accepted over $50,000 of the company's money in the past, Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, insisted that Abraham has no such conflict. :hippie:

[salin]

69. Booberdawg,

you have now just become introduced - and versed - in the type of culture surrounding this whole energy issue. Those two items were part of my induction (along with the Puhca info from Public Citizen - though at that time the Puhca for dummies hadn't been written). Welcome aboard! I hope that more people will see this and realize that reading these few documents - will make one outraged - but also a bit more able to read these other items with some understanding. DOn't have to get the technical understanding - as much as the patterns of abuse, cronyism, very intentional steps towards deregulation, etc. Then reading the summaries of this whole energy bill are that much MORE outraging.

I do think that there are some leverage points in the current legislation - that if we are gifted a little time (a couple of weeks rather than a couple of days) that we might be able to package the points, and the resources (from the few groups working on this) to spur other progressive organizations to take action. The hardest part has been to get a number of minds on this here - since NONE of us are experts - and turn this wieghty information - that intimidates us all (gee, I can't take this on, I don't undersant it) - and turn it into some accurate but snappy talking points that those groups, and their membership can understand and rally around.

[Booberdawg]

70. Introduced and outraged, yes. I don't know about "versed" yet

What I've done is follow all the links through the past discussions on this, going back to the one you started in June of 2002. I had a list of notes and questions this afternoon but most of those have been answered with subsequent materials I found. I just closed out the window for the June 2002 thread.

What astonishes me most about how some of the most damaging deregulations happened is how circumstances fell into place just perfectly for Wendy Gramm to pull this shit. The minute Bush Sr lost the election to Clinton, she rammed in two months what usually takes over a year, a new rule that prohibited gov't oversight of Enron. (well, commodity contracts and swaps anyway - Phil gave them even more before he left)

The pieces that had to fall into place for her to do this:

- two of the five seats on the commission were vacant, she and 2 other Bush appointees were left. She even went over the other 2 as a lame-duck chairwoman and didn't consult them, as is protocol.

- this move prevented full policy review - a disaster

-She had a CLEAR conflict of interest because of her husbands money and political relationship with Enron.

-Brought it before the commission 6 days before Clinton took office and passed it, then resigned.

-Five weeks later is sitting on the Board of Directors of Enron

That's not counting the additional lies and chicanery after that once the consequences became apparent.

Well, you know, I could go on.

There's one thing I did come across in my reading today that I have a question about. There was an article Will Pitt did on Truthout called "The Burning Season, Part One" dated July 9, 2002. At the end it indicates a detailed analysis of the development of the energy bill and those who influenced it would be coming soon in Part Two. I couldn't find Part Two to save my soul. If anybody knows where to find that I'd like to read that too.

I have made it through most of the shorter documents. I'm skipping the nuclear and technical stuff. God, these people are SUCH CROOKS!

It was a nice break away from the GD wars today. I still have the 59 page document to read.

[Booberdawg]

85. HOAX – How Deregulation Stole 71 Billion From California

I finished reading this in the wee hours last night. I have a few notes and some pages paper clipped with questions to follow up on. Since this report was written in January 2002 I want to finish looking through the other recent threads on this for developments since then. I have some comments but it will take a while to put them together and I have to leave in a little bit for about an hour.

An interesting aside – I realized as I got in to this report that I did some work in 98 related to deregulation in California. I was on a project contracted by GreenMountain Energy, which I believe falls into the “direct access” part of the deregulation scheme, and is where utility customers are allowed to buy power directly from the energy merchants rather that the local utility company.

What my job boiled down to is receiving data from utility companies, converting to a standard format, processing, then converting back into the utility company format, then returning processed information to the utility company. The companies – Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric, and San Diego Gas and Electric. Was the most boring project I’ve ever worked. A lot of hours billed to that project where we had absolutely nothing to do. What a ripoff.

Gotta go ..

[bigtree]

86. wow. good insight

:kick:

[salin]

87. Interesting to find that kind of connection

woohoo busy work that can be charged to consumers ;-)

What is so great about the HOAX article - is they did a great analysis to demonstrate that manipulation was about the only thing that could explain the huge jumps in demand and declines in supply. This was months before the first shred of documentation that began to show HOW the manipulation occured.

[Booberdawg]

89. HOAX Comments

As I said before I did have a few notes and a few pages marked for follow up from the HOAX report.

To borrow a programmers term, what a clusterfuck!

At the time the report was written, there was a strong suggestion that the PG&E reorganization plan was illegal and was being contested. Several consumer groups were also contesting a secret deal with PUC made Southern California Edison for a consumer-funded bailout. I did find more recent developments for both of those issues and I will post those links in case there are a few beginner lurkers following along with this. Since this thread is about taking action on the national energy bill and not about California in particular, I'll refrain from further comment and leave it as an exercise for the reader.

Cal. Supreme Court Upholds $3.6 Billion Bailout of Southern California Edison
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr003568.php3

PUC and PG&E Negotiate $12 Billion Bailout
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr003429.php3


Also for newbies

Here's another general info piece about deregulation I bumped into
It’s Greed Stupid! Debunking the Ten Myths of Utility Deregulation January 2001
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/rp/rp001092.pdf

[salin]

90. The relevance is how quickly after deregulation went into effect

I believe it was slated to go into effect in 1998, but the system wasn't up and ready (the ISO etc) until 1999. So in less than 2 years, there is monkeying and manipulation already happening.

Comparing what was claimed to be the culprit behind the crisis (and ensuing blackouts)... no new power generation capacity (FALSE)... fewer energy producers because the environmentalists made it too expensive to operate in the state (FALSE)... to the analyses in HOAX is very enlighenting.

The deregulatory aspects of the current energy bill should make us all cringe.

[Booberdawg]

91. Okay that's a good point

Since I'm a little behind the curve I just didn't want to get carried away and hijack your thread.;-)

If something along the lines of a more condensed summary of the abuses would be useful toward taking the ultimate action desired with the energy bill, that is something I could probably take on. I haven't even read what's in the actual energy bill yet; I have a few more things to read in the morning.

The goal, as I understand it, is to end up with concise letters with specific points against specific provisions in the energy bill, correct? Since most of my reading has been concentrated on the deregulatory aspect, that would be the logical place for me to contribute. Willing and able are already taken care of, what and how may need a little push in the right direction.

Would be nice to see a few more people contributing to this thread.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. The goal is to get people to even read it!!! Hijack away!

[Booberdawg]

93. We're in big trouble then cause all but 9 people have me on ignore

[salin]

96. by my accounting that means

more than 31,000 don't have you on ignore ;-)

A summary from you - who has fresh eyes towards the issues, and is less likely to get caught up in trying to explain all of the side issues (my affliction), would be great.

Thanks.

[Booberdawg]

102. That was everyone EXCEPT 9 people have me on Ignore

but I was kidding.;)

I'll see what I can do today. I need to read through HOAX again to do it and I warn you, I'm anal, so it might take a while. Maybe I'll write a short one first and start a teaser thread in GD and link this thread. Then write a more thorough summary for here.

[bigtree]

103. Keep going Booberdawg!

We're still alive here. sort of..

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. Looks like the NYT is HELPING to cover this thing up

Read this article and my comments in the thread:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=126320

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Come on DU..PRETEND LIKE YOU CARE!

[Booberdawg]

73. kick

comments later. I'm too tired now ..

[Booberdawg]

74. kick

[salin]

76. They are going to put an avenue to ANWR drilling back in?

I am amazed. Several possible explanations:

1) Pure, unabashed, chutzpah and arrogance
Belief that with a little tweaking that they can push ANYTHING through that they want - and that the opponents won't notice.

2) Political pressure by GOP Benefactors
Pressure by big donors that they MUST deliver on this after all of the money expended for the GOP

3) Intentional sabotage
Pressure from within to kill the bill due to a couple of unpopular features - land taking (allies in the west HATE this); and more deficit creating costs (recognition post the 87B speech by bush that there is a growing backlash that even bush can't quell regarding out of control spending). Perhaps this is an attempt at a self-inflicted poison pill?

4) A warning that dems are caving.
The Chair promises that ANWR won't be in if it creates a filibuster that they don't have the votes to end. Others voice that they have spread so many goodies out in the bill that perhaps they have given enough out that the dem opposition has waned. This prospect distrubs me the most.

BTW, Nmsa, I view the statement in the article that the GOP is using this as a bargaining chip not as a cover- but as a public statement for the first time (never seen it in print) that ANWR has ALWAYS been a political tool. Hope that some voices pick it up and repeat it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Yep this statement says it all

Even if Republicans eventually have to drop the drilling plan to pass the final bill, some acknowledge potential benefits in that result: they can then point to the concession on drilling to quiet Democrats unhappy that the bill is being written mainly by Republicans and environmental groups critical of the measure's benefits for the energy industry.


This paragraph should make it clear that the NYT is actually AIDING in this sham. It is clear the Arctic Drilling Issue is being made to look like a concession to the UNCURIOUS but NOTHING in the article addresses the MORE DRACONIAN things this bill does, like hand over the infrastructure for tha nation's power to private interests with NO rate payer protection.

[salin]

83. Very good point - they don't explain WHY a 'concession'/distraction

is needed. Does sound all very benign.

[dusty64]

75. This "plan" is nothing

more than a most disgusting example of corporate welfare. More money for repig donors and screw the people and the planet.

[bigtree]

78. ANWAR is inserted as a distraction

I believe they will let the argument on ANWAR reach a fever pitch and then pull it. This will take the heat out of the opposition to the bill. A determined fight on all fronts will be necessary to table the whole bill.

News Release-September 18, 2003
Energy Conference Update #5 (No Sunshine for Next Few Days)

Because of Hurricane Isabel’s expected track through D.C. today and tomorrow, this Update, sadly, will be the last one this week. The storm has postponed the energy conference staff meetings scheduled for today and Friday. Those meetings have been moved to Monday, Sept. 22.

Due to the loss of work days, the committee’s GOP staff intends to double up meetings next week, with the first one on Monday at 10:00 a.m. and a second at 2:00 p.m. On Monday morning, hydrogen and clean coal are the menu choices; in the afternoon, the Alaska natural gasline and nuclear issues will be featured. The meetings will be in Rayburn 2322.

Additionally, Republicans have signaled that text for the remaining Tier II issues and (some Tier I issues) will emerge next week from behind closed doors. We wish we could tell you more, but, as was the case with the Cheney Energy Task Force, we’re as much in the dark as you and the American public on how key decisions are being made.

Democratic press updates on energy bill:
http://energy.senate.gov/news/news_dem_bydate.cfm

http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Kick

[bigtree]

88. This looks like my last shot on this thread

I've written a nuke letter. The issues may be too large for an all- inclusive appeal. That doesen't mean that several different appeals from one source (you) would be ineffective. I look foward to collecting a synopsis of each issue posted and fowarding all of the individual appeals which have been (will be) expressed here. I don't think we help to defeat the Energy bill by leaving any of our concerns out.

Are we finished with the letters? I'll look back for more postings.
What a blast! Well, here it is:

Dear Congressperson:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R.6, The Energy Policy Act of 2003.

I oppose all of the provisions under the sections, "Nuclear Matters" and Research and Development" which further enhance, refurbish, or expand our nuclear program in regards to weapons applications or energy production.

Specifically, I would oppose any money for new construction which would serve to refurbish or expand our existing supply of nuclear weaponry. Similarly, I would support any provision which intends to dismantle such weaponry and any provision which is intended for the disposal of these weapons and their radioactive waste in a safe and effective manner.

Also I would oppose any money for new construction of any nuclear plants which are designed for energy production, or any money for construction intended to preserve any existing power plants which utilize nuclear material. I would similarily oppose any money for research or development of any new nuclear fuels, or nuclear fuel blends, or the recycling and utilization of any 'degraded' nuclear material for use in new or existing weapons or for use in any new or existing power plant, as is outlined in the document: "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." and in the Generation IV Roadmap. I strongly favor the existing practice of immobilizing the nuclear waste in glass and storing it, as the previous administration advocated.

I would oppose any monies which intend to preserve the Uranium Transfer Program. As laudable as the realized goal of the reduction of the Russian nuclear arsenal may be, in reality, the transfers depend on a faltering contract with USEC and support an electric supply that provides only 20% of our nation's electricity needs. This 20% could be made up by any combination of renewables. The uranium program should be allowed to sunset. The focus should be on the replacment of the uranium industry with a more sustainable supply of energy. There is also the concern that USEC redistributes much of the blended uranium outside of the country, inviting more opportunities for exploitation and abuse.

I would oppose any money expended to support, enhance or expand the construction of any nuclear centrifuge facility for demonstration, research, or production of thermonuclear weaponry. I would similarily oppose any money which would support or encourage any such thermonuclear program abroad.

Finally, I would oppose any expansion, enhancement, or renewal of the Price-Anderson Act which would further encourage public or governmental involvement in nuclear production. And I would encourage the expansion of any law or regulation which would hold those in the nuclear industry accountable for the safety of their workers and the environment.

In respect to all of these issues, I feel the "The Energy Policy Act of 2003" represents a foot in the door for those who would expand our existing nuclear program and would draw our nation into a new nuclear arm's race; exacerbating the problems of proliferation and the saftey and health of workers, community and the environment.

I strongly urge you to oppose this dangerous bill.

[Booberdawg]

94. kick

[Booberdawg]

95. kick

[salin]

97. Great Letter

and good ideas about writing seperate letters on seperate issues.

[bigtree]

99. I headed the letter with a mix of issue summaries from the thread.

and sent it out to my web mail chains with an appeal to use the letter or write their own. Then I sent the stripped down letter to my Senators and Congresspeople.

The page was an excellent resource.

[dusty64]

98. Kick!

:kick:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. Maybe an EMAIL: BLASTER DU'ER will see this

[bigtree]

101. I'm sorry, could you explain?

EMAIL: BLASTER DU'ER?

[Booberdawg]

104. Related thread

Hope to encourage some, at least casual, participation with this other thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=393201

:kick:

[newyawker99]

105. This is worth another kick!

:kick:

[bigtree]

106. morning kick

The 2003 Energy Bill bill is still in conference.

The last attempt to put over this type of legislation failed.

The Energy Policy Act of 2002 (from the 107th Congress) conference negotiations ended without an agreement. Comprehensive energy legislation had to wait until the 108th Congress started in January 2003.

2002 Energy Bill
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/energybill2002.html

Copy of the 2003 energy bill as reported:
http://returningsoldiers.us/energybillasreported.htm

Conference link:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

Keep on Kicking! Image

[bigtree]

107. IAEA Chief ElBaradei Slams U.S. 'Mini-Nuke' Plans

http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20030924/nuclearusaelbaradeidc.html

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog sharply criticized Washington's planned research into a new type of small nuclear bomb, saying Wednesday it would send the wrong signal to states considering atomic weapons.

"I had strong reservations, to say the least, when I read that there are plans to research small nukes," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei told U.S. National Public Radio. It really sends absolutely the wrong message, that we are not moving toward disarmament, but that we are reversing course," he said.

The administration of President Bush has said it is interested in studying the so-called mini nukes, but not in deploying them. The mini nukes would be bombs with a yield of less of than five kilotons -- less than half the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.

ElBaradei said that such research would encourage states with hidden ambitions of developing atomic weapons to go for it. "It sends a message to all the 'wannabes' that if you really want to have security, prestige, status -- go for nuclear weapons, and that's clearly not the way we want to go," he said.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. breathing life back into this one

[Flying_Pig]

109. Hi Salin....

I'm pooped, and haven't been feeling well lately, but in the morning I'll revist these Energy Bill threads and see what I can do. Till then, thanks for the good work!!

:hi:

[salin]

110. thanks... and if you are low on energy

visit these at your leisure... but... perhaps you will look at the thread I started this evening on PUHCA for dummies (asking for volunteers) - I bet you could do this with your hands tied behind your back. :hi: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=407170
:D

[DemBones DemBones]

111. It may not be much, but at least I can contribute

a good strong KICK to this thread. :kick: :kick: :kick:

Back later to read.

[Lorien]

112. kick

:kick: :kick:

[salin]

113. kick

out of near archive purgatory....

[Seneca]

114. bump

eom

[bigtree]

115. ditto bump

[blm]

116. bump

.