Replies

I know for a fact that after the Bellingham pipe line explosion, that Olypic Pipeline Co., the operator, was not allowed to run at full production for quite a while. That was liquid fuels and there was no declared energy emergency that was made worse on a supply side by the shortage.

From what I can gather the FERC judge is probably looking for a scapegoat to give to California. Personally, I think that the question is going to boil down to "during a Gov Declared energy emergency, should a pipeline be allowed to reduce its capacity because of a recent death causing explosion until such a point as the integrity of the pipeline has been throughly checked and tested."

That is going to be a frightening precident (sp) if FERC doesn't overturn the decision.

Actually, that could be good politics for Republicans! Althought I don't like the idea of using safety in politics, it seems less un-ethical that cartoons of Bush pushing little old ladies in wheelchairs off a cliff. The Democrats deserve just about anything the Republicans give to them after that.

Let me explain. The main backers of more restrictive pipeline operations toward increasing safety are Democratic Senators and Congressmen from the State of Washington and a few other states. This could be an interesting wedge issue for Republicans to pick up nationally. Patty Murray, the Senate campaign finance chair is a strong spokesperson for more pipeline safety. This could drive a wedge between many democrats in California and those in Washington, New Mexico, and some of the states along the Mississippi River. Since Republicans control the Administration, it should be easy to set up.

Something else was going on during the same time frame that "...El Paso subsidiaries 'withheld extremely large amounts of capacity...from November 2000 to March 2001.":

This: Gramm Accuses Clinton, Bush of Abusing Energy Law to Deal with California Crisis

Eric J. Fygi, the Energy Department's acting general counsel who drew up the emergency order signed by Mr. Clinton and extended by Mr. Bush, said it was proper to use the powerful law because northern California military bases were threatened. But he said there is "a legitimate issue" as to whether the U.S. will be liable for damage claims if the PG&E Corp. unit fails to pay its bills when they come due Feb. 25.
After the hearing Friday, PG&E spokesman Shawn Cooper indicated that there isn't any problem paying that bill. PG&E, he said, will be able to pay the $300 million owed to 27 gas suppliers covered by the order. California has allowed PG&E to pass on natural-gas price increases to consumers, he said, unlike retail electricity prices in the state, which remain capped.
Mr. Fygi said the unprecedented order was signed by President Clinton on Jan. 19 after he received pleas from California Gov. Gray Davis and from PG&E's chairman. On Jan. 23, Spencer Abraham, the new energy secretary, heeded another plea from Gov. Davis. "Secretary Abraham, with two full days of the job under his belt, instructed me to extend these orders," Mr. Fygi said. The two orders, one dealing with natural gas and another sending electricity supplies into the state under a different law, ended Feb. 6.
Mr. Fygi testified that Clinton administration lawyers realized they couldn't order the sales without invoking the Defense Production Act. The act was passed at the height of the Korean War to give the president powers to commandeer scarce materials for defense purposes.
Mr. Fygi said the problem wasn't a scarcity of natural gas, but rather PG&E's credit woes. The lawyers decided the potential threat to military bases in the area and facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration justified the use of the law.