|
Bush and the Blackouts
Bush immediately after the power-cuts:
| quote: | President Bush said Friday the massive blackout that struck the Northeast and upper Midwest -- as well as parts of Canada -- is a "wake-up call" to modernize the electricity system.
[...]
Bush, taking questions from reporters while visiting the Santa Monica Mountains north of Los Angeles, described the delivery system as "old and antiquated"
"This is an indication that we need to modernize the electricity grid," said Bush, who repeated his call for lawmakers to pass a broad energy bill. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...kout/index.html
Two days later:
| quote: | | The Bush administration intends to side with a Senate Republican attempt to freeze a disputed regulatory proposal meant to strengthen the nation's aging power transmission system, which was blamed in last week's massive blackout, a senior administration official said yesterday. |
Well, that's quite a quick change in rhetoric. Only took two days to shift from "repeating his call for lawmakers to pass a broad energy bill" to attempting to freeze the passage of an energy proposal in the senate. Why would they want to freeze these proposals intended to "modernize the electricity grid" as Bush put it?
| quote: | "The two villains are the utilities and the Congress," said Bill Richardson, who as energy secretary from 1998 to 2000 advocated free-market reforms. "The utilities don't want to change their monopoly status. And there are some strong lobbies that said to Congress, 'Don't vote for this legislation to modernize utilities because they aren't good for us.' "
[...]
With Congress's return, the battle resumes, pitting two sides in a divided electric-power industry backed by millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions, which have succeeded until now in blocking passage of any energy legislation. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug16.html
So it's the lobbiers and campaign contributers helping prevent the passage of this bill then is it? Which companies would that include then?
| quote: | The top two executives of FirstEnergy Corp. [...] are key financial supporters of President Bush, according to campaign records.
H. Peter Burg, chairman and chief executive, was one of three hosts of a $600,000 fundraiser for Bush's reelection campaign in Akron, Ohio, on June 30. Vice President Cheney was the featured speaker.
Anthony J. Alexander, FirstEnergy's president and chief operating officer, was a "Pioneer" for Bush's last campaign, meaning he raised at least $100,000. Alexander also contributed $100,000 to Bush's inaugural committee.
The Energy Department has dispatched teams of investigators to the Midwest and Northeast. Democrats have questioned whether Bush's administration coddled electric companies because of his long personal ties to the energy industry. FirstEnergy's ties could increase Capitol Hill scrutiny of the White House handling of the blackout aftermath.
Bush's campaign had no comment. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Aug18.html
Oh dear. Would it be worth pointing out, here, that FirstEnergy are under investiagtion for their part in the blackouts?:
| quote: | The investigative arm of Congress is looking into the federal government's handling of problems at a nuclear plant owned by FirstEnergy -- the Ohio-based utility at the center of the investigation into last week's blackout.
[...]
The request came after criticism of the NRC's handling of the Davis-Besse plant owned by FirstEnergy Corp., the Akron based electric conglomerate that owns four of the five Ohio power lines that tripped, a major failure during last week's blackout.
Wells said the GAO investigation would look at "how the NRC is addressing these major issues and the adequacy of the NRC inspection process with respect to the Davis-Besse plant." |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/18/bl...firstenergy.ap/
Now FirstEnergy would have a good reason to oppose the FERC proposal as it "shift(s) authority away from [...] major electric utilities" and is likely to infringe upon "their monopoly status" in the state of Ohio (as they currently own 4 of the 5 stations there). So what's the point of all this? The point is as follows:
The Republicans have monetary links to FirstEnergy, a company under investigation for its part in the recent US blackouts. Two days after saying defiantly that the power grid was in need of an overhaul and that legislation needed to be passed to overhaul it, the Republicans find themselves blocking an energy proposal in the senate - that would drastically modernize the system - which would also take authority away from companies such as FirstEnergy in "control[ing] the flow of power over state lines and oversee[ing] the upgrade of the transmission system" and challenge their virtual monopoly in the state of Ohio and elsewhere. This same company is under investigation for their part in the blackouts and questions are being raised about the US government's handling of the problems at these plants, dating back over a period of more than 18 months.
Could the scope of the blackouts have been minimised without Bush's connections to the big energy companies (would FirstEnergy have been forced to address these problems had they not been major GOP contributers)? Is Bush backing away from his initial "pro-modernization" stance on the insistance of companies like FirstEnergy? Could this errupt into another Enron type scandal for Bush and the Republican party at some point in the future?
Thoughts?
Edited to add:
Further evidence of FirstEnergy's role in the blackouts and the likelihood that the entire incident was actually triggered by faulty transmission lines owned by that company:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4140-2003Aug16.html
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Renegade on Aug-19-2003 at 17:36
|
