Below are a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.

EU Bustles with Mergers - February 22, 2006

I would really like to see something on France's low variable cost nuke power versus the generation mix of other countries in the EU, and its [France's nukes] affect on the 2007 EU whose generation growth currently lies in the hands of Russian natural gas imports (on the order of 25%.) If my presumptions are correct France would be the leading political lobby in the liberalization of the EU energy markets because of a natural market advantage and cheap nuclear energy. Secondly, should the Suez/GdF merger go through, governmental seats on the board of the second largest global power company would give France the leading advantage to maintain their corporate nationalism. My problem with this is that in the US this would constitute market power, which is illegal. Where and when will the EU draw anti-trust regs?

James Curry

This morning an organization representing the electricity-intensive industries of Sweden asked the Swedish government to reinstate the regulation of electricity. Although deregulation may sound like a wonderful idea to the ignoramuses in Brussels, it is turning out to be destructive for this country.

There are of course worse things - internationalism, is one of them. Another bummer is the mergers that you seem to be so pleased with which, for the most part, are driven by the desires of various corporation executives in Europe and elsewhere to have a more exciting life, because in the case of the electric - and very likely the gas - industry it couldn't possibly have anything to do with "superior prices".

Fred Banks

Interpreting Clean Air Laws - March 24, 2006

I read your 3/24/06 commentary on the recent court ruling against proposed revisions to the New Source Review regulations. As with many of your articles I found it to be slanted against industry and economic development.

For example, you state in Paragraph 6 "In 2003 and under Bush, the EPA rewrote the NSR laws in an effort to avoid future litigation and to maximize coal generation capacity." I do not recall seeing anything in the new regulations or its preamble mentioning that these rules are meant to maximize coal generation capacity. This is your opinion and if it is a fact you need a citation. I have been permitting in the utility industry for over 25 years and the main reason for many facility changes desired by owners is to improve efficiency. As a matter of good business practice in a growing competitive utility business, owners look to efficiency improvements. More efficient plants are good for the economy, result in better fuel economy, and pollute less. Needed efficiency improvement projects such as better steam turbines, better economizers, and better superheaters have been delayed and prevented and now, with this latest court ruling, will be eliminated. Why is this side of the story not mentioned by you in this article?

The story that is also not being told is that pollutant emissions in this country have decreased by very large amounts with significant improvements in air quality levels, while at the same time our country has experienced tremendous growth and prosperity. Pollutant emissions have been cut in half since 1970 while at the same time our energy consumption and population have gone up by 50% and our GDP and vehicle miles traveled have nearly doubled. (These are published facts which can be cited.) This is a huge success and a burden carried by our largest industries. Yet this is not publicized. The average citizen still thinks the power industry doesn't care about the environment, their plants belch out pollution, our air is unhealthy and people die because of it, and their plants single-handedly are causing global warming and the end of a comfortable world as we know it. (The facts prove this to be wrong of course.) The public thinks this because the media they get their information from is slanted. The media has an obligation to fair and balanced reporting. The real story here is that our air is significantly cleaner, pollutant related health effects continue a strong decline, and these new regulations would have helped to continue that path; despite the unfounded and slanted statements made by anti-industry planet worshippers and their willing accomplice, the media.

Brian Petermann
Stilwell, KS

While everyone wants cleaner air and cleaner-burning coal plants, the fight over what constitutes "major modifications" of older coal plants seems misguided. The plant owners appear to have successfully fended-off spending billions in pollution control upgrades for old plants (at least if the comments of the "green groups" are to be believed), and this fight has been going-on for well over a decade. The biggest impact has been to keep a bunch of lawyers employed while having a less-than-desired environmental impact.

At this point, the US coal-plant average age has probably reached 30 years or more. These plants are reaching end-of-life on an economic basis, even considering that some (many?) of them burn coal with minimal pollution controls. The "green groups" might have greater impact at this point in time to focus on easing the barriers to new coal, nuclear, and wind generation plants. The fact that each of these energy generation sources runs into significant opposition, significantly increasing costs and time to install new plants, is a direct contributor to the economic incentive to keep older coal plants running.

I for one certainly appreciate the contributions that the "green groups" have made to our environment over the last 30+ years; let's now work to make sure that the actions we take have the most impact to create economic, secure, and clean electricity generation. Arcane fights over 30+ year-old coal plants, which rarely or ever result in aggressive installation of pollution control systems, would not seem to be the most impactful area to focus on.

Thomas Conroy
VP Business Development
Wind Tower Composites

Note that with many plant upgrades, although the total plant pollution may increase, the pollution per KW produced can actually goes down because the plant is now more efficient, resulting in a cleaner environment. Also the extra KWs produced can displace an older, less efficient plant that consumes more fuel and pollutes even more. So how is this bad? Note for some upgrades where more KWs are produced, there is no increase in total plant pollution.

If we shut down all of the coal plants we will have to build new plants to replace the lost generation. The new plants will be more expensive and may burn more expensive natural gas, which will likely increase the price of electricity and negatively impact the economy. We may have to site the new plants in new locations and build more transmissions lines which many people don't like either.

This not as black and white as some would make it seem but then some don't want to hear the "other" side.

John Blake

The Price Fix - March 27, 2006

Unless there is a fundamental change in the philosophy of doing business - from one of looking out for the best interests of the customer rather than self interests - the greed and corruption will continue. Next Generation companies who think differently will then gradually take over the marketplace in a fully transparent manner while generating fantastic profits.

Chuck Steiner
President and CEO
WaterSmart Environmental, Inc.

As Rameus in the film, Red October says: "Your conclusions are all wrong".

I interject that the author is all wrong is assuming that the industry has weathered the crisis.

Au contraire, the crisis has just begun: coming as a tidal wave as the caps come off. I expect that the uproar will be so horrific that electric supply will ultimately be re-regulated. So, concluding that the energy industry will be branded as in kind to greedy "boss Hogs" culprits. I can see the editorial pictures, now.

Tim Arthurs

Trading Up - March 31, 2006

Fascinating article! After the bad experiences with the heavily regulated "deregulated" energy market, it's exciting to see that there are innovators who are not afraid to keep looking for a well-suited vehicle to trade.

Gary Dameron

As former senior managing editor for price surveys for Gas Daily during the period when the false reporting took place, I would like to comment on your article.

There was a time when I might have agreed with Ellen about the strength of "robust reporting", but we're beyond that now. The dust is nearly settled, but to my knowledge, the most companies in the have never fully retreated from their contention that details of trading activities are proprietary information which they'd rather not reveal. Until they adopt a system that reports those details in a manner that's auditable, the potential for abuse will still exist.

The financial industry has gotten over this hurdle. There's no reason the gas industry can't.

David Behrman