An open letter to President Bush, Energy Secretary Abraham and members of Congress.

Dear Mr. Bush et al:

As a California resident I am asking you to keep your resolve on our energy crisis. Don't extend the emergency order that expires on Wednesday requiring out of state generators to sell power to our state, and don't use the money of hardworking taxpayers in other parts of the country to bail us out of our energy crisis. We got ourselves into this mess and it is our responsibility to find a way out of it. This didn't happen overnight, and a reliable long-term solution will not be found overnight.

Now, don't get me wrong. I need power as much as everyone else does in this state. As a writer and a broadcaster, I not only depend on the information superhighway, known as the Internet, I need power to file my stories and broadcast my shows. There was a time, when, during a blackout, I could have typed my stories and received critical phone calls but that time is long gone. My keyboard now is hooked to a computer, and without power my phone doesn't ring.

I live in a rural mountain area. It's cold here at night. Even more critical, when there is no power there is no water from the well for drinking, bathing or flushing toilets. Talk about an environmental crisis! When the power is out, it also means a crisis in our home. Nevertheless, I am willing to undergo the pain and inconvenience of going without power if it will bring some sanity back to the energy policy in my state and in this nation.

What is happening in California should be a wake-up call to the citizens of this great country of ours because the energy crisis in California is just a precursor to what can happen to our nation.

California's energy problem is two-fold. The first part of the problem is that for the last 30 years radical environmental groups operating within our state have prevented the construction of new power plants by scaring citizens and pressuring politicians. The politicians, in turn, have created so many regulations and red tape for power plants that, despite the growth, we have done little or nothing to keep up with increased energy demand.

In short, these greens believe that a power plant -- any power plant -- is a bad thing. They oppose the burning of fossil fuels because they claim it is causing global warming, even though there is little hard evidence to back up their claim. The record cold temperatures across much of the U.S. this winter are a case in point. If that is not enough, they oppose the exploration and production of oil, natural gas and coal, onshore as well as offshore, because they claim it defiles the environment.

Furthermore, they oppose low cost, clean hydroelectric dams because they want fish to be able to go home to die. They even oppose nuclear power, the cleanest and most environmentally friendly plants of all.

I've often wondered why the greens, who oppose hydroelectric plants, approve of wind-generated power. I guess it's because, in the long haul, it isn't cost effective, and it can't produce enough electricity to make a real difference. Have you ever driven by a windmill covered hill on a windy day? It's a scary sight. Those things have to be a hazard for migratory birds and, when it isn't windy, they just sit there and do nothing, which is what the people of California have been doing about the power shortage for far too long.

The second part of our problem is politicians who keep convincing people here that they can give them something for nothing, or a product, like electricity, for less than it costs to produce.

The deregulation bill that was passed here two years ago has given deregulation a bad name. It was not deregulation, but re-regulation. In short, we exchanged one set of regulations for a more far-reaching onerous set of regulations: more specifically, forcing utility companies to sell off their generating equipment, thereby forcing them to buy electricity at market rates. Then a cap was put on what these companies could charge consumers.

Don't be fooled by the bill hurriedly passed by the California legislature that puts the state in the role of both buyer and seller in the electricity market. It is no long-term solution. In fact, it's a bad short-term solution, so Washington is not off the hook just yet. We're about to issue $10 billion in revenue bonds that are supposed to be paid back through utility revenues. In the meantime, we are going to use the money of California taxpayers to enter into long-term contracts to get a better price today, in the hope of making a profit tomorrow.

However, this past year, weather conditions have driven up the cost of power. Would you want to buy bonds, certificates of deposit or any other long-term product when the rates are high? Of course not!

Is Gov. Davis' answer a government takeover of our utility companies? After all, he wants us to cover the debts of the state's two major utilities with taxpayer money in exchange for stock in the companies. If we follow this plan, ultimately we could have the "People's Power Company." Utility officials, who are reported to have poured some $550,000 into his campaign, aren't too happy with that idea. They gave him their money. Now, they want him to give them our money to cover their shortfall.

Presently, it looks as though state-imposed rationing and higher rates will be the order of the day to avoid what we should all begin calling "greenouts" -- power outages that are the result of years of pressure from the green extreme. Yes, it's time the greens get the credit for the no-growth policy they have been pushing, a destructive policy that has made it impossible for California to keep power flowing to its citizens at reasonable rates.

The answer is not a state takeover or more control by the federal government. It is as simple as supply and demand. Let private companies build more power plants of all kinds and let them compete against each other. Let private industry maximize the technology and resources we have while developing better technology for the future. We all want to protect our environment. When given a choice, customers will support the companies with the best technology.

In the midst of this crisis, I received a fax from one of California's Republican congressmen announcing that he had reintroduced legislation to extend the moratorium on oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California because he says that it "poses a threat for our wildlife and beaches and could have a negative impact on tourism." How is offshore oil drilling going to affect tourism? These rigs are 35 miles off the coast! It is unconscionable to perpetrate myths generated by the green extreme on 30-year-old threats to the environment and to ignore the progress that we have made in mining these resources.

States like Louisiana, Alabama and Texas have proven that offshore drilling is both economical and safe. The new pressure limiting valves on the ocean floor are tantamount to the GFI switches in our bathrooms. Does this congressman really believe that our environment and our nation is safer having oil hauled over here from foreign countries in foreign tankers?

Also, we must get the facts out on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and open up the small portion that is needed to tap into the oil there. ANWR is roughly the size of the state of South Carolina and the area that is needed for oil drilling is about the size of a metropolitan airport. Does anyone seriously think the 129,000 caribou herd can't procreate in the vast area that will be left? If those caribou see a pipeline running through the area will they just lie down and die? Of course not! That was the same argument that was made before we opened up neighboring Prudhoe Bay and the caribou herd in that area has tripled in size since we began drilling there.

Lastly, we must educate the public on the safety and benefits of nuclear power. We not only need more nuclear power plants; we need to begin recycling nuclear waste. The old argument made against this recycling by President Carter was that someone in this country might get his hands on it and make it into a nuclear weapon. Now we're giving nuclear power plants to North Korea.

Do we trust the people of North Korea to keep their promise not to use the spent fuel from these plants to make weapons more than we trust in our own ability to control the recycling of nuclear waste?

Do we trust Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq to safely deliver the oil that we need at reasonable prices more than we trust in the ability of American mining engineers to tap our own resources safely?

Do we trust the rhetoric of the radical environmentalists who want to keep us from building any power plant, anytime, anywhere?

There's an old saying, "As California goes, so goes the nation." As our crisis has escalated, the state finally has bowed to public pressure to approve new plants. Six now are under construction and nine others have been approved, but it's too little too late. Are the people of the United States prepared to accept rationing, higher energy costs and the rolling greenouts experienced in California?

To satisfy the estimated 1.8 to 2.5 percent increase per year in domestic electricity demand over the next 10 years, the U.S. must add a minimum of 137,860 megawatts of capacity. That figure translates into the need for at least 276 new 500 MW plants of all types running at an average of 50 percent capacity.

Presently, we have a choice, but it needs to be presented accurately and fairly to the citizens of this country while there still is time to do something.

Meanwhile, I am going out to find another set of thermal underwear, a couple of water buckets and a supply of candles while I can afford the gasoline.

Sincerely,
Jane Chastain