La politique extérieure américaine: "Un monde de brut"

Sources: US Embassy 11/28/00

*ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ON 2020 ENERGY DEMAND

(Prices of oil, natural gas to fall in 2001)

World oil prices, which increased in 1999 and 2000, are projected to begin falling in 2001, and natural gas prices are also projected to decline, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report.

"In the longer term, technology improvements in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas are expected to moderate price increases even as demand for these fuels grows," EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) report said.

The EIA is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). By congressional mandate, the EIA operates independently of the policy objectives of the U.S. government.

The AEO2001 report contains forecasts for U.S. production and imports, electricity generation and carbon emissions. The early release of the AEO2001 report may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/earlyrelease/.

Following is the text of the summary of AEO2001:

(Note: In the text, "billion" means 1,000 million; "trillion" means 1,000,000 million; "quadrillion" means 1,000,000,000 million.)

[U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Administration

Washington, D.C.

November 28, 2000]

EARLY RELEASE OF THE ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2001

Key Energy Issues to 2020

Currently, most attention in energy markets is focused on near-term issues of world oil supply and prices, U.S. natural gas prices, and the transition to restructured electricity markets in consumption several regions of the country. The Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) addresses the longer-term trends of electricity industry restructuring, fossil fuel supply and prices, and the impacts of economic growth on projected energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. AEO2001 does not project short-term events, such as supply disruptions or severe weather.

The AEO2001 projections assume a transition to full competitive pricing of electricity in states with specific deregulation plans-California, New York, New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Virginia. Other states are assumed to continue cost-of-service electricity pricing. A transition from regulated to competitive prices over a 10-year period from the beginning of restructuring in each region, and implementation of the provisions of California legislation regarding price caps, are assumed. Increased competition in electricity markets is also represented through assumed changes in the financial structure of the industry and efficiency and operating improvements.

World oil prices fell sharply through most of 1997 and 1998, due in part to economic developments in East Asia and the resulting oversupply of oil. Beginning in 1999, actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and some non-OPEC countries to restrain oil production have increased world oil prices. U.S. natural gas prices have also increased in 2000 due to higher than expected demand and to tight supplies caused by reduced drilling in reaction to low prices in 1998.

The projected growth rate of the U.S. economy, measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is considerably higher in AEO2001 than in AEO2000, an average annual rate of 3.0 percent from 1999 to 2020, compared with 2.1 percent in AEO2000. Although part of the upward revision results from statistical and definitional changes in the National Income and Product Accounts, the projections also reflect a more optimistic view of long-run economic growth, which results in higher forecasts of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in AEO2001 than in AEO2000.

Prices

The average world oil price is projected to increase from $17.35 per barrel in 1999 (1999 dollars) to about $27.60 per barrel in 2000, falling to about $20.50 per barrel by 2003. In 2020, the projected price reaches $22.41 per barrel, similar to the AEO2000 projection of $22.33 per barrel. Higher demand in the forecast is offset by higher resource estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey. Projected prices over the next several years are higher in AEO2001 than in AEO2000 due to the production cutbacks by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations, a lag in the response of non-OPEC producers to price increases, and renewed demand growth in Asia.

World oil demand is projected to increase from 75.5 million barrels per day in 1999 to 117.4 million barrels per day in 2020 -- higher than the AEO2000 projection of 112.4 million barrels per day -- due to higher projected demand in the United States, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, the Pacific Rim developing countries, and China. Projected growth in production in both OPEC and non-OPEC nations leads to relatively slow projected growth of prices through 2020. OPEC oil production is expected to reach 57.6 million barrels per day in 2020, nearly double the 29.9 million barrels per day in 1999, assuming sufficient capital to expand production capacity. The United Nations resolution limiting Iraqi oil exports is assumed to remain in place through 2001. Once sanctions are lifted, Iraqi oil production is expected to reach 3.5 million barrels per day within 2 years and about 5 million barrels per day within a decade.

The June 2000 recoverable oil resources assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey raised world resources by about 700 billion barrels from the 1994 assessment. As a result, non-OPEC oil production is expected to increase from 44.8 million barrels per day to 59.5 million barrels per day between 1999 and 2020, or 2.9 million barrels per day higher than in AEO2000. Production from the Caspian Basin is expected to reach 6 million barrels per day by 2020 with continued expansion of production from the offshore regions of West Africa and the North Sea. Both Brazil and Colombia are expected to be producing 1 million barrels per day before 2005, and production in Mexico and Canada is also expected to increase.

The average wellhead price of natural gas is projected to increase from $2.08 per thousand cubic feet in 1999 to about $3.30 per thousand cubic feet in 2000 and 2001, then decline through 2004. The projected price reaches $3.13 per thousand cubic feet in 2020, $0.28 per thousand cubic feet higher than in AEO2000, due to higher projected demand. Price increases are expected to be slowed by technological improvements in natural gas exploration and production. Average delivered prices are projected to increase at a slower rate than the wellhead price due to assumed cost reductions from efficiency improvements in the industry.

In AEO2001, the average mine mouth price of coal is projected to decline from $16.98 per ton in 1999 to $12.70 per ton in 2020, the same price projected in AEO2000. Through 2020, the price is expected to decline due to increasing productivity in mining, a shift to lower-cost western production, and competitive pressures on labor costs.

Average electricity prices are projected generally to decline from 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1999 to 6.0 cents in 2020, increasing slightly at the end of the forecast due to rising natural gas prices. In 2020, the projected price is slightly higher than the 5.9 cents per kilowatt-hour projected in AEO2000. Higher projections for natural gas prices and for electricity demand -- which would require more investment in new generating capacity -- lead to the higher price projections. Electricity industry restructuring is expected to contribute to lower prices through reductions in operating and maintenance, administrative, and other costs. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission actions on open access and other changes for competitive markets enacted by some State public utility commissions are included in the projections, as noted above. Because not all States have deregulated their electricity markets, the projections do not represent a fully restructured electricity market.

Consumption

Total energy consumption is projected to increase from 96.1 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) to 127.0 quadrillion Btu between 1999 and 2020, an average annual increase of 1.3 percent. In 2020, this forecast is about 6 quadrillion Btu higher than projected in AEO2000, primarily because higher projected economic growth leads to higher demand forecasts in all end-use sectors.

Total residential energy consumption is projected to grow at an average rate of 1.2 percent per year, with the most rapid growth expected for computers, electronic equipment, and appliances. In 2020, the projected residential demand is 24.4 quadrillion Btu, 1.4 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000. Higher projected economic growth results in higher forecasts for both disposable personal income and housing starts, increasing equipment purchases and raising the projected housing stock in 2020 by 1.5 percent. AEO2001 also forecasts that new houses will become larger over time.

Commercial energy demand is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent, reaching 20.8 quadrillion Btu in 2020, 2.6 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000. With higher projected economic growth in AEO2001, commercial floor space is projected to grow more rapidly and, in 2020, is estimated to be 11 percent higher than projected in AEO2000. The most rapid increases in energy use are expected for computers, office equipment, and telecommunications and other equipment.

Industrial energy demand is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.0 percent per year, reaching 43.4 quadrillion Btu in 2020, 1.2 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000. With higher projected economic growth, total industrial gross output is estimated to grow at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent from 1999 to 2020, compared with 1.9 percent in AEO2000; however, recent data indicate more rapid improvements in industrial energy intensity than previously estimated. Also, average annual growth in non-energy-intensive manufacturing is expected to be 3.3 percent, compared with 1.2 percent for energy-intensive manufacturing. Through 2020, more rapid assumed declines in industrial energy intensity, compared with AEO2000, are projected to offset some of the increase in demand that might be expected with higher industrial output. Cogeneration capacity is projected to increase by 19 gigawatts by 2020, 10 gigawatts more than in AEO2000.

Energy demand for transportation is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent, to 38.5 quadrillion Btu in 2020, 1.0 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000. In AEO2001, the projections for light-duty vehicle and freight travel are higher than in AEO2000 as a result of higher projected growth in personal income and industrial output. Higher light-duty vehicle travel in the forecast is partially offset by higher vehicle efficiency. New vehicle efficiency in 2020 is projected to be higher by 0.9 and 1.9 miles per gallon for new cars and light trucks, respectively, than in AEO2000, due to a reevaluation of the competitive potential of advanced technology vehicles.

The projections incorporate efficiency standards for new energy-using equipment in buildings and for motors mandated through 1994 by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, including the refrigerator and fluorescent lamp ballast standards that become effective in July 2001 and April 2005, respectively. These are the only standards that are finalized with effective dates and specific efficiency levels.

Electricity demand is projected to grow by 1.8 percent per year from 1999 through 2020, higher than the rate of 1.3 percent forecast for the same period in AEO2000. The higher demand projection results from higher projected economic growth and a reevaluation of the potential for growth in electricity use for a variety of residential and commercial appliances and equipment, including personal computers.

The overall demand for natural gas in the U.S. energy economy is projected to grow by 2.3 percent per year on average, from 21.4 trillion cubic feet in 1999 to 34.7 trillion cubic feet in 2020, primarily as a result of rapid projected growth in demand for electricity generation (excluding co-generators), which is expected to triple between 1999 and 2020. The AEO2001 forecast for total natural gas demand in 2020 is 3.2 trillion cubic feet higher than in AEO2000, mainly as a result of higher projected demand for natural gas in the electricity generation sector.

In AEO2001, total coal consumption is projected to increase from 1,035 million tons in 1999 to 1,297 million tons in 2020, an average increase of 1.1 percent per year. The 2020 projection is 18 million tons higher than in AEO2000, due to higher projected demand for industrial uses and for electricity generation, which constitutes about 90 percent of the demand for coal.

Petroleum demand is projected to grow from 19.5 million barrels per day in 1999 to 25.8 million in 2020 -- an average rate of 1.3 percent per year -- led by growth in the transportation sector, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Projected demand in 2020 is higher than in AEO2000 by 730 thousand barrels per day primarily due to a higher projection for transportation fuel use.

Renewable fuel consumption, including ethanol for gasoline blending, is projected to grow at an average rate of 1.1 percent per year through 2020, primarily as a result of State mandates. In 2020, about 55 percent of renewables are used for electricity generation and the rest for dispersed heating and cooling, industrial uses (including cogeneration), and fuel blending. The AEO2001 forecast for renewable energy demand in 2020 is 0.4 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000, mainly due to higher projected use of biomass in the industrial sector.

Energy Intensity

Between 1970 and 1986, energy intensity, measured as energy use per dollar of GDP, declined at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent as the economy shifted to less energy-intensive industries and more efficient technologies in light of energy price increases. With slower price increases (and price declines in some sectors) and growth of more energy-intensive industries, intensity declines moderated to an average of 1.3 percent per year between 1986 and 1999. Energy intensity is projected to decline at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent through 2020 as efficiency gains and structural shifts in the economy offset the expected growth in demand for energy services. The projected improvement is more rapid than in AEO2000, due to more rapid projected efficiency improvements in the industrial sector and growth in the non-energy-intensive industries.

Energy use per person generally declined from 1970 through the mid-1980s, then rose as energy prices fell. Per capita energy use is projected to increase slightly in the forecast as efficiency gains only partially offset higher demand for energy services.

Electricity Generation

Electricity generation fueled by natural gas and coal is projected to increase through 2020 to meet growing demand for electricity and offset the projected retirement of existing nuclear units. The AEO2001 projections for generation from natural gas, coal, and nuclear power are higher than in AEO2000 as a result of higher projected electricity demand and improved operating costs and performance of nuclear plants. The share of natural gas generation is projected to increase from 16 percent in 1999 to 36 percent in 2020, and the coal share is projected to decline from 51 percent to 44 percent, because electricity industry restructuring favors the less capital-intensive and more efficient natural gas generation technologies.

Nuclear generating capacity is projected to decline from 1999 to 2020 but remains higher than in AEO2000 due to a reevaluation of the costs of life extension and higher projected natural gas prices.

Retirements of nuclear plants in the forecast are based on operating and life extension costs compared with the cost of new generating capacity. Of the 97 gigawatts of nuclear capacity available in 1999, 26 gigawatts is projected to be retired by 2020, and no new plants are expected to be constructed by 2020.

The use of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation is projected to grow slowly because of the relatively low costs of fossil-fired generation and because electricity restructuring favors less capital-intensive natural gas technologies over coal and base load renewables. Where enacted, state renewable portfolio standards, which specify a minimum share of generation or sales from renewable sources, contribute to the expected growth of renewables. Total renewable generation, including co-generators, is projected to increase by 0.7 percent per year and is similar to the projection in AEO2000.

Production and Imports

U.S. crude oil production is projected to decline at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent from 1999 to 2020, to 5.1 million barrels per day. Advances in exploration and production technologies do not offset declining oil resources. This forecast is 0.2 million barrels per day lower in 2020 than in AEO2000. Projected production is higher in the earlier years of the forecast when projected prices are higher, contributing to lower production later. Projected increases in natural gas plant liquids production and refinery gains generally offset the decline in crude oil production. The share of petroleum demand met by net imports is projected to increase from 51 percent in 1999 (measured in barrels per day) to 64 percent in 2020, the same as in AEO2000, due to rising demand.

U.S. natural gas production is projected to increase from 18.7 trillion cubic feet in 1999 to 29.0 trillion cubic feet in 2020, an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, due to growing demand. Projected production is 2.6 trillion cubic feet higher in 2020 than in AEO2000. Net imports of natural gas, primarily from Canada, are projected to increase from 3.4 trillion cubic feet in 1999 to 5.8 trillion cubic feet in 2020. Net imports of liquefied natural gas are expected to increase to 0.7 trillion cubic feet by 2020 as two facilities in the United States -- Elba Island, Georgia, and Cove Point, Maryland -- are expected to reopen in 2003.

Coal production is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent, from 1,105 million tons in 1999 to 1,331 million tons in 2020, as projected domestic demand grows. Projected production in 2020 is 15 million tons higher than in AEO2000, due to higher demand. U.S. net coal exports are projected to decline through 2020, with European demand for U.S. coal expected to decline for environmental reasons and as a result of competition from other producers.

Renewable energy production is projected to increase from 6.6 quadrillion Btu in 1999 to 8.3 quadrillion Btu in 2020, with growth in geothermal, wind, biomass, and landfill gas generation, industrial biomass, and ethanol. Renewables production in 2020 is estimated to be 0.3 quadrillion Btu higher than in AEO2000, as a result of higher expected use of biomass in the industrial sector.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use are projected to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent per year from 1,511 to 2,041 million metric tons carbon equivalent between 1999 and 2020 (Figure 7). Projected emissions in 2020 are higher by 62 million metric tons carbon equivalent than in AEO2000, due mainly to higher projected economic growth. Higher projected growth in households, commercial floor space, industrial output, and disposable income leads to higher forecasts for end-use demand and electricity generation. Partly offsetting these trends are more rapid projected declines in industrial energy intensity and higher projected nuclear generation than in AEO2000.

The projections do not include future legislative or regulatory actions that might be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but do include certain voluntary actions to reduce energy demand and emissions.

TRANSPORTATION - ENERGY

David Schrank and Tim Lomax

2001 Urban Mobility Study

Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University, May 7, 2001.

http://mobility.tamu.edu/2001/study/issues_measures.stm

There is no longer any rush during "rush hour" -- and it takes much longer than an hour…Clogged streets and highways, and bumper-to-bumper traffic have left the average U.S. motorist stalled in traffic 36 hours a year.

Geller, Howard.

Strategies for Reducing Oil Imports: expanding oil production vs. increasing vehicle efficiency.

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy - Report. April 2001. Executive Summary

http://aceee.org/pubs/e011.pdf

"Increasing the fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks by just 5 percent a year would cut U.S. oil use by 1.5 million barrels per day within a decade… Over 40 years, such a program of increased vehicle efficiency would save 10B20 times more oil than the projected supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and more than 3 times total U.S. proven oil reserves today…Today's study finds that commercially available technologies could improve the fuel efficiency of new vehicles by up to 65% within a decade."

National Energy Policy

White House. Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. May 2001

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/

The Bush administration's National Energy Policy Report -- emphasizing that America faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s -- calls for greater energy efficiency, a modernized energy infrastructure, and increased energy supplies.

Charli Coon

The President's National Energy Policy Report

A Heritage Foundation Supplement. May 22, 2001http://www.heritage.org/shorts/20010522energypolicy.html"The President’s National Energy Policy report contains 105 recommendations. The main problems that need to be addressed are summarized below, together with an assessment of the key components in the President’s plan. It cannot be emphasized enough that a successful energy plan must recognize basic economics. The President’s plan takes a giant step forward in allowing the market to correct the current imbalance between supply and demand. By contrast, manipulation of the market through price controls, subsidies and excessive government regulation has failed in the past – as California’s current plight demonstrates – and will fail in the future."

A 21st Century Energy Agenda

New Democrats Online. Policy Agenda. May 17, 2001

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3371

"New Democrats want to meet our energy challenge with a progressive energy policy, one that embraces and invests in the technologies of tomorrow, spurs our people and our businesses to innovate, empowers consumers to make smart energy use decisions, and modernizes our often-outdated systems of regulations and infrastructure to fit the realities of the 21st century."

Kiesling Lynn

Getting Electricity Deregulation Right: Hw Other States and Nations Have Avoided California’s Mistakes

Reason Public Policy Institute. Policy Study No. 281. April 2001. 25p

http://www.rppi.org/ps281.pdf

Pennsylvania, which passed deregulation legislation at the same time as California, has fully implemented deregulation for all customers of electricity. Pennsylvania’s customers have seen an average price decrease of 30 percent and an increase in service options, including "green," or renewable, power…. California’s experience is in no way representative of the consequences of deregulation; in fact, when done well, these success stories of other states show just how much benefit both consumers and innovative sellers can gain from electricity deregulation. Electricity deregulation can deliver consumer choice, consumer savings, and a business climate that encourages entrepreneurship.

Michael K. Block

California’s Electricity Crisis And The Law Of Unintended But Predictable Effects

The Progress and Freedom Foundation

http://www.pff.org/POP8.10Blockelectricity.pdf

"In this paper, I argue that the effects of two major contributors to California’s electricity crisis – its failure to deregulate retail electricity prices and its ultra-regulatory approach to managing the transmission network – were utterly predictable. Indeed, the effects of these policy mistakes were not only predictable, but actually predicted in work published by The Progress & Freedom Foundation and other market-oriented groups. Such work generally argued that continued reliance on price controls and regulation would more likely harm consumers than help them."

ENERGY POLICY

U.S. House. Budget Committee.

Hearing on Economic and Budgetary Effects of National Energy Policy. June 20, 2001.

http://www.house.gov/budget/062001pr.htmhttp://www.house.gov/budget/hearingstatements.htm"On June 20, the House Budget Committee held a Hearing to examine the effects of national energy policies on economic growth and the federal budget. The committee heard testimony from energy advisors to President Bush, as well as experts from various public and private sector energy interests."U.S. House. Committee on Science. Hearing on National Energy Policy - - Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. May 23, 2001. http://www.house.gov/science/full/fchearings.htm "So we wanted to get a broad overview from groups with expertise in each of the areas the report emphasizes - - fossil fuels, alternative fuels, efficiency and environment. And while I'm sure the conversation today will range over a wide terrain in terms of both issues and ideology, I'd like to focus as much as possible on the issues within our Committee's jurisdiction - - namely, research, development and demonstration programs."U.S. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Hearing on Economic Issues Associated with the Restructuring of Energy Industries. June 13, 2001 http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/061301witness_list.htm "We are fortunate to have a distinguished panel of nationally renowned economists to help us understand the changing nature of the energy markets, and how consumers have been affected by the transition from electricity and natural gas industry heavily regulated by both federal and state agencies to an unregulated, market-oriented system."Witnesses: Dr. Severin Borenstein, Haas School Of Business, University Of California - Dr. William Hogan, Kennedy School Of Government, Harvard University - Dr. Paul L. Joskow, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology - Dr. Alfred E. Kahn, Cornell University - Dr. Lawrence Makovich, Cambridge Energy Research Associates - Dr. Frank A. Wolak, Stanford UniversityU.S. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Hearing on the Role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission associated with the Restructuring of Energy Industries. June 20, 2001.  http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/062001_witness.htm http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/062001_lieberman.htm  http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/062001_thompson.htm http://murray.senate.gov/~murray/releases/01/06/2001620623.html "On Monday, the agency that oversees electricity rates - - the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known here in Washington by its acronym 'FERC'- - agreed to take action. Today, we will hear about FERC's latest order and whether or not it adequately carries out the Commission's statutory responsibility to provide 'just and reasonable' rates for electricity consumers in California and the West."Witnesses: Governor Grey Davis, the five FERC Commissioners, the Governors of North Dakota and Montana, representatives from the state governments of Oregon and Washington, as well as the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and Washington state's two Senators.U.S. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. National Energy Policy: conservation and energy efficiency. Hearing, June 22, 2001. http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06222001Hearing265/hearing.htm  http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/news/06222001_302.htm

"The time is ripe for a renewed look at our Nation's energy efficiency programs. While the marketplace is perhaps the best driver for efficiency, it is not always perfect. There are technologies and practices that can be accelerated into the market with appropriate funding. There are conditions the Federal government can place upon itself to meet efficiency requirements, and there is information we can give consumers that will allow them to better manage their energy usage. The first pieces of legislation this Committee will produce of the President's National Energy Policy will be on conservation and efficiency."

California's Power Crisis, related events and publications from the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies

http://aei.brookings.org/publications/topics.asp?topicID=41  Conference held March 1, 2001 and list of recent papers and studies published by this center on the energy crisis. Blackout -- Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/ This site "focuses on the energy crisis in California and beyond. Here users will find interviews and stories published in the New York Times (as a result of joint NYT/Frontline reporting), as well as Frontline's usual thorough explanations of the issues, including a glossary and charts and maps. In addition to interviews covering a range of opinions about the origins of the crisis in California, the site includes information on deregulation, the Bush/Cheney energy plan, energy rates around the country, and more."

Lance T. Izumi

Lights Out: California’s Electricity Debacle, Causes and Cures

Pacific Research Institute, May 30, 2001 http://www.pacificresearch.org/

With rolling blackouts guaranteed as summer heat increases electricity demand over available supply, Californians are right to wonder how the state got into this mess and what will be the fallout of this government-created debacle. This briefing examines the causes of the disaster, Governor Gray Davis’s policy responses, the political ramifications of the crisis, and practical solutions that could be implemented immediately.

  Hearing on U.S. Energy Security: options to decrease petroleum use in the transportation sector. U.S. House of Representatives, committee on science, hearing, November 1,2001 http://www.house.gov/science/energy/energyhearings.htm http://www.house.gov/science/press/107pr/107-111.htm Alan Greenspan:Energy Supply Federal Reserve Board, Speech at the Baker Institute in Houston, November 13, 2001 http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2001/20011113/default.htm Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Report, November 2001 http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/ghg_targets.cfm

ENERGY Abraham, Spencer (Energy Secretary) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Remarks at the National Press Club, Washington. June 12, 2002. http://www.energy.gov/HQDocs/speeches/2002/junss/13thAnnualEnergyEfficiencyF orum_v.html Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. government http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/usa.html Energy Markets: Concerted Actions Needed by FERC to Confront Challenges That Impede Effective Oversight GAO, Report, June 14, 2002, 101p http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-656 Restructured Electricity Markets:  Three States' Experiences in Adding Generating Capacity GAO-02-427, May 24, 56p http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-427 How to Strengthen the Power Grid   Rand, June 2002, 122p http://www.rand.org/rnb/0602/powergrid.html  

Links Between Drug Company Profitability and Investments in Research: A Fact Sheet

Galen Institute, July 2, 2002

http://www.galen.org/news/070202.html

“Pharmaceutical companies must make a profit to stay in business. Some charge that drug companies make significantly more profits than companies in other industries. In fact, the profitability of drug companies is in line with other major industries. The research-based pharmaceutical industry also pays more taxes than other industries and reinvests more of its profits in research and development than other industries. Prescription drugs are priced to reflect not only the costs of production, but also the significant costs of research and development.”

Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go

Families USA, Report, July 2002, 44p.

http://www.familiesusa.org/PPreport.pdf

“Data gathered by Families USA demonstrate that the major pharmaceutical companies spend significantly more on marketing, advertising, and administration than they spend on R&D. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was five-and-one-half times more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies.”

Laurence Nardon

Galileo and GPS: Cooperation or Competition?

Boorkings, U.S.-France Analysis, July 2002, 4p

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/cusf/analysis/nardon.pdf

“As with other European cooperative industrial programs, one purpose of the Galileo project is to facilitate the entry of European firms into a new and important market. As a result, the U.S. government and U.S. firms have been wary of a European undertaking that they consider likely to compete with the Global Positioning System (GPS), an equivalent U.S. navigation system. Despite U.S. hostility, the Galileo project will go ahead, but that need not mean that U.S. fears will be realized. There is ample room for cooperation between Galileo and GPS that would make both systems more effective. Now that the EU has decided to fund Galileo, the time is right to assess the best way to realize that cooperative potential.”

Mark Bernstein, Paul D. Holtberg, David Ortiz

Implications and Policy Options of California's Reliance on Natural Gas

Rand, 2002, 52p

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1605/MR1605.pdf

“Assesses the benefits, risks, and implications of California's increased use of natural gas and describes likely problems and potential options for addressing and preventing them. Addresses supply-side solutions, such as building more capacity to receive and store gas, and demand-side solutions, such as energy efficiency and diversifying the portfolio of electricity generation with renewables and distributed generation.”

Restructured Electricity Markets: California Market Design Enabled Exercise of Market Power

GAO-02-828, June 21. 47p

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-828

“Our analysis and other studies found evidence that wholesale electricity suppliers exercised market power by raising prices above competitive levels during the summer of 2000 and at other times after restructuring. Neither our analysis nor the other studies addressed whether any market power exercised in California was in violation of federal or other laws pertaining to the sale of electricity. However, our analysis and other studies found that during some periods, prices did not follow patterns consistent with prices under competitive conditions.”National

Energy StrategyEnergy Secretary Federico Pena National Press Club, April 8, 1998, 16pThe U.S. strategy aims to achieve five goals, Pena said: improve the efficiency of the overall energy system; ensure against energy supply disruptions; promote energy production and use in ways that respect our health and environmental values; expand future energy choices; and cooperate internationally on global energy issues.