Index to the web page below:
Letter to interested parties
LA Times 11/16/01 "Generators add to Davis
Coffers"
SF Chronicle 11/16/01 "Governor's
greased lighting"
Sacramento Bee 11/17/01 "...Davis hit a
'new low' in N.Y. trip"
FPL First quarter 2001 SEC report filed
May 7, 2001
FPL Second quarter 2001 SEC report filed
August 10, 2001
FPL Third quarter 2001 SEC report filed
November 9, 2001
Letter to interested parties:
Subject: Davis has trouble with perception: Florida Power and Light
contribution
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 11:34:49 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Dan Walters <dwalters@sacbee.com>,
Daniel Weintraub <dweintraub@sacbee.com>,
Emily Bazar <ebazar@sacbee.com>,
Dan Morain <Dan.Morain@latimes.com>,
Lynda Gledhill <lgledhill@sfchronicle.com>,
Mark Martin <markmartin@sfchronicle.com>,
Darrel Ng <darrel@billjones.org>,
Harvey Rosenfield <harvey@consumerwatchdog.org>,
Sacramento County Taxpayers
League <sactaxleague@prodigy.net>,
Meg Laughlin <mlaughlin@herald.com>
Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>
CC: Tim Leslie <assemblymember.leslie@assembly.ca.gov>,
Dave Cox <Assemblymember.Cox@assembly.ca.gov>,
Doug Ose <doug.ose@mail.house.gov>,
Lance Shaw <lshaw@energy.state.ca.us>
A letter to interested parties:
As a Rio Linda resident, I'm doing everything I can to keep FPL from building a power plant here, as it is the WRONG place to build it. The fight is a bit difficult, however, with the support FPL is buying from the Governor.
In October, Governor Davis accepted $50,000 from Florida Power and Light and an associated company. He says his concern was in not taking money from people who were actively selling us power during the early months of 2001. He says to his knowledge, neither of those companies were active players.
Gary South, Davis' political adviser, said Davis refuses contributions from utility companies such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
The quarterly report FPL filed with the SEC on August 10, 2001, says FPL is on the hook for $15 million in payments from PG&E and So. Cal. Edison for electricity sold to them between November 2000 and March 2001. FPL is holding its breath on the PG&E bankruptcy. FPL says in it's SEC report that payment of the outstanding receivables is "conditioned on, among other things, legislative action in California". This need for legislative action in California was not identified in the previous quarter's report to the SEC.
After filing the SEC report in August, FPL met with and contributed to Governor Davis in October. The quarterly report FPL filed on November 9, 2001, no longer mentions the need for legislative action. How about that. Of course there's no connection. FPL is only a creditor, not a player. A creditor to the tune of $15 Million, and $50,000 is a good investment when you are looking for $15 Million. Not to mention the proposed Rio Linda plant, whose license application has been suspended by the California Energy Commission because of a lack of responsiveness from FPL.
Who knows how much leverage Davis will exert on the CEC commissioners? $50,000 worth?
Excerpts and references follow. For "one stop reference shopping", visit my web page at http://obri.net/stop/davis.html. There's also a link at the top of that page to an introduction to our community's effort to "Stop The Oppressive Powerplant" (STOP).
Your interest in our plight is solicited.
Sincerely,
Jay O'Brien
Rio Linda, California
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Gray Davis accepted $50,000 in campaign donations from power companies in October, after having sworn off raising money from them as the energy crisis worsened earlier this year, campaign finance reports show.
Davis and his chief campaign strategist, however, defended the decision to accept the two donations, saying that neither company is among the "gougers" that charged Californians record prices for electricity earlier this year, and that the energy crisis has abated.
During a fund-raising trip to Florida and New York two weeks ago, Davis accepted donations of $25,000 each from Caithness Energy of New York and from FPL Energy of Juno Beach, Fla., a firm related to Florida Power & Light. Both firms are independent power producers that sell electricity in California and are involved in construction of new power plants. "First of all," Davis said Thursday, "the worst of the energy crisis is behind us. My concern was in not taking money from people who were actively selling us power [at high prices] during the difficult early months of 2001. To my knowledge, neither of those companies are active players in that process."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-000091651nov16.story
If that link doesn't work, click here.
If it was dirty money before, it is even dirtier now," said Rosenfield, who heads the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Davis is mistaken to think that the energy crisis is over, Rosenfield said.
"Tell that to the 20 million Californians who have seen their rates increase an average of 50 percent," he said.
The two companies -- FPL Energy LLC and Caithness Energy LLC -- each gave $25,000 to Davis' campaign fund.
Both contributors have proposed projects pending in California.
Caithness Energy, a New York-based generator, is expected to file plans to build a power plant with the California Energy Commission later this month. The company wants to build a 560-megawatt natural gas fired plant in Riverside County.
And subsidiaries of FPL Energy, a Florida generator that operates power plants across the country, are in negotiations with the state's new Power Authority to construct wind turbines in Southern California. The state would buy energy from the turbines and have the option to own them.
In addition, Caithness and FPL are working together to building another power plant in Riverside County. That project was approved by the state's Energy Commission in March.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/16/MN217142.DTL&type=news
If that link doesn't work, click here.
On Friday, (California Secretary of State Bill Jones) questioned two contributions Davis accepted from energy companies on Oct. 30, even though the governor publicly swore off taking money from utility companies and power generators last winter.
Caithness Energy LLC in New York and FPL Energy LLC in Florida each gave Davis $25,000, and Jones wanted to know if the governor had changed his policy.
"I don't understand this double standard," (Jones) said. "They say one thing and do another."
But South said the governor's policy still stands. He said Davis refuses contributions from power companies that have been identified by the state's Independent System Operator as "gougers" and from utility companies such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. The governor can, however, accept donations from alternative energy suppliers that have not engaged in price manipulation, South said.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1182967p-1250589c.html
If that link doesn't work, click here.
FPL Energy has approximately 540 net mw in California, most of which are wind, solar and geothermal qualifying facilities. The output of these projects is sold predominantly under long-term contracts with California utilities. Increases in natural gas prices and an imbalance between power supply and demand, as well as other factors, have contributed to significant increases in wholesale electricity prices in California. Utilities in California had previously agreed to fixed tariffs to their retail customers, which resulted in significant under-recoveries of wholesale electricity purchase costs. On April 6, 2001, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. FPL Energy's projects have not received the majority of payments due from California utilities for electricity sold from November 2000 through March 2001.
FPL Group's earnings exposure relating to these receivables at March 31, 2001 was approximately $17 million. All of FPL Energy's California projects have received payment for April 2001 electricity sales, and the California utilities have stated that they intend to pay qualifying facilities on a prospective basis. At March 31, 2001, FPL Energy's net investment in California projects was approximately $250 million. It is impossible to predict what the outcome of the situation in California will be or its effect, if any, on FPL Group's financial statements.
[when accessing the references below, search for 'California']
Yahoo site (extract):
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/010507/fpl.html
FPL site (full 10-Q):
http://www.investor.fplgroup.com/visitors/edgar-get.cfm?document=753308/0000753308-01-500027&CompanyID=fpl
SEC site (full 10-Q):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37634/000075330801500027/file10q.txt
FPL Energy has a net ownership interest in approximately 540 mw in California, most of which are wind, solar and geothermal qualifying facilities. The output of these projects is sold predominantly under long-term contracts with California utilities. Increases in natural gas prices and an imbalance between power supply and demand, as well as other factors, have contributed to significant increases in wholesale electricity prices in California. Utilities in California had previously agreed to fixed tariffs to their retail customers, which resulted in significant under-recoveries of wholesale electricity purchase costs. FPL Energy's projects have not received the majority of payments due from California utilities for electricity sold from November 2000 through March 2001.
In April 2001, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In July 2001, an agreement was reached between PG&E and FPL Energy regarding most of the qualifying facility contracts between the companies. The agreement requires a fixed payment structure over the next five years as well as payment of all outstanding receivables subject to approval of PG&E's reorganization plan by the bankruptcy court and PG&E's creditors. In June 2001, an agreement was reached between SCE and FPL Energy regarding the qualifying facility contracts with SCE. The agreement with SCE also requires a fixed payment structure over the next five years as well as payment of all outstanding receivables but is conditioned upon, among other things, legislative action in California and completion of SCE's financing plan.
No assurance can be given that the conditions to the agreements with PG&E and SCE will be satisfied. FPL Group's earnings exposure relating to past due receivables from these California utilities at June 30, 2001 was approximately $15 million. At June 30, 2001, FPL Energy's net investment in California projects was approximately $290 million. It is impossible to predict what the outcome of the situation in California will be or its effect, if any, on FPL Group's financial statements.
[when accessing the references below, search for 'California']
Yahoo site (extract):
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/010810/fpl.html
FPL site (full 10-Q):
http://www.investor.fplgroup.com/visitors/edgar-get.cfm?document=753308/0000753308-01-500043&CompanyID=fpl
SEC site (full 10-Q):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37634/000075330801500043/file10q.txt
FPL Energy has a net ownership interest in approximately 540 mw in California, most of which are wind, solar and geothermal qualifying facilities. The output of these projects is sold predominantly under long-term contracts with California utilities. Increases in natural gas prices and an imbalance between power supply and demand, as well as other factors, contributed to significant increases in wholesale electricity prices in California during 2000 and early 2001. Utilities in California had previously agreed to fixed tariffs to their retail customers, which resulted in significant under-recoveries of wholesale electricity purchase costs. FPL Energy's projects have not received the majority of payments due from California utilities for electricity sold from November 2000 through March 2001.
In April 2001, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In July 2001, an agreement was reached between PG&E and FPL Energy regarding most of the qualifying facility contracts between the companies. The agreement requires a fixed payment structure over the next five years as well as payment of all outstanding receivables subject to approval of PG&E's reorganization plan by the bankruptcy court and PG&E's creditors. In September 2001, PG&E submitted a reorganization plan to the bankruptcy court which calls for the sale of certain PG&E assets to an unregulated PG&E subsidiary with the proceeds from the sale used to pay off PG&E's debts. PG&E's unregulated subsidiary will need to obtain financing to purchase the assets. The reorganization plan has been approved by the creditors, but must also be approved by the bankruptcy court. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California's Division of Water Resources oppose the reorganization plan.
In June 2001, an agreement was reached between SCE and FPL Energy regarding the qualifying facility contracts with SCE. The agreement with SCE also requires a fixed payment structure over the next five years as well as payment of all outstanding receivables but is conditioned upon, among other things, completion of SCE's financing plan. In October 2001, SCE and the CPUC reached an agreement intended to restore SCE's credit worthiness by allowing recovery of past due amounts from SCE's customers. On October 31, 2001, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the settlement agreement between SCE and the CPUC to allow a consumer advocacy group two weeks to argue why the court should not approve the settlement agreement.
No assurance can be given that the conditions to the agreements FPL Energy has with PG&E and SCE will be satisfied. FPL Group's earnings exposure relating to past due receivables from these California utilities at September 30, 2001 was approximately $14 million. At September 30, 2001, FPL Energy's net investment in California projects was approximately $290 million. It is not possible at this time to predict what the outcome of the situation in California will be or its effect, if any, on FPL Group's financial statements.
[when accessing the references below, search for 'California']
SEC Site (full 10-Q):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/37634/000075330801500063/file10q.htm
FPL Site (full 10-Q):
http://www.investor.fplgroup.com/visitors/edgar-get.cfm?document=753308/0000753308-01-500063&CompanyID=fpl