Your lack of detail in the cause of the problem, and overkill on profits and political contributions were senseless.

First, California is not deregulated! You cannot let wholesale prices swing and cap retail prices. In times when demand exceeds supply (now, and in peak times) and wholesale prices are pushed up, retail prices must move in that direction to or the wholesale purchaser will lose tons of money.

Next, the spot market price. This is where California bought all of it's energy. Spot market is where you go to sell off excess energy or buy short term additional supply as need. It's price swings violently with supply and demand. You do not purchase all of your energy needs in this market or you will severely overpay for it (as California is doing). "Deregulation in California" required this to occur. Rather than enter into long term agreements where you lock into a price over a long period (1,5,10,30 years) and know your cost structure, California required all of it's energy to be bought at the spot market price, causing an imbalance in supply vs demand and price spikes.

Next, sell off generation. PG@E, Edison and Sempra were required to sell all or part of their generating assets and fell prey to open SPOT MARKET pricing. The market then determined their cost of energy. ...

As far as generators being down, it you look at the standard down time needed for repairs you'll see that generators had been running at dangerous higher levels. They should have been brought down even sooner for standard maintanance. If one of these guys go off line because of an explosion, supply will be reduced even more and prices will skyrocket.

Next, California has done everything (until recent) to prevent generation coming into the state. The governor would like everyone to believe he has done everything to bring more energy generation in, but he has done the exact opposite until recent when now it is absolutely necessary! How many plants have come online in California in Governer Davis's term??? Has ground been broken on any new one's yet??

Next, price manipulation! It may have happened in GAS if El PASO did close off capacity to manipulate the markets. They may be allowed to do that however if their transporation agreements allow it! If we have more pipelines you could choose the cheapest route and take it. Since we have limited pipeline capacity, inperiods of high demmand,and limit pipeline availablity prices will go up!

In electricty, the purchases and sellers were buying and selling at market determined prices (spot market). Good luck trying to prove that every involved coluded to set a high price. Not possible!!...

Solution: Drill for and produce more energy! Bring supply up to demand and make the US independant of others. Allow for the purchase of long term contacts. Set up FERC to monitor trading, generation and transportation and set rules regarding fair and reasonable pricing for the pipelines and transmission. Building an entirely new US Energy Grid would help also and will eventually have to occur. Add pipelines to handle increased demand, and last but not least CONSERVE!!

baltimore, md

Dear FRONTLINE,

The report was sort of disjointed, not really giving a more chronological and detailed explanation of how we got to where we are. In addition, I think it could have gotten more in the issue of conservation and how much that could save versus building 1,300 new power plants over the next 20 years. I think the American people, however, are catching on to the connection between Bush and Cheney and the oil business -- and they don't like what they see.

Brent Fine
chandler, az

Dear FRONTLINE,

It seems everyone from the politicians to the PUC in California has to share the blame for the problems there.

What strikes me most about the situation is Cheney's smugness about "hey turn off some lights out there and it will be OK hey pass all of our plans and then we can fix everything". This sickens me, he doesn't seem interested in fixing a problem that certainly benefits his "constituents" ie Enron. When people think this type of mentality is OK because it's someone else's problem wait until it hits your backyard.

The Frontine piece wasn't their best but it pales in comparison to what is going on with this administration's "compassionate" poilitics.

Michael Welbourne
dallas, tx

Dear FRONTLINE,

I agree with James Torrico of North Fort Myers, FL., when he stated that we as consumers should be choosing who we want to buy our power from.

I'm one of those Californians who's kicking themselves for voting yes on deregulation a while back, thinking that I would have a choice. After seeing this show, however. . .I'm going to blame FERC, since I feel better at blaming someone. If there's one thing I learned from Blackout, it's that the power crises is much more complicated than it appears. And who knows, if it does get much worse, we'll probably see a lot more people here in California going "off the grid" with solar and self generating homes. Anyway. . .great show. Keep up the quality Frontline!!

Jess Batiz
riverside, california

Dear FRONTLINE,

Overall I was disappointed in the show "Blackout". Corporate heads were cast as villians for playing within the rules set by the CA legislature and the PUC. Gov. Gray Davis and the PUC woman were lobbed softball questions that allowed them to get a nice soundbite but never challenged on the PUC's culpability and Gov. Davis's lack of leadership in dealing with the crises initiated by a Democratic CA legislature.

Innuendo was used to cast any Republican politicians i.e. Bush and Cheney as shills of their energy pals. What about an interview with one of the myriad "environmental" groups and other organizations that do everything they can to stop construction of a power plant in CA, then go home in their electric car, check their stocks on their computer, watch a little tv, make a note on their palm pilot, and wonder where all this energy demand is coming from. Ever hear a of little thing called the internet and Silicon Valley? what do you think those servers run on. Guess we should expect nothing else from the New York Times. Quick, what political party do you think the reporter, the writers, and the producer belong to?

hermosa beach, ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

Those interested in history can research back to the late '40's during which California also was subject to rolling blackouts. Amongst the reasons then was an unanticipated population growth due mainly to returning WWII GI's relocating to California coupled with a couple seasons of low precipitation. Back in the 40's around 67% of the power consumed in California was from hydro-electric dams.

One lesson thought learned from this experience was the need to diversify the source of power. More fossil fuel plants were built afterwards as well as geothermal, nuclear and pumped storage ..Other forms of energy producers such as wind, biomass, solar, fuel cells and cogeneration also were added to the mix. ...

Your show barely scratched the surface of the complexities and history which has brought us to where we are at today. For example, you touched on the natural gas question but seemingly did not share with your audience one of the big contributing factors of the high prices of natural gas in California, especially late last year/early this year. ...

To meet ever increasing air pollution requirements, the large oil burning power plants for the most part have been converted to burn natural gas during the last decade or two. In comparison to electricity, gas is much more troublesome to be turned on or off by the supplier to the end users. A few swithes can turn off tens of thousands of users of electricity and similarly can turn them back on. If though a customer pool of a similar number of residences have their gas turned off, it would take days or longer for gas to be safely restored to each individual's home due to pilot lights needing to be relit, etc. What the program failed to note that there was also a shortage of natural gas last winter brought about by the heavy usage last summer by many power plants running at full bore to stave off the need for rolling black outs which did not allow replenishment of ground storage of natural gas. Gas traders buying for the power plants bid higher prices to keep the power plants in gas for they would be the first to be cut off if a true shortage required a rolling cut off due to the relative simplicity of restoring their gas versus the scenario above with regards to residential consumers. Higher prices paid for this gas resulted in higher prices for the end product: eletricity. Again this is just one of the many variables that make up the current problem.

Unfortunately to do justice to this topic requires much more depth and analysis than most want to have to wade through. I have but thrown in another hand's worth of sand to the pail or two that you provided in your program. The rest of this story, if told in full, would fill the sand box. The shortage back in the 40's was solved by building more generation. This took some time though and similarly it will take time to solve the present problems. New sources of energy will need to be provided.

Randal Allen
san luis obispo, california

Dear FRONTLINE,

I'm so thankful that most of the letters here on this subject express an understanding of the true cause of our so-called "crisis".

It is not the capitalist villains in Texas charging significantly more than their uncapitalized cost. It is not the President of the United States refusing to impose a price cap that one non-government entity may charge for a PRODUCT they PRODUCE. And it wasn't even "those tree-huggin', environmental wackos living in California."

It is and was short-sighted advocates of the socialist theories in places of elected and appointed California Government power.

Perhaps I give the socialists too little credit for their vision. By creating a ÏDeregulationÓ program for California utilities that a 10-year old could have predicted would fail, the authors must have known that with sufficient time they could show the doubters that deregulation of utilities simply does not work.

California enacted a deregulation strategy that caps the retail price, but somehow overlooked controlling the wholesale price. A wholesale price that is pointless to try predict since long-term contracts were also prohibited by ÏDEregulationÓ. Then, for years and years, California overlooked the growing population of the state Now, in a final blunder and blow to capitalism, we somehow let morons like Gray Davis and Loretta Lynch run the show. .

OK, I guess I have to admit it, we in California need to have protection from that wicked Ïfree marketÓ. Oh sure, it might seem to work for other products, but utilities are magical, mystical things. Fairy dust must somehow come into play when dealing with utilities and we all know that only the GOVERNMENT can control such ethereal substances. It can't be left in the hands of a free-market.

Yup, we clearly are not safe behind the wheel.

James Leon
rsm, ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

This was the most biased piece I've seen Frontline do. There seemed to be no attempt at all by the reporter to hide his views. Contrast his limited and pointless questioning of Democrat government officials with the extensive and pointed questioning of Republican government officials and corporate heads.

There was no analysis of the environmentalists who have opposed new power plants, opposed modernizing old power plants, opposed new power transmission lines, opposed new gas pipelines, opposed drilling for oil, opposed drilling for gas, and opposed the use of coal and nuclear power.

The reporter apparently took as gospel the environmentalists' claim that all this successful opposition has nothing to do with the energy shortage. And is it a coincidence that the two large states most likely to experience power shortages are the ones most beholden to liberal environmentalists?

Gov. Davis mentioned that he has approved more new plants than anyone else, but has a single shovel of dirt been turned on any of them? Did it occur to the reporter to ask this?

There was no mention of Gov. Davis and the head of the PUC rejecting $50 per megawatt-hour long term contracts offered last August by "pirate" power producers, and no mention that it was within the Governor's power to get and approve low priced long term contracts during anytime in this crisis, and that by failing to do so he forced the state and the utilities to buy electricity in the ridiculously expensive spot market. Was the reporter unaware of this?

There was no mention that Gov. Davis has done nothing to significantly reduce the time it takes to approve new power plant construction. Two power plant sites up for consideration won't be considered until late summer or August! This is representative of Gov. Davis' too little, too late method of governance. Was the reporter unaware of this?

And the misunderstanding of the market system demonstrated by the head of the PUC and a FERC commissioner, and the reporter by association, was distressing but not surprising. Pay attention to this O Unlearned Ones: The market price of anything is not the cost of production plus a just and reasonable profit; The market price of a good or service is what the purchaser is willing to pay for it. GM makes $10,000 profit on SUVs not because they planned to, but because consumers are willing to pay $10,000 above the costs. In a free market it is the buyer that sets the price, because the buyer can always choose not to buy.

Greg Green
lake forest, ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

Blackout left some unanswered questions for me. First why did the Ca. PUC fail to act on requests from Edison for long term energy contracts last May? Secondly, what was the position of Gray Davis when this deregulation was passed in 1996? He was the Lt. Gov. I think wasn't he? His inaction has been most disturbing. This crisis has been going on since last May in San Diego. The critisism from other states is well deserved, we've got to do a better job of electing informed officals.

John McCarthy
ventura, ca.

Dear FRONTLINE,

While the documentary was highly detailed and very revealing as to the supply-side dynamics of deregulation, manipulation of supply by producers, and governmental missteps and inaction, what was completely overlooked was what is probably the single biggest factor driving demand. That factor is population growth.

The latest census figures show that 96% of California population growth since 1970 was due to immigration, much of that illegal. The population grew by 11 million poewer users during that period, from approximately 23 million, to where it stands today at around 34 million.

It is known that as much as 80% of all U.S. immigrants, eventually wind up in California, saddling the state with an undue share of increased demand for energy that is the direct result of lax Federal immigration policy. During that period, the Federal government opened the floodgates, swamping California with the resuilt of those policies.

California did not build additional power plants, because, minus Federally controlled immigration, California has enjoyed near zero population growth since 1970. California cannot conserve it's way out of the shortage either, because, as the film stated, we rank forty ninth, behind Rhode Island, in percapita energy consumption.

In short, California has lead the way in responsible actions like zero poulation growth and the second best conservation efforts in the country. Federal inaction in setting sensible immigration quotas, and in effectively controoling illegal immigration has had the single greatest effect in undoing those efforts.

The population of California is expected to double in the next 25 years, or less, Demand will no doubt double with it. No doubt energy suppliers are quite pleased. The state population will double yet again less than 12 years after that. The population growth and the accompanying demand are fueled almost entirely by immigration. If this is not a national, and therfore, a Federal problem, I don't know what is.

Ronald Brown
anaheim, ca

Dear FRONTLINE,

Your special was very interesting in helping to some extent explain what caused the California power shortages. However - in some regard - you made it appear as though it was the profit hungry Texas energy companies vs the down on their luck California consumers. Californians need to look to their authorities for the energy shortages they are experiencing - I sympathize with them.

For the records, these energy companies are publicly held companies that have responsibilities to its shareholders. Selling energy for anything less than market prices is a quick way for its officers / directors to get sued by the shareholders. These companies are owned by shareholders throughout the United States, including Californians. They are the beneficiaries of any profits made by these companies.

dallas, tx

Dear FRONTLINE,

I was very disapointed with "Blackout". The report was so trite, uninformative and biased that I thought I was watching 20/20. Where was the depth of thought so common in previous shows? It degraded into the big bad energy cos. vs. poor dumb ever conserving Californians. It is not that simple. I looked forward to this show inorder to better understand this issue and i came away thinking I know much more than these reporters. Frontline wasted so much time looking for someone to blame that you failed to even frame a debate for further discussion. And i'm so not impressed that you found out off camera who is going to be the next chairman of FERC.

Bruce Miller
richmond, va.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Exceptional program! Your in-depth interviews explained a lot about the California crises and its' implications for the future energy needs/concerns of the country. Basically, you pointed out that this crises we are now engaged in is part of the fabric of our capitalistic open market and therefore subject to all of the elements that go with that - political wrangling and basic greed - all of it borne on the shoulders of the average consumer! Pretty scary future I would say for energy costs!

r metcalf
westerville, oh

Dear FRONTLINE,

Did anyone ever compare what happened when free trade was brought to the former Soviet Union, and how the deregulation was handled in California?

To me, it seems more like a problem with how deregulation was implemented than with the basic concept of free trade.

Rock on Adam Smith and your invisible hand!!!

Paul Madary
green bay, wi

Dear FRONTLINE,

One well known economist once said that "The market need a place and the market needs to be kept in its place." Arthur Okun

One of the most pertinent things stated in the show was the point that markets have become religion for so many economists and policy makers. Clearly markets are very different from one industry to the next and Frontline did an excellent job at distinguishing the energy market from the mythical one to which the market zealots constantly refer.

Not to mention the light it shed on the power of wealth to influence that market through the purchase of government influence.

Thomas DelGiudice
huntingoton, ny