Legalectric

Palast doesn’t have quite the same take on this as Eric Francis, but here we go… oh, and if you’re interested in energy issues, be sure to check out his “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” and in particular chapter 3. This’ll keep you busy until I get done with this PUC post = oh, my, things are happening at the PUC!
Â

Ken Lay’s AliveÂ

by Greg Palast (see www.GregPalast.com)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Don’t check the casket. I know he’s back. When I saw those lights flickering out at La Guardia Airport yesterday and heard the eerie shrieks and moans in the dark, broiling subway tunnels, I just knew it: Ken Lay’s alive! We can see his spirit in every flickering lightbulb from Kansas to Queens as we head into America’s annual Blackout season.

It wasn’t always so. For decades, America had nearly the best, most reliable electricity system on the planet and, though we grumbled, electricity bills were among the planet’s lowest. It was all thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and the Public Utility Holding Company Act which allowed for tough regulation of the power monopolies. They were told what they could charge, the maximum profit they could take and — what I think about when the lights dim — exactly how much they had to invest to keep the juice flowing.

But then, in 1992, a Texas oil man, George H.W. Bush, ordered to evacuate the White House by two-thirds of the US electorate, gave his Houston crony, Ken Lay, a billion-dollar good-bye kiss:Â Bush’s signature authorizing deregulation of electricity.

But Lay’s operation didn’t pick up the really big bucks until after December 21, 1994, when the Enron chief wrote to the incoming governor of Texas, George W. Bush, asking the Governor-elect to grant him a special wish for Christmas:

“The Public Utility Commission appointment is an extremely critical one. We believe Pat Wood is best qualifiedâ?¦. Linda joins me in wishing you and Laura and the whole family a joyous holiday. – Sincerely, Ken.”

And Georgie-Boy granted Kenny-Boy’s wish, appointing Wood and thereby giving Texans an electricity regulator who stumped for Ken Lay’s right to earn unlimited profits without any obligation to keep the lights on. Thus, by 1995, electricity deregulation had a foothold in the Lone Star state that would spread nationwide like Dutch Elm Disease.

But, unsatisfied with excessive profits, Lay and his team went for unconscionable profits, flickering the lights in California in the winter of 2000. “Let poor Aunt Millie â?¦ use candles,” said one of Lay’s minions as he deliberately schemed to engineer black-outs. When the public reacted with anger, Bill Clinton, by a December 2000 executive order, ended Enron’s right to trade power. Lay’s response was, that month, through a lobbyist, to tell President-elect Bush to promote Lay’s puppet regulator, Wood, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Kenny-Boy wished it, and again, Georgie-Boy granted it.

Lay’s hand-picked federal regulator Wood then kept the game going until, on August 14, 2003, the entire northeast, from Ohio to New York, went dark. Wood had to take the blame and resigned. Bush replaced him with Joe Kelliher, a regulator nominated by — no points for guessing — Ken Lay.

In the old, pre-Ken days of regulation, my fellow economists used to complain about something called the Averch-Johnson Effect. The A-J Effect was the result of regulations which gave companies incentives to gold plate the electricity system, making it way TOO reliable. Too much cash was spent on keeping the lights on.

Well, gone are the days of the A-J effect. The gold-plating is gone — but not the gold. Under regulation, power sellers were limited by law to a profit of about 9%, what the law called a just and reasonable return. Now, the profits can be — and are — unreasonable, unjust and just out of sight.

For example, one company, Entergy, owns a nuclear plant in New York called, Indian Point. They get to charge for nuclear power as if it were produced by oil — that is, they charge New York City residents at a price effectively set by OPEC, prices boosted by the war in Iraq. Not surprisingly, Entergy today reported a record rake-in of profits from their nuclear business. No 9% limit for these good old boys. On top of that, the power company is relieved of all obligations to keep the lights on in New York City.

â?¦ And in New Orleans. The same company supplies all of the electricity in the City that Care Forgot. Under deregulation, they hadn’t gold-plated the system; they hadn’t even water-proofed it. Last year, when the levees burst and the city flooded, Entergy simply turned off the lights and declared their New Orleans subsidiary bankrupt. Leaving New Orleans in the dark was a profitable decision. The company reported a 23% leap in earnings for the third quarter of 2005, the period including Hurricane Katrina, a profit boost they attributed to “the weather.” Hey, are these guys droll, or what?

This year, Entergy’s profits have stayed up in the clouds, no doubt helped by the cash the company saved by not bothering to restore electricity to a large number of their customers in New Orleans –who remain in the dark even today.

By now, you’ve got to ask: after the profiteering from Katrina, after the California power scandal of 2000, after the Great Black-out of 2003, even after the hand-cuffing of Ken Lay, why are we still under a deregulation regime that Ken Lay seems to rule from the grave? Why is it that we’re still at the mercy of power vampires?

The answer, in part, is that the bloodsucking is a bi-partisan feast. Entergy, the New Orleans nuclear company, is well defended in the US Senate by their former lawyer, Hillary Rodham, who now protects them under her new alias, Senator Clinton.

Ken Lay’s gone, but the ghost of Ken Lay — the marauding ghoul called deregulation — stays to haunt us.

**********
For more on Ken Lay, Entergy, New Orleans and the politics of power, read Greg Palast’s just-released New York Times bestseller, “ARMED MADHOUSE: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ’08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.” (Penguin Dutton 2006.)

Palast is also co-author of a treatise on the power industry, “Regulation and Democracy” with Jerrold Oppenheim and Theo MacGregor (United Nations ILO 2000/Pluto UK 2002).

When I spoke with the County Attorney, Steve Betcher, today, he said that a number of papers, radio stations and even a TV crew were following this. He’s been digging through election law, and has advanced the investigation of my formal Complaint against the City by assigning it to the County Sheriff’s Office’s investigators. I can’t find a statute that forbids collection of information, but I’m betting there is a lot of choice case law about setting standards for candidacy, or intimidation of candidates, or… or… or…

And if I ever get it figured out how to upload, I’ll post the City of Red Wing’s press release that is outright lying. If I ruled the city, heads would roll. I’d want the named writer of the press release in the park on the main drag with a sandwich sign on the days the peaceniks aren’t there, the sign saying, “This is what happens when a City employee lies.” And as for her boss? Because the false press release probably wasn’t the employee’s idea, I have to come up with something appropriate. Manana…

Here’s the City’s original form.

Here’s the City’s new form.

Here’s KSTP’s report — they were running around town trying to find a candidate who would talk to them. I wonder if they had a chat with my girls, who probably told them a thing or two!

Red Wing candidate checks controversial

Updated: 07/18/2006 10:11:39 PM

A new policy in Red Wing to perform background checks on city council candidates is causing controversy among many residents and city officials.

The city says it asked candidates for city council positions to sign a two page form which authorizes the city to hire a private firm to research a personâ??s criminal, driving, educational, employment and credit records.

Red Wing officials say the city did not intend to include any request for financial information, so it issued a revised form that does not include that request.

City Clerk Kathy Johnson says she just wanted to make sure candidates were eligible to run, although state law only requires their signature on a different form, promising that they meet all the requirements. Cities must then place them on the ballot, and let voters decide.

“It’s in the best interest of the city just to be doubly sure,” says Johnson.

Minnesotaâ??s top election official says that what Red Wing is doing goes beyond the law and could possibly open itself up to a lawsuit.

â??You uphold the law as it is written,” Kiffmeyer says. â??When you’re in the middle of a game being played, you don’t change the rules.”

“Stick with what the law requires,” she adds. “That is your safest place to be.”

Former councilman and now candidate Joe Krueger not only refused to sign both the original and revised petitions, but he says it is an invasion of privacy and may intimidate some people from running.

“This does not belong in a democracy,” Krueger says. “We’re not talking national security. We’re talking a city council in Red Wing.”

Candidate Dean Hove, though, says he has no problem signing up for the background checks.

Johnson adds that the very personal information will not be made public.

This is the text of the City’s Press Release:

July 14, 2006, Red Wing, Minn.

Recently, there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wingâ??s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information. The purpose of this news release is to clarify these practices and prevent further reports based on inaccurate information.

The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks. The City does not refuse affidavits of candidacy, nor does the City intend to refuse to place an individual on the ballot, for any reason other than the proper execution of the affidavit of candidacy and related filing documents. The City does not require candidates to sign consents for background checks as a prerequisite for filing.

The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, without the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidacy and places the candidate on the ballot. The City of Red Wing has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

XXX

Here’s the paper’s editorial, and I think it’s too generous with the City — they should have used the word “lie” more often:

Editorial: City Hall balks
R-E Editorial Board
The Republican Eagle – 07/18/2006

Red Wing has backed off from requiring City Council candidates to authorize background checks. That’s good news.

Authorization is now strictly voluntary. We wish the same thing could be said about people who want to serve in a non-elected capacity, but those who want to help at the Sheldon Theatre or Public Library, for instance, can volunteer elsewhere if they don’t want to sign.

The bad news is that City Hall isn’t being entirely truthful about said background checks. Spin doctors are attempting to make it look as if the checks have been voluntary all along.

The city issued a press release Saturday afternoon stating “there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wingâ??s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information.”

What misconceptions?

City Hall issued an updated candidate list Friday that bore nine names. Behind one candidateâ??s name it reads: (filed 7/7/06, but still in the process of submitting necessary paperwork). The only paperwork missing is the background check form.

What inaccurate information?

Saturday’s press release states: The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks.

Fact: The original form said, “the City may desire to request reports from one or more consumer reporting agencies which may include, but not be limited to, criminal records checks, court records, driving records, credit reports and summary of educational or employment data and histories.”

City officials say they do not run credit checks, but the initial authorization form allowed them to do so.

Saturday’s press release states: The City of Red Wing has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

Fact: Most candidates tell us they were told they had to sign, and at least six people did. If they didn’t sign, they were led to believe their names would not be on the ballot.

The newspaper questioned this practice. Two candidates challenged its legality: one crossed out major portions of the release before signing and one refused to sign.

City Attorney Jay Squires told the latter candidate on Wednesday that he needed to sign, but by late Thursday concurred that it wasn’t necessary and a rough draft of a revised form would be forthcoming.

Saturday’s press release states: The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, without the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidacy and places the candidate on the ballot.

Fact: The original form was in place from July 5, the day filing opened, until Friday, when officials amended the form. The form is now voluntary, and still reads that candidates release the city “from any and all liability for its receipt and use of any data received pursuant to this Authorization.”

The truth is that city officials overstepped their bounds. They should admit it, acknowledge that the form was required and never should have been and, if they still believe candidate background checks are critical, then bring the matter to the City Charter Commission.

For people who hesitated to seek office because of the background check, we encourage you to file. You have until 5 p.m. today. We also encourage candidates who signed the original form to rescind it in writing. Candidates can decide for themselves whether to sign the new form. (We wouldn’t.)

Voters have the duty of quizzing candidates and deciding who should serve. The new council members in turn can decide who they want working at City Hall, not the other way around.

… this is a “family .org” so I won’t start off with the greeting I used every time I had to call VanHecke when he was overseeing House Campaigns in 2004, but in short, why does this not suprise me? And I’ll readily admit I’d sent an email to them both to resign, quit, withdraw, whatever they want to call it, just give it up now before they do more damage. They both get a couple points for doing the right thing… finally… That and $0.50… The good news is that after watching Steve Kelley rip Excelsior for their Mesaba bait and switch, hey, I’ll vote for him! He’s got class, and a deadly aim! To listen, go HERE and scroll down to March 20 Jobs, Energy & Community Development.
Lots is happening on Mesaba, Comments were due today, requested by the Public Utilities Commission because it wants to assure costs are properly considered in all its decisions regarding this project, and it’s specifically looking at amending a prior Order when it shipped the case off to the Office of Administrative Hearings. What does that mean? It means we’re making progress. How? How much??? GRRRRRRRRRRR… I’m gonna take a few and see if I can figure out this upload routine and upload it all for you to read and chuckle about. This is just too funny!

OK, now I’ve got the photo upload from the web figured out, but what about PDFs???

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

It sure ought to be necessary for employment with the City (HELP, how do I upload stuff here?? Still haven’t a clue). Today a City of Red Wing “Press Release” arrived in the inbasket, and suddenly I’m off in this alternate reality:

City of Red Wing Policy on Candidate Background Checks

Recently, there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wing’s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information. The purpose of this news release is to clarify these practices and prevent further reports based on inaccurate information.

The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks. The City does not refuse affidavits of candidacy, nor does the City intend to refuse to place an individual on the ballot, for an reason other than the proper execution of the affidavit of candidacy and related filing documents. The city does not require candidates to sign consents for background checks as a prerequisite for filing.

The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, wtihout the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidcy and places the candidate on the ballot. The City has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

####

This is a test. HOW MANY LIES CAN YOU COUNT ON THIS PAGE? I have the background check form, I don’t think it takes 3 years of student loans and a JD to understand that signing a “General Authorization and Release” that says that the bearer is “authorized to release any and all private data” to a handful of entities including a private corporation, where it specifically says that there will be a credit check… anyway, it doesn’t take much to figure out that this is NOT authorization “for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction.” PUHLEEEZE, don’t waste your breath. Tell it to the County Attorney who is investigating. This is utter bullshit, and as I told the City Clerk (who called this a.m. to tell me there was a new form), the County Attorney, the newspaper, “I’m not ready to admit that this is a police state… yet…” Take that paper and don’t ask me what to do with it. Haven’t heard back from ACLU or Minnesota LWV. But the County Attorney is on it.

CAMP

Citizens Against the Mesaba Project
P.O. Box 583
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
www.camp-site.info

On Monday, July 17, 7:20 a.m., KAXEâ??s Scott Hall will interview Ross Hammond, P.E., about Excelsior’s Mesaba Project.

To hear it online, go to www.kaxe.org, click on “KAXE Live.”

Ross Hammond, P.E., will be the featured speaker at CAMP’s informational meeting, Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 7 p.m., at the Grand Rapids Public Library. Ross has a solid background in electrical generation and environmental energy policy:

• Energy Consultant â?? Licensed Electrical Engineer
• Board Member, Fresh Energy
• Over 30 years experience in the energy industry
• Managed two coal power plants
• Formerly NSPâ??s Director of Environmental Affairs

But what’s too funny for words, I just can’t stop snorting, is that decades ago, his father and my father worked together to build coal and nuclear plants! Not only does he know all about coal plants, but he also knows all the players in this Mesaba fiasco — it’s so nice to have someone on board who understands what’s going on!