Working Assets
<font face="Times New Roman"></font><div><font face="Times New Roman">doe</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing.shtml?page=2&companyid=264</font></div><div><table cellspacing="0" border="0" width="75%" cellpadding="0" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><h2 style="font-size: 15px; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); margin-bottom: 0px;"><a href="http://www.wald.com/" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets Green Power</font></a></h2><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p class="notop" style="margin-top: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong>October 1998</strong> - Green Mountain Energy Resources announced ground breaking for two new, 700-kW wind turbines in San Gorgonio Pass as a direct outcome of customers selecting it's Wind for the Future<sup>SM</sup> green electricity product in California's retail electricity market. The turbines will be owned by <a href="http://www.pacificorp.com/" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">PacifiCorp</a>, which will provide the wind power to GMER. One of the two turbines will serve customers of <a href="http://www.workingforchange.com/" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Working Assets</a>. Earlier this year, Working Assets endorsed GMER as its power provider of choice in California.
<i><b>News Release -</b></i> <a href="http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pr/gmer_1098_pr.html" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Green Mountain Energy Breaks Ground with Deregulation's First New Renewable Generation Source</a>
</font></p><hr style="color: rgb(173, 203, 234);" /><p class="notop" style="margin-top: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong>March 1997</strong> - Working Assets Green Power is a retail power marketing company. It has participated in the retail access pilot programs in New Hampshire and by Massachusetts Electric Company (MECo). In both cases, it offered customers a choice in electric power that did not depend on coal, nuclear energy, and Hydro-Quebec. The company's resource portfolio for the two states includes a mix of hydroelectric, oil burning, and natural gas generated electricity. The company also donates 1% of its electricity income to environmental groups in each state. In the MECo pilot, Working Assets offered green options to residential customers only, and captured 16.5% of residential customers (781 out of 4745). In a December 6, 1996, filing before the California Energy Commission, Working Assets suggested that the results are evidence that green options presented to consumers can create demand for renewable suppliers.
<b style="font-size: 13px;">Working Assets Contact:</b><font size="2"> Jody London (415) 788-0777</font>
</font></p><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Note Gray Davis enron fiasco</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" /><div><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman"><b>Natural Resources Defense Council</b>-Based on an independent evaluation of the green power </font></font></font></font></div><div>products currently being marketed in California, the NRDC has identified four green power products </div><div>as being environmentally preferable. The four products are: <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Enron's Earth SmartsM</span> Power, Green </div><div>Mountain Energy Resources' Wind for the FuturesM, and SMUD's Greenergy Community Solar and </div><div>Renewable Energy Option, the latter two of which are only available in SMUD's service territory. </div><div>NRDC notes that these four products "have substantially lower environmental impacts than the </div><div>current California mix, and represent the 'greenest' power options currently available." </div><div>...</div><div><div>Green Marketing Incentives </div><div><b>Only one state, California, has adopted incentives to directly encourage development of the green </b></div><div><b>power market.</b> After a lengthy public input and review process, the California Energy Commission </div><div>decided to allocate a portion of the state's system benefits charge that will support renewables to a </div><div>customer rebate account that "is designed to reduce the cost premium that customers pay for </div><div>renewable energy and thus encourage customers to buy renewable power."</div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">no date</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p align="left" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1">GREEN SHELL:
Clean Power's Dirty Secret</font></b></p><div align="left"><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">By Jon Entine</font></p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><i><font size="2">Special to The Progressive Populist [Note name omg]</font></i></font>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The coming deregulation of the country's last monopoly, electricity, has <b>mega-utilities and New Age "green" marketers working hand-in-hand</b>, with both poised to reap a financial windfall. Consumers and the future of green energy may not fare as well.</span>
<font face="Times New Roman">Many renewable energy advocates contend that this alliance may slow or even end the move toward a viable, long-term clean energy market. [none cited]The result of the current deregulation strategy, they say, would be to create dozens of energy marketing "shells" with little protection for consumers or assurance that renewable energy will have a significant place in the future energy mix.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">This problematic union comes with the blessings of two lobbying groups that normally are at odds: </font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ultra-conservative Republican lobbyists and high-profile environmentalists.</span>
<font face="Times New Roman">Congress and many states are laying the groundwork for the breakup of the electric utility industry. They are using as a model the deregulation of long distance service, which has reduced rates for long distance users, although costs for basic phone service have gone up. Studies indicate that competition could shave as much as 40 percent off the average electric bill, although the greatest savings are expected to go to industrial and large-volume consumers.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">At stake is an estimated $200 billion a year spent on electricity generated by private industry. </font><font color="#ff0000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">At risk is the future of the fragile renewable energy market which seeks to develop long-term alternatives to dirty fossil fuels and potentially dangerous nuclear energy.[std MO: pick a legit issue to hide behind)</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">The potential spoils from energy deregulation has led to an unusual alliance of convenience between energy deregulation supporters and green pricing advocates:</font><ul><li><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, the Virginia Republican congressman also known as <b>Mr. Tobacco</b>, who is a utility industry favorite and a strong free-market advocate; </span><font face="Times New Roman">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J.Bliley,Jr.</font>
</li><li style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Working Assets Long Distance, which has become a successful niche reseller of long distance service by leasing lines from Sprint, marketing itself as "socially responsible" and claiming to offer lower rates but charging its idealistic consumers more than major competitors;
</li><li style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">New England Energy Systems, <b>ENRON</b>, Pacific Gas & Electric and other major utilities and marketers who expect to become major players in the deregulated future;
</li><li style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>Mainstream environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund which have supported the write-off of utility debts in exchange for utility support for "clean" energy projects;[TXU?]</b>
</li><li style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Large utilities with billions of dollars in money-losing investments in nuclear facilities -- Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric are prominent examples -- which have aligned with mainstream environmentalists who support the write-off of these<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> "stranded costs"</span> in exchange for limited cleaner energy programs.</li></ul>
<font face="Times New Roman">Based on the early returns in New England, the alliance has been a disaster for those enamored with green marketing. In pilot deregulation projects in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, electricity rates have dropped, almost entirely as a result of below-market pricing by marketers angling to net customers.<b> Rates will kick up considerably with full deregulation.</b> State officials also say that the pilot has resulted in no clean energy being added into the overall energy mix, despite claims by green marketers who are charging consumers a price premium.</font><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Green Debits at Working Assets</h3><font face="Times New Roman">I</font><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">N 1996, NEW HAMPSHIRE</b><font face="Times New Roman"> became one of the first states to open a fraction of its market -- 3 percent -- to competition. The most aggressive "green" energy marketer was Working Assets Green Power, a sister-company of Working Assets Long Distance.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">"Working Assets offers New Hampshire consumers NUCLEAR FREE Electricity," read a press release, also carried on its web page. "No coal or Hydro-Quebec power either." According to Working Assets CEO Laura Scher, "We believe there are thousands of New Hampshire residents who would appreciate a chance to support environmentally sustainable energy. These consumers would prefer not to support the nuclear power industry."</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Scher not only pitched clean energy, but rock-bottom prices. "Consumers will be guaranteed a lower price than they currently pay for their electricity," she stated. "We are offering people an opportunity to save money and save the environment at the same time."</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">In a twist all too familiar in the self-promoting </font><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">socially responsible business </b><font face="Times New Roman">community, Working Assets promises appear more green wash than green power. According to data from the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), which controls the energy mix, <b>the actual electrons going into the homes of all customers in the region, including Working Assets', ranges from 26 percent to 60 percent nuclear. Coal and oil comprise the bulk of the remainder.</b> Approximately 5 percent of electricity is generated by non-hydro renewables, primarily landfill gases and trash burning incinerators. No solar or wind generators feed into the pool. Customers must draw off of the New England grid, which mixes energy from all sources, clean and dirty.[note no cite]</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Although it supplies customers with an energy brew generated primarily from nuclear, coal and oil, it charges a huge green premium. Its customers pay the most of the thirty-odd pilot project participants, as much as 53 percent more. Price comparisons for energy are a little difficult, however, since some marketers actually sold below cost to make a good showing in the pilot.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets has used similar green marketing tactics in its other businesses. Although CEO Scher is regarded as a star in the socially responsible business movement -- she is on the board of Business for Social Responsibility and has been a featured speaker at the Students for Responsible Business annual gathering -- her company's most distinctive characteristic is not its vanilla collection of commodity services but its marketing acumen. Working Assets offers electricity, telephone access, Internet connection, credit cards and cellular calling by relentlessly promoting its promise to give 1 percent of billings to popular social issues. It advertises heavily in liberal magazines, including Nation, Mother Jones, E-Magazine and Utne Reader.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Despite its pristine reputation, Working Assets is structured like a classic "green shell" thriving on the idealism of its customers and feeding off the scraps created by monopoly busting. It has no products to speak of, but offers "pass-through" services developed by other companies. </font>
<font face="Times New Roman">While it claims its long-distance rates are "lower" than the "Big Three", they range from 33 percent more on domestic calls to 400 percent or higher than AT&T, MCI and Sprint on international calls. Using numbers supplied by Working Assets, a long distance telephone customer that it charges $1,450 a year would pay AT&T about one-third less under AT&T's One Rate Plus plan. Working Assets would contribute 1 percent to charity, which amounts to about $5. The extra $500 or so would go into Working Assets' bulging pockets. Smaller competitors like Affinity and EarthTones have lower rates and kick back a far larger slice of their profits to environmental causes. Working Assets also charges its credit card customers as much as 18.65 percent interest, more than twice the rate of some competitors and far higher than 16.98 percent national average quoted in </font><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Money</i><font face="Times New Roman"> magazine. Its Internet service offers an out-dated web browser with no storage for a web page.</font><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Brown Energy from Green Marketing</h3><font face="Times New Roman">U</font><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">NTIL ITS <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">DALLIANCE</span></b><font face="Times New Roman"> in the green energy market, Working Assets green marketing strategy could be considered little more than clever marketing. The stakes in the energy business are far higher, however. To the extent that it, or any company, was seriously committed to offering cleaner energy, it could have contracted with hydro or renewable generators who actually generate "green" electrons.<b> However, Working Assets did not contract with alternative energy producers, or even propose a plan to nurture development of green energy. </b>It contracted to buy energy from New England Power Company, a subsidiary of New England Electric System (NEES).</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Rob Sargent with the Massachusetts <b>Public Interest Research Group characterizes NEES</b>, a $2.3 billion company comprising New England's second largest electric utility system, as "the dirtiest utility in New England." Among its holdings: Seabrook 1, Millstone 3 and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants; part ownership of Yankee Atomic Electric Company which owns a 185 megawatt nuclear generating station in Rowe, Massachusetts; and a partnership with a non-affiliated oil company that participates in rate-regulated oil and gas exploration. NEES also acknowledges responsibility for at least 40 Superfund toxic waste sites.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets has negotiated what are called "unit contracts" or "shares." These contracts designated that it would buy only "clean" energy generated by NEPCO. In effect, it is no more than an accounting device. The contract did not result in even one "green" electron being added to the overall energy mix.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">The San Francisco-based company is not the only marketer pushing the green hot button in New England. In another pilot project launched recently in Massachusetts, Northeast Utilities, the largest generator of nuclear power in the region, promised to deliver customers 100 percent hydropower. Similar to Working Assets' contract with NEPCO, NU designated -- on paper -- that only its "clean" production would go to pilot participants.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Noted MIT economist and NEES board member Paul Joskow has been sobered by the New England experiments with green marketing. "I think that people who sell green power have an obligation to reveal to their customers precisely what it is they're selling," he said. "They're basically reselling contracts that have been designated for hydroelectric facilities, for example, that have no short-run effect whatsoever on the dispatch of generation in the area, and have no positive effect on the environment."</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">In her defense, Working Assets CEO Scher says her intention is to create a "critical mass" of demand so that "green" companies like Working Assets will be able to offer "real" green energy in the future.</font><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Debate Over Green Pricing</h3><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">THESE <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">REVELATIONS</span> </b><font face="Times New Roman">have sparked considerable outrage among renewable energy advocates, who have repeatedly warned about the dangers of a sappy affair with green marketing. One likely outcome, they say, is that in a market dominated by major utilities and hot-button green marketers, and without a comprehensive plan, slack demand could permanently relegate "green" energy to a niche product. [agin none cited or even named]</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">The free market green pricing strategy represents a fragile alliance of conservatives and some key environmentalists.<b> EDF and more recently the Natural Resources Defense Council appear to have climbed on the free-market bandwagon. </b>Their goals diverge, however. While key congressmen, such as Bliley, collect huge contributions from deep-pocket utilities -- </font><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">USA Today </i><font face="Times New Roman">estimated that energy industry lobbyists expect to spend $50 million on this issue alone in 1997 -- <b>environmental advocates are betting that there will be a steady increase in demand for cleaner energy supplies, even at boutique prices.</b></font>
<font face="Times New Roman">That outcome rests on the risky demand-side proposition that residents will pay more for so-called "clean" energy. Despite surveys that claim that 60 percent of electricity customers would pay marginally more for "green" energy,<b> less than 100 New Hampshire homes signed up for Working Assets above-market-price "green" scheme. Working Assets says it signed up 750 customers in the Massachusetts project</b>. Overall, only 1.2 percent of those eligible to participate in the Massachusetts pilot chose the green option. The figures are far below predictions, and raise concerns that the premise on which green pricing is based, backed so fervently by the mainstream environmental groups, may be fundamentally flawed.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">EDF and NRDC argue that it is too early to give up on the free-market model. California, which is the big enchilada of energy deregulation, is building in mechanisms that should result in more clean-generated electrons being added to the mix. Public Service Company, Platte River Power Authority, and Fort Collins Light and Power, all in Colorado, two Minnesota co-ops, Dakota Electric and Cooperative Power, and Traverse City Light and Power, among others, have all proposed or are implementing bona-fide green pricing programs in which new wind energy capacity is added to their generation mix and sold at a premium. In early May, Arizona Public Service announced it will build a commercial solar power plant and offer residential customers the choice of renewable energy at a premium price. </font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Many renewable-energy advocates remain skeptical.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Nancy Rader, an energy consultant with the American Wind Energy Association, notes that given today's low market prices for electricity, and in the absence of an energy policy that is not tied so tightly to green marketing, generation of renewable energy may actually decline over the next few years. According to Bill Magavern of Public Citizen, </span>"the sham green power marketing schemes offered in some areas are already being used by anti-environmental leaders as a rationale against enacting federal clean air protections, renewables portfolio standards, and public benefits charges for efficiency and renewables."[not www; appendix on </font></div><div align="left"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div align="left"><font face="Times New Roman">http://ep.probeinternational.org/2009/07/09/scoping-environmental-considerations-inform-design-ontarios-central-market-operator/ w ad for </font></div><div align="left"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div align="left"><font face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-World-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241703632&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-World-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241703632&sr=8-1</a></font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">] a whole genre! </span><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Richard Vigilante Books (April 16 2010)</span></div><div align="left">
<font face="Times New Roman">Ed Maschke, executive director of the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Public Interest Group </span>in California, says deregulation "attacks the basic role of government to control the power of monopoly corporations. It is set up by the political contributions of the large industrials who demanded and got access to cheaper power wheeled [obtained] from other suppliers ... and see [deregulation] as a brass ring in paying off decades of bad economic decisions."</font><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Shake Out in the Environmental Community</h3><font face="Times New Roman">The outbreak of misleading claims by social marketers was a major issue at a recent <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Attorneys General </span>meeting in Washington, DC., where New England officials presented the details of their less-than-successful experiences. Yet the alliance of the huge utilities with mainstream environmental groups and conservatives in Congress could very well result in utility deregulation going forward with little monitoring and few if any disclosure requirements. The promise by deregulation advocates of lower prices may also turn out to be a mirage. The below-market teaser rates now available in Massachusetts and New Hampshire will certainly go by the wayside once the pilot period ends and companies have to pass along the "stranded costs" from years of investments in problem-riddled nuclear energy.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The green market fiasco has exploded inside the environmental community like a bombshell at a family reunion. In an attempt to preserve its fragile alliance, mainstream environmental groups have tried to keep the green marketing fiasco out of the press. However, the tight ship of "silence" has begun springing leaks</span>. Articles have already appeared in some environmental journals, including a scathing editorial in </font><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Energy</i><font face="Times New Roman"> magazine.[no cite] But other liberal magazines usually hot to crusade for environmental reform have inched away. Although editors at </font><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">E-Magazine</i><font face="Times New Roman"> and other liberal journals were interested in running with the story, they reportedly told writers [read JE] they were turned down by publishers who were reluctant to step on the toes of a major advertiser.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Paul Jefferiss of the <b>Union of Concerned Scientists</b> warns that the romance with green marketing risks turning the future of renewable energy over to those least interested in nurturing it. "We believe," he said, speaking on behalf of the UCS, "that the biggest risk to renewables development now is reliance on the unproved assumption that renewable energy will prosper without policy support in competitive markets that ignore external costs and benefits." [fair point? but it's not either/or]</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">Renewable energy advocates note that similar to recycling, it may take years before there is enough demand for renewable energy that is price competitive with fossil fuels. Until that time, caution and deliberate controls remain necessary. Adds Maschke, "In the end, deregulation is a sham. At a time when we need focused regulation to increase conservation, we are leaving this to the market." [o www]</font>
<font face="Times New Roman">With the green energy movement up for grabs, this head-in-the-sand approach may have disastrous consequences for the future of renewable energy, as well as for other progressive causes. "Building a market on fraudulent advertising," remarked economist Joskow, "is not a long-term formula for success."</font></div><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> http://www.jonentine.com/articles/clean_powers_dirty_secret.htm</p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">PUNKED:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">(not linked to by JE?)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">rebuttal:</font></div><div><h1 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font size="4">Working Assets Stands
for Renewable Energy</font></h1><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Editor's Note:</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">This article is the third draft received by the <b>Progressive Populist.</b> It was received on the eve of publication, after Jon Entine had replied to an earlier draft. Passages were edited out of both the letter and the reply.</i><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">T</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">he</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Progressive Populist</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> recently [June 1997] ran a story by Mr. Jon Entine entitled "Green Shell". This is the latest version of an article Mr. Entine has circulated widely on the internet. The article is riddled with misinformation which would lead any reader to conclusions widely at odds with the truth.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>The mission of Working Assets is to be a catalyst for building a more just and sustainable world. Over the past decade, we have produced about $10 million in donations to progressive groups and generated nearly 3 million calls and letters to selected officials on critical matters of public policy.</b></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">We have worked to achieve this by being a telephone company, and have recently started considering the energy industry -- one of the most environmental destructive industries in the world. We believe that the energy industry needs a fundamental overhaul.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Unfortunately, most readers of the article would conclude that we favor the destruction of renewable power rather and are in bed with corrupt politicians and greedy utilities.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In fact, we have been strong and consistent supporters of renewable power, working to hold giant utilities accountable, and charging fair prices which are clearly disclosed. What follows is our attempt to set at least part of the record straight. We have set up a special site at "www.wald.com/thefacts" 404? for those who would like additional background.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Some Truths About Working Assets and Green Electricity</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">A major debate is happening in Washington and in most state capitols over the future of electricity. It is a debate that really matters, and we have worked with many groups to defend the interests of consumers and the environment. <b>Here are six critical positions we have taken, all of which are pro-consumer and pro-environment:</b></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">1. Every single utility must incorporate renewable power. Our own citizen action program has generated more calls and letters to Congress in support of these so-called portfolio standards than anyone else.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">2. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Every single marketer or distributor of energy must be required to<b> disclose</b> the sources of their power</span>.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">3. Public financial support should continue for developing renewable power sources.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">4. <b>Ratepayers or taxpayers should not bail out nuclear utilities from having to pay for their earlier costly and foolish investments in nuclear power.</b></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">5. Much tougher <b>new clean air standards</b> must be imposed on utilities. Again, our own citizen action program has generated more calls and letters in support of such standards than other group[s]. </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">6. Consumers should have the ability to choose an electricity provider other than their local monopoly just as soon as big businesses can do so.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">These are our public positions. Mr. Entine, who been informed of them, ignores each one.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mr. Entine cites a number of individuals expressing concern about <b>deregulation </b>in general, none of whom mention Working Assets. Each one attacks deregulation as potentially damaging renewables. We agree and have a consistent position across a number of critical policies. Under these policies, we believe rates would fall, the environment would be protected, and renewable sources strengthened.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Working Assets Participated in Two Tiny Pilot Programs</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Public officials in New Hampshire and Massachusetts conducted two small pilot programs to learn more about how deregulation might work prior to passing legislation to change the market</span>. We participated in these two trials. In New Hampshire, the pilot can last up to two years and could serve no more than 17,000 customers, and in Massachusetts, the pilot will last one year and serve no more than 8,000 customers.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>Working Assets would like to be able to construct new renewable power plans to help clean up the air. But nobody would do that for a few customer in a pilot that will end in a year. Mr. Entine ignores this and argues that anything other than building new facilities and actually connecting them with new wires to each home (how about that for an environmental disaster -- doubling the number of power lines!) is a shell game.</b></span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Phony Alliance is Red Herring</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In the article, Mr. Entine creates an "alliance of convenience" which includes Working Assets with Rep. Tom Bliley and Pacific Gas and Electric. No such alliance exists. Working Assets opposes almost everything that Rep. Bliley and these major utilities support and they oppose almost everything that we support. <b>This is a matter of public record easily accessible for any journalist.</b></span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Electricity Rates in New England</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine argues that electricity rates have dropped in New England due to below-market pricing by companies seeking to gain a toe-hold in a new market. He may mean below-cost pricing, which is another thing entirely. For the most part, <b>we believe that rates dropped because regulators forced them to drop by not allowing full recovery of the costs of prior nuclear investments</b>. We do know that Working Assets basically priced electricity at our power cost with no margin. So much for huge premiums and gouging.</span><h4 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Misrepresenting Public Officials</h4><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine asserts that state officials "say that the pilot has resulted in no clean energy being added into the overall energy mix, despite claims by green marketers who are charging consumers a price premium".</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">This is almost certainly a misrepresentation of the positions of state officials, not a single one of whom is cited by name.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Because of the nature of the pilot, neither Massachusetts nor New Hampshire had the slightest hope that new clean energy would be generated.</span><h4 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Customers Were Fully Informed</h4><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We support public disclosure of power sources and have fully informed all of our customers in both pilots about the source of their power by category and will continue to do so. In addition, all customers were informed that the underlying supplier of our power was New England Electric. Far from hiding this fact, we broadcast it widely so that customers would have little fear that we could not deliver the power.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In addition, in Massachusetts, every customer who participated or expressed interest in the pilot was given a booklet explaining the pilot and comparing the power sources for all companies. This disclosure was uniform for all companies and was created by and distributed by an organization called Environmental Futures. Our power sources were described and we have updated our customers since then.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>We could have bought power that is just the mixture in the wires, but we <font color="#ff0000">chose to purchase power that comes from eleven specific facilities </font>--<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> facilities which are not nuclear, not coal burning, not pumped hydro, and don't use Hydro-Quebec.</span> The cost of using this cleaner power is greater.</b></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine dismisses this as an accounting device. We call it a trail of money -- and money is one thing that influences utilities. Electrons cannot be traced once in the power grid, but dollars sure can.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>Our customers' dollars are being used to increase the demand for clean sources of power. If they demand more because they turn on the television, the owner of the cleaner facilities gets more money and will eventually generate more cleaner power. </b>This is only [a] small piece of a good electricity policy which contains clean air standards, requirements for renewable power and no bailouts for nuclear power.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Our Long Distance Rates Are not Higher than Our Competitors</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In a strange detour in the middle of an article about electricity, Mr. Entine suddenly claims that we gross[ly] overcharge our telephone customers.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">He is wrong.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Beware of anyone who seeks to compare telephone rates on the basis of a single phone call or a single plan. This is only appropriate for those who seek to make a point not supported by broader comparisons.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mr. Entine compares a single AT&T promotional plan as the basis for his argument.[cherry pick]</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In charging its telephone customers, AT&T has filed literally hundreds of rate plans with regulators so it can pick and choose. The rate plan that AT&T is currently promoting, with hundreds of millions of dollars of television advertising, direct mail, and telemarketing, is called One Rate. It is hard to miss but is not the one Mr. Entine considers.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">If every Working Assets customers switched to One Rate, they would pay 13% more than if they stayed with us. This is an average. Some would pay more, some would pay less.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine hopes that nobody notices that he compares us to One Rate Plus -- which is not advertised, and compares someone billing over $1,450 per year with Working Assets (our average customer bills about $360 per year). Much of this billing traffic does not even get the 10 cents per minute touted by Mr. Entine. He ignores the fact that customers on One Rate Plus also have to pay monthly fees that total over $59 per year just to get lower rates.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">And, even after all that, if all of our customers switched all of their traffic to One Rate Plus, they would still pay 9% more than they do to us. Again, this is an average. Some would pay more and some would pay less.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Interestingly, Mr. Entine also cites a small competitor of ours -- Earth Tones -- as having lower rates and "kicking back a far larger share of profits" to environmental causes. We have great respect for Earth Tones and wish them well as we both attempt to make the world a bit better.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">But, they do not charge less and give more. Earth Tones' domestic interstate rates are 15 cents per minute. Our average domestic interstate rates are 13.2 cents per minute.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><b>Working Assets donates 1% of our bills to progressive non-profits in an <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">annual ballot</span> of our customers. When combined with donations from our credit cards and donations to our pool that customers voluntarily add, we have donated about $10 million since we started.</b></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Earth Tones contributes 10% of its profits to environmental campaigns. What Mr. Entine fails to mention, although fully disclosed by Earth Tones, is that all this really means is that Earth Tones is owned by a group of environmental groups, so any profits go to these non-profits -- none to campaigns selected by customers. According to a customer service representative of Earth Tones, contributions to environmental campaigns have totaled about $1,000 so far.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">How About Full Disclosure for our Critics?</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Only one person is mentioned by name directly criticizing our New England work. Rob Sargent is the legislative director with the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. A reputable journalist subject to fact checking would have disclosed that Mr. Sargent is employed by one of the principal owners of Earth Tones, our direct competitor. This is not a secret, is easily available to journalists, and is known by Mr. Entine.</span> We welcome Mr. Sargent's views and are in agreement with many of his policy positions, but readers deserve to know his organization's financial stake in the outcome.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Quoting Out of Context and Without Permission</h3><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine quotes at length from Professor Paul Joskow of MIT. He does not reveal that the cited quotations are from an interview conducted by somebody else. He uses Professor Joskow to argue that participants in the New England trials are having no effect on generating or any positive effect on the environment.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Here is the next sentence from the actual interview:</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">"However, in the long run, if it's recognized that customers are willing to pay more for green power, it may attract additional investment."</span></span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The implication is obvious, which is presumably why Mr. Entine chose to leave off the sentence.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Professor Joskow has many comments on the use of his thoughts by Mr. Entine, all of which are available to the reader at the web site noted above: "www.wald.com/thefacts". ...404[see below]</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The Massachusetts Pilot Was a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Success </span>for Green Electricity</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">One of the goals of the Massachusetts pilot was to determine whether residential customers were even interested in electricity from cleaner sources. If consumers are not interested, there is little reason to include consumer choice in any plan to restructure electricity.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine asserts that the results of this pilot were a failure for green electricity. In fact, the pilot was limited to a small number of participants. Of those who participated, 31% [of residents] chose a green option. This was widely considered a surprising success. The 750 customers who signed up for Working Assets exceeded our expectations dramatically.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Entine's Article has a History</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mr. Entine's article is a familiar one to many on the internet. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It has been circulated to literally hundreds of thousands of people over a number of months, as Mr. Entine has sought to find a publisher for it. The material distributed under the title "Green Shell Game" is simply the most recent version of articles recently published by Mr. Entine and distributed by Environment News Service (ENS) on the Envirolink web site.</span> That material also contained many errors and was not fact checked prior to distribution. ...</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">We have repeatedly told Mr. Entine, who sends us drafts of this article on a regular basis, that his material is full of errors. He has never corrected or retracted a single one. Given his evident hostility and disregard for the truth, we more recently told him that we are willing to fact check his materials only when a publication informs us that they are considering the material for publication. He has consistently refused to do so, and does not inform his editors of this request (including, we believe, </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The Progressive Populist</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">).</span></b><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Conclusions</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">As you consider Working Assets role in electricity, we hope that you will consider all of our positions rather than the outright misinformation provided by Mr. Entine.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Sincerely,
</i><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">MICHAEL KIESCHNICK,
President
Working Assets
701 Montgomery St.,
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
email: mkieschn@wafs.com</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><h1 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font size="4">Jon Entine replies:</font></h1><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">'If You Don't Ask, They Won't Tell'</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">"Does the power come from a company owned by the developers and owners of Seabrook nuclear power plant?," reads the brochure sent by Working Assets Green Power to prospective customers in New England. "If you don't ask, they won't tell you."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">WAGP was apparently betting that no one would ask. As it turns out, it acts as a green shell, buying all of its power from New England Electric Systems (NEES), part-owner of Seabrook and the "dirtiest utility in New England," in the opinion of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The same Working Assets is now betting that the readers of the</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> Progressive Populist</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> will buy its "response" to "Green Shell."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Working Assets CEO Laura Scher and her PR spin artists are trying to shift the focus from its marketing tactics to spurious allegations about the messenger. </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Once the innocent, twice the fool.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Specifically, spokesman Michael Kieschnick contends that "no fact checking was done with Working Assets."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">None? I have had 16 direct communications with WA dating to March 7, 1997, when I first contacted Laura Scher's office. </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* March 14, Scher writes: "I am happy to assist you in whatever way I can ... send me your questions in writing and I will respond in writing."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* March 26: I forwarded WA 64 questions and request for documentation. Received no answers or documents.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* April 8: renewed request.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* April 12: sent Scher early version of article.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* May 2: Sent Scher updated version; from March to June, WA was sent more than a dozen requests for information.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* May 20: called Scher directly; she said she did not want to talk and would not send me documentation.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* Late May: sent Scher current draft of article. No response.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* Mid-July: faxed WA modified version of March questions. No documentation, just a two-page letter reiterating company propaganda.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Working Assets now claims that it has "repeatedly told Mr. Entine ... that his material is full of errors." Indeed it has. It just has never identified the errors, nor supplied any documentation of its claims.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> On the other hand, its claims of offering "nuclear free energy" have mysteriously disappeared from its web page.</span></span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Does WAGP Increase the Generation of 'Clean' Energy?</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">From its response, we are assured that WA is pure as the driven snow, has the best of intentions and that its "mission" is to achieve a "just and sustainable world."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Now for substance: Will the green marketing free-for-all pioneered by WA result in more renewable energy or less? Here's a primer.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* Did the pilot projects in NE result in the generation of even one new "green" or clean electron? A: No.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* Did WAGP disclose the energy mix going to its customers? A: Not in NH [at least before this year]. There was a limited disclosure in MA.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">* Did WAGP supply solar and wind power to fulfill the commitment it reportedly made? No; there is zero solar or wind energy in the NE energy grid.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Scher has gotten fried by environmentalists. Her mea culpa on WA's web page: "Time constraints limited our ability to incorporate more renewable sources and work more closely with environmental groups." ...</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Phony Alliance is a Red Herring</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Throughout our history, there have been innumerable alliances between political opposites, each betting that their policies would prevail. In some cases, the alliance blows up in the face of those who believe they are the "good guys." In this instance, conservatives like Rep. Bliley, who have joined hands with WAGP in support of green energy, understand deregulation is a windfall for corporate customers which will get almost all the benefits. Rural communities will be hit hard, and consumers will be asked to pay for debts from unprofitable investments in nuclear plants. As the deregulation wave sweeps across the United States, whose policies can we expect to ultimately prevail -- Bliley and his corporate allies or Working Assets and its "good intentions"?</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Electricity Rates/Customers Saved Money</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Kieschnick claims that "all we know is that Working Assets basically prices electricity at our power cost with no margin." According to New Hampshire officials, pilot participants are charged 2.29¢/kilowatt hour to 3.5 cents. WAGP is the most expensive -- 53% higher than the lowest-cost supplier. According to NEES, in Massachusetts rates ranged from 2.3 to 3.41¢/kWh. WAGP charges 3.35¢ -- 46% more.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Customers Fully Informed?</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">WAGP writes that it supports "requiring every single marketer ... to disclose the sources of their power." That's its alleged intention. What's the actual practice?</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">It claimed that its energy is "nuclear free" when it wasn't. According to the </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">San Jose Mercury News</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> [and apparently its own web site before a recent alteration], WAGP was committed to supporting non-polluting power, such as solar or wind generators. ... In reality, it bought access to ZERO solar and wind power.[no cite; no reslut: </span></span><font face="Times New Roman">San Jose Mercury News "working assets green power"</font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">]</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In Massachusetts, "disclosure" was limited to a booklet published by NEES subsidiary Massachusetts Electric which had a one sentence description of energy sources. Environmental Futures, which wrote the brochure, says that the pilot was primarily designed to address "metering and billing" issues.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">"We're trying to ensure that misleading claims never happen again," says Jonathan Raab, facilitator for the New England Disclosure Project. In the wake of the NH fiasco, the Disclosure Project was set up by regional utility commissioners with input from sixty stakeholder groups. "People know that Working Assets is getting flamed. Everyone now knows that if they screw up they'll get caught. Power marketers will not be able to get away with questionable and undocumented claims."</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">New Hampshire Customers Are Saving?</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">What's the difference between buying "unit contracts" of already-generated electricity and adding clean energy to the mix?</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Kieschnick claims that WAGP"s tactic of buying "unit contracts" of already-generated energy contributes to a greener environment.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">On April 22, I e-mailed my article to MIT department chairman and NEES board member Paul Joskow. He e-mailed back: "I am aware of the points in your note ... Unless 'green power' is done differently, it will give the environmental movement a black eye. If you would like to ... you can call me." I called. </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Joskow said that green marketers in New England purchased no additional clean energy, but merely rearranged existing contracts -- WAGP with NEES and NU with itself. According to Joskow, they duped consumers. "I think that people who sell green power have an obligation to reveal precisely what it is they're selling," he said in a recorded interview. "In some cases you can sell green power and you use the money to develop new power sources that wouldn't have otherwise been developed and they're environmentally benign. In New England, they're basically reselling contracts ... designated for hydroelectric facilities that have no short-run effect whatsoever on the dispatch of generation in the area, and have no positive effect on the environment."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">"Working Assets ... produced results that were less than exemplary," agrees Michael Vickerman of RENEW Wisconsin, a renewable energy activist group. "They did not get us what we want: new renewables on the ground to displace dirty power."</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Marketing Failure?</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In her defense, Scher says her intention is to create a critical mass of demand so she could offer green energy sometime in the future. Joskow was skeptical. "In the long run," he said, "if it's recognized that customers are willing to pay more for green power, it may attract additional investment." But that's a long-shot, in my opinion. If consumers want to pay boutique prices in hopes that, in the future, renewable energy might actually be brought on line, so be it.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">WAGP tries to fill a near-empty glass by claiming that "31% chose a green option." What's the reality? While 31% of </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">residents</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> chose a green option, WAGP does not say that only 60% of the energy available was subscribed. Moreover, According to EF, only 1.2% of eligible participants chose green and 10.1% of the total amount of energy selected was "green." The real shocker: only 3% of small businesses chose "green" -- a disturbing figure, since the vast majority of deregulated energy will go to business customers. ...</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Inside the 'Green Shell' Telephone Reseller</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Behind Working Assets' hyperventilation is: assets of course! Let's be clear: WA has no products of its own. It is a shell that buys products at wholesale (long distance access, Internet, paging, electricity), then slaps on a green label and a steep green premium.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">A recent Working Assets Long Distance advertisement in </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Mother Jones</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> claimed "lower" rates than competitors (it now claims rates are "competitive"). Are they?</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">California Energy Markets</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> wrote in June that, "Working Assets has become a target for environmental groups, primarily because it charges a substantial premium for its phone services." [0 WWW] How big is this premium? It's almost impossible to compare its rates to competitors since it has what in my opinion is probably the most consumer-unfriendly structure in the business. Its rate chart has three time periods, 11 mileage bands, and until recently had two time limits -- 66 separate cells. According to its web page, its basic rates range from 10.64¢ per minute to 33.73¢.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">So, let's compare rates using publicly available information. WALD has twice modified its rate structure since word of its premium prices stirred a controversy ... We'll give it the best break possible and include a 5% rate cut that took effect July 15 (after its complaint letter).</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">If you live in Miami and phone Seattle, how many one-minute calls could you make in a month using various companies if you had a $40 budget? </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">WALD MCI AT&T Sprint</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Daytime 173 333 (+92%) 351 (+98%) 160 (-8%)</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Evening 249 333 (+34%) 351 (+37%) 400 (+38%</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Night/Wkd 358 333 (-8%) 351 (-2%) 400 (+12%)</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Note: WALD (25% discount), MCI One Rate (12¢), AT&T One Rate Plus (10¢ + $4.95/month), Sprint Sense 25¢/day, 10¢ night/wkd.</i><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Greenkeepers customers pay a flat 9.5 cents; and it gives 5% of revenue to charity, 500% more than WALD's rate. For $40, consumers could make 421 calls -- 144% more than with WALD during the day.</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">What's the conclusion? The "majors" are considerably cheaper, unless you make most of your calls when the rest of society is asleep or on weekends. If you're determined to spend with a "green" company, you can save a minimum of 18% up to 144%</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">WALD brags in ads: "Finally, Straight Talk from a Telephone Company." You decide.</span><h3 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Soap Opera</h3><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">In the final analysis, the most important issue isn't Working Assets -- its market-driven ethics are now public record, and consumers have the right to pay boutique prices for commodity services -- but the future of renewable energy. Still, one has to be struck by the experience in New England, where the overall energy pie remains the same. Every "green" slice of electricity offered by Working Assets has resulted in an identical "browner" slice going to NEES' other customers. No green electrons, no wind or solar energy, has been generated. In the electricity industry, that's called "greenwashing."</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Are you listening Laura Scher?</span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Editor's Note:</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">The <b>Wall Street Journal </b>reported on July 23 that the Federal Trade Commission, reacting to criticism of marketing tactics during a pilot test in New Hampshire, is considering "establishing rules on what environmental claims utilities may make."
We welcome letters to the editor on this or other topics. But please limit them to appxoximately 250 words.</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><hr width="98%" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><br style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><center style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><a href="http://www.populist.com/index.html">Home Page</a>
<a href="http://www.populist.com/news.html">News</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/current.html">Current Issue</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/back.html">Back Issues</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/essays.html">Essays</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/links.html">Links</a>
<a href="http://www.populist.com/about.html">About the Progressive Populist</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/subs.html">How to Subscribe</a> | <a href="http://www.populist.com/contact.html">How to Contact Us</a></center></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><h1 style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><center><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Fun_People Archive</span></div><font size="3" /><div style="text-align: left;"><font size="3"><font size="3"><font size="3"><font size="3">15 Dec</font></font></font></font></div><div style="text-align: left;">Green chistmas -- Equal time on Working Assets vs. Entine</div></center></h1><hr style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" /><pre>Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 23:37:50 -0800
To: Fun_People
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Green chistmas -- Equal time on Working Assets vs. Entine
Forwarded-by: "pardo@cs.washington.edu" <pardo cs.washington.edu="cs.washington.edu">
[I spent a few minutes looking at the web site. I was underwhelmed but
they do some point-to-point comparisons of their long-distance rates and
quote a letter to them from Joskow saying he was misrepresented by Entine.
Thanks, Steve! -Pardo]
Forwarded-by: Sidner Steve <sidner_steve prc.com="prc.com">
[Who are you going to believe? "On the Internet, no one knows
you're a dog." Thanks, Dave.]
From: Dave Babcook [SMTP:dbabcook@zeeman.unmc.edu]
Hey Steve,
I forwarded the "beware of green firms" memo to my long distance
company, Working Assets (only 'cause they give me a pint of ice cream
every month!!!!). They sent a reply and although I haven't read
through it yet maybe we should forward this back up the ranks if only
for "equal time". You decide.
<b>Working Assets reply:</b>
12/12/97
Thanks for forwarding that message. We are aware of it, and sent the
response below this week.</sidner_steve></pardo></psl></pre><pre> - Jody London, Working Assets
<b>December 10, 1997</b>
Dear Member of the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Society of Environmental Journalists,</span>
The current issue of the SE Journal contains an article, "Beware of
'green firms"by Jon Entine, so riddled with errors it would lead any
reader to conclusions usually opposite the facts. I hope that we can
clear up some of the confusion and damage caused by the article. We are
sending this letter to the SE Journal itself, and have rented the mailing
list so that you might more directly learn of our point of view.
In reading the article, please keep in mind that Mr. Entine has been
attacking Working Assets for some time, largely through the internet
because most publications have rejected his material once they do fact
checking. <b>Extreme language, personal attacks, and an utter unwillingness
to correct simple factual errors have characterized his attacks.</b> We have
collected a modest amount of information on this subject at our web site
at http://www.wald.com/thefacts.
The core of Mr. Entine's argument is that Working Assets charges prices
that are inflated in both electricity and in our core business of long
distance, while grossly misleading our electricity customers about the
source of their power. Both accusations are incorrect.
Working Assets Long Distance rates are quite competitive, and far from
"inflated." We compare our rates to those of our primary competitors
at our web site, and the conclusion is quite straightforward - most of
our customers save money over the comparable plans of the Big Three.
Working Assets fully disclosed the source of our power in two small
marketing trials in New England. We do purchase our power from New
England Electric, which was widely disclosed in all materials, and our
customers have received quarterly reports on the precise mix of power
that we are purchasing on their behalf.
Working Assets has participated in two small pilot programs in New
England which state regulators set up in order to learn more about
the likely effects of restructuring of the electric utility industry.
Both programs were tiny - in New Hampshire we signed up fewer than 100
customers and in Massachusetts we signed up fewer than 1000 customers.
In doing so, we were testing one piece of our comprehensive strategy for
reducing the environmental damage caused daily by our nation's current
energy policies. We have backed up these very modest market tests with
an extremely active policy program, in which we have generated more calls
and letters to decision makers in support of this agenda than any other
player, none of which was reported by Mr. Entine. Here are our public
positions, all of which have been fully available to Mr. Entine:
1. Every single utility must incorporate renewable power into its
supplies.2. Every single distributor of electricty must disclose its sources of
power.3. Public financial support should continue for renewable power.
4. Ratepayers or taxpayers should not bail out nuclear utilities from
having to pay for their earlier costly and foolish investments.5. Tougher clean air standards should be imposed on utilities.
6. Big businesses should not be allowed to reap the benefits of
competition through lower prices until consumers can do likewise.<b>We did learn two things from our experience in the two trials:
1. Consumers are genuinely interested in using their electricity
purchases in a socially positive manner; and2. Given the current rules, it is not possible for anyone other than
the incumbent utilities to operate a profitable business offering
electricity to residential customers (far from making extraordinary
profits, we lost money in both pilots)</b>.<b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Right now, including in California, which is set to restructure
January 1, the rules are rigged to prevent real competition. Now that is
a story.</b>
A Few More Items Left Out by Mr. Entine
Mr. Entine states that Working Assets is charging a premium for green
power compared with other suppliers in the pilots. He fails to note
two essential facts, both of which have been provided to him:
<b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1. All of our customers saved money compared to their previous
supplier; and2. The reason that our power costs more than other new competitors
is that we are bringing power from eleven specific facilities
which collectively are more expensive and cleaner than the overall
system power upon which New England Electric System (NEES) relies.</b>By imposing strict requirements on NEES as to the source of the power,
we raised our costs, which flowed through to our prices. Mr. Entine
cannot have it both ways. In actual dollars, the price differential
Mr. Entine cites is a range in prices from 2.3_ per kilowatt hour to
3.41_ per kilowatt hour (those are the price figures published for the
Massachusetts pilot; Working Assets' price was 3.35_ per kilowatt hour).
Mr. Entine claims that Working Assets misled our customers about the
source of their power. This is patently false. We support public
disclosure of power sources and have fully informed all of our customers
in both pilots about the source of their power, by category and on a
regular basis.
Mr. Entine makes quite a point of saying we urged our customers to ask
whether their current supplier was a primary developer of Seabrook, the
horribly overpriced nuclear power plant. In some of our mailings, we did
in fact ask that, but continuing a pattern, Mr. Entine leaves out the
critical next point - far from hiding the fact that we were purchasing
power from New England Electric System, we told our customers the truth
at all points. There was no hidden use of New England Electric at any
time with any customer.
Mr. Entine quotes Professor <b>Paul Joskow of MIT, </b>using Professor Joskow to
argue that participants in the New England trials are having no effect
on generation or any positive effect on the environment. This quote is
incomplete and out of context. Professor Joskow has many comments on
the use of his thoughts by Mr. Entine, all of which are available to
the reader at the web site noted above: http://www.wald.com/thefacts.
The conclusion of an e-mail he sent to us, which we cite with his
permission, is as follows:
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mr. Entine misrepresented himself, violated my trust,
mischaracterized what I said, and has widely distributed
alleged quotations from an "interview" he never told me he
was doing without my permission. This is not behavior that
I have previously encountered.</span>
Mr. Entine would serve his readers better by more fully revealing
his long-standing personal vendetta against Laura Scher, our CEO.
In only one example, he<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> revealed his personal bias against Laura Scher
last spring when he circulated widely on the Internet a "playlet."
This "playlet," a copy of which is attached, describes Ms. Scher as a
"bitch," and castigates senior experts from the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club.[404]</span>
Working Assets Did Not Invest In Community Products, Inc.
In an odd little segue from its primary point, the article inaccurately
reports that Working Assets invested in the now bankrupt Community
Products, Inc. ("CPI") and made several hundred thousand dollars of
profits. In fact, Working Assets invested no money in CPI and therefore
has not received a penny of return from investing in CPI. Working Assets
did provide marketing and other assistance in the start-up of CPI in 1989.
By explicit agreement, if and when CPI was profitable it would donate a
share of its profits to our donation pool to fund environmental groups.
Fully 100% of the funds received went straight to environmental groups
without any overhead whatsoever.
In addition, Working Assets received ten shares of stock in CPI related
to these efforts. We never received any income from this stock and it
now has no value. Moreover, agreements signed at the time explicitly
required that any profit from this stock would go to employees and
non-profit groups. This was not reported even though Mr. Entine knew it.
Working Assets arranged for a small number of investors to purchase
approximately $100,000 of subordinated debentures that CPI was issuing
to raise start-up capital. CPI chose to pay off a portion of this loan
after a few years, with a pro rata rate of return to the note holders.
Two of the small investors were Working Assets employees and they were not
paid out fully and remain unsecured creditors with no chance of repayment.
These specific corrections to Mr. Entine's material do not in any sense
indicate that any other statements in his writings on Working Assets,
Community Products, Inc. or Ben & Jerry's are true.
Conclusion
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mr. Entine is not only misleading the readers of the SE Journal, he is
missing the big story on electricity restructuring - the multi-billion
dollar bailout, by ratepayers, of the nuclear utility industry. This may
be due to his own animus towards Working Assets or his positive views
about nuclear power. This bailout, negotiated behind closed doors,
is likely to be one of the biggest acts of corporate welfare in United
States history. Why Mr. Entine believes that the debate around green
electricity is a bigger issue than that is something worth the time of
an environmental journalist.</span>
Sincerely,
Michael Kieschnick President
P.S. I am enclosing a copy of our donations ballot for this year, to
better acquaint you with the work we do.<font face="sans-serif"><span style="white-space: normal;">
</span></font></pre></div><div><a href="http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1997/1997BKI.html">http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1997/1997BKI.html</a></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">soc.org.nonprofit ›</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">REality Check on Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">1 post by 1 author </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Jon Entine <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">4/22/97</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">JON ENTINE 4/14/97</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">NOT FOR PUBLICATION: SOURCE MATERIAL ONLY[?]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WORKING ASSETS and the POLITICS of “GREEN POWER”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">An opportunity to nurture the development of more energy options,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">especially renewable energy, is falling victim to politics within the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“green power” and environmental movements. This bungled moment comes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">just as a deregulation wave sweeps through the energy industry opening</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">it to competition from alternative, green producers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">In a desire to promote lower costs and bring more competition to the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy industry, numerous states have embarked on pilot programs to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">deregulate the price of electricity. In the coming years, many states</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">will introduce full-scale retail competition. Although there is at</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">present considerable excess electric capacity, rates have long been kept</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">artificially high, yet. According to energy experts, this excess</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">capacity will persist well into the next century.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">De-regulation brings supply and demand more in balance, in effect</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">allowing prices to float downward to reflect the current situation of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">excess energy. It opens the door for registered third parties – in this</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">case Working Assets – to contract with local suppliers for their unused</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">capacity, mark it up according to their own marketing standards, and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">resell it to pilot customers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">In 1996, New Hampshire became one of the first states to open up a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">fraction of its market, 3%, to outside companies. These companies</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">contracted with the dozen+ companies that feed into the New England</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy pool grid known as NEPOOL.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">That’s when the questionable green marketing story began.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets Long Distance becomes Working Assets Green Power</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">One of the 30-odd companies that jumped into the pilot project to buy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and resell excess capacity was Working Assets Green Power, a division of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets Funding Service, which operates Working Assets Long</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Distance. It promises to bring “clean” renewable energy to customers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Does it tell the truth?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">CEO Laura Scher positions Working Assets as a leading `socially</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">responsible company.’ WALD is a “pass through” telephone company, which</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">means it leases the phone lines from competitors (WALD contracts</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">primarily with Sprint, the target of considerable criticism from</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">activist groups) and tacks on an “integrity” premium based on its brand</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">marketing as a ‘progressive’ company. That reputation is based largely</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">on its donation of 1% of its telephone bills to popular activist groups</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">(and it gets the tax deduction for your contribution) and its vocal</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">campaigning on behalf of a myriad of high-profile social issues. It</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">advertises heavily in New Age publications like Mother Jones and Utne</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Reader.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">A look beneath the green veneer, however, raises disturbing questions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">about WALD’s basic integrity.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Although WALD markets that its long distance rates are “lower” than</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">competitors, its rates are consistently higher than the “big three” – as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">much as 300%+ higher when you compare overseas rates using its</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">competitors popular “one rate” plans [compare WALD and AT&T on the UK].</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WALD’s low “basic rates” is functionally equivalent to “list price” on</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">new cars: nobody pays it. Even AT&T charges only 10 cents/ minute/24</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">hours a day (plus $4.95 month).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">There are also at least two great “progressive” options for US</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">customers: EarthTones charges 15 cents/minute with no monthly charge and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Affinity, which is offered through environmental groups, will beat your</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">current rate by 10% – meaning it would charge as little as 9.1 cents.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Best of all, EarthTones gives all its profits to charity and Affinity</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">gives 5% to its environmental sponsors – so you’re not lining the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">pockets of WALD which systematically overcharges its customers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WA CEO Laura Scher is also on the board of Community Products Inc.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">(CPI), the company created by Ben Cohen of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ben & Jerry’s</span> to source</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Brazil nuts for his ice cream and other “rainforest” products. Working</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Assets Funding Service invested $300,000 in CPI debentures in 1989 as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">part of a deal that paid WA $30,000 a year with an additional $300,000</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">bonus when WAFS cashed out in December 1995. During this period, CPI and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Ben & Jerry’s, with Scher’s apparent approval as board member, engaged</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">in persistent marketing fraud by claiming that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">contained Brazil nuts sourced directly from a co-op of indigenous Amazon</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Indians and that CPI gave 60% of its profits to charity.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">It turns out that Ben & Jerry’s sourced ZERO nuts from the co-op and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">bought all of its nuts off the commercial markets supplied by Latin</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">America’s most abusive agri-businesses. Moreover, CPI gives ZERO dollars</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">to charity today, and has given ZERO to charity since 1992. Previous to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">that, CPI gave only 10% of its profits to charity. According to IRS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">documents that have been released as part of a fraud case against Ben</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Cohen and CPI, approximately $180,000 was given to Working Assets as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">part of a marketing contract Peter Barnes (of Working Assets) worked out</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">with Cohen and Ben & Jerry’s, requiring WA to promote Ben & Jerry’s ice</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">cream. This was one of the key ingredients to Working Assets brilliant,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and continued, promotional tie-in with Ben & Jerry’s.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Today, CPI is on the verge of bankruptcy, the “rainforest harvest” has</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">collapsed, and the ill-fated project is blamed for consolidating and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">increasing the control of right-wing agri-businesses over the Brazil nut</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">market. University of Chicago anthropologist Terrence Turner (one of the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">world’s leading Amazon experts) calls rainforest harvest projects by Ben</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">& Jerry’s and Body Shop “Aid Not Trade,” a play on Body Shop’s Trade Not</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Aid slogan -- “it’s aid by the exploited Indians in terms of their very</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">marketable images with almost no trade in return. These companies make</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">millions in free marketing.”[not online; note slippage to B&J?]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">The windfall that WALD has reaped from clever social marketing has</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">apparently opened its eyes to a similar windfall beckoning in another</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">explosively lucrative market: buying excess electric capacity as part of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">electric industry deregulation, marking it up higher than competitors,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and selling it with a “green” label to idealistic and trusting</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">customers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">This is what Working Assets claims in its marketing brochures and on its</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">web page about its for-profit foray into offering “green” electricity in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">New Hampshire:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“Working Assets offers New Hampshire consumers NUCLEAR FREE Electricity.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">No coal or Hydro-Quebec power either. “We believe there are thousands of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">New Hampshire residents who would appreciate a chance to support</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">environmentally sustainable energy,” says Laura Scher, Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">chief executive officer. “These consumers would prefer not to support</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the nuclear power industry.” Under the company’s new “Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Green Power” program, consumers will be guaranteed a lower price than</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">they currently pay for their electricity. “We are offering people an</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">opportunity to save money and save the environment at the same time,”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">says Scher.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Here’s the not-very-green reality.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Today, the amount of clean renewable technology in New England is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">minimal. Throughout New England, approximately 4% of electricity is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">generated by non-hydro renewables, primarily landfill gases and trash</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">burning incinerators.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WA did not contract with the few smaller alternative energy producers in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">New England or propose a plan to nurture development of green energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Instead, it contracted to buy ALL of its electricity for its New</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Hampshire customers from New England Power, a subsidiary of New England</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets brags it will save its customers money. It surely is in a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">position to save them money, for it buys energy from New England Power,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">which is the lowest cost producer of energy in the region. Yet, Working</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Assets charges the MOST of all the pilot project participants, as much</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">as 53% MORE than competitors.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Based on marketing materials sent out by the companies, Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">charges 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour; its lowest cost competitor, Wheeled</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Electric Power, charges as little as 2.29 cents. Interestingly, another</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">New England Energy subsidiary, Granite State Energy, is offering</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">electricity for 2.5 cents, and provides energy sourced from the same</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">company – New England Energy – as does WALD – plus, Granite State throws</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">in a $39 birdfeeder!</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets collects a huge “integrity tax” – as much as 53% – which</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">its idealistic consumers willingly pay because they believe Working</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Assets collects and distributes energy differently than Northeast</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Utiltities or New England Power for that manner. Those green dollars go</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">directly into WA’s bulging pockets.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Here’s what WA’s idealistic customers actually get for paying as much as</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">53% more:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">According to the NH Public Utilities Commission, 60% or more of the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">electricity that actually goes into the homes of Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">customers is nuclear. Moreover, the electricity going into the homes of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WA customers has a substantial amount of coal and electricity sourced</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">from Hydro-Quebec.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets does not tell its customers that ALL the electricity in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">New England is fed off of the New England Pool (NEPOOL), which mixes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy from all suppliers, from where it is sent through the grid to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">homes. New England Power supplies into that grid. The energy that goes</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">into homes is a mix of all the energy in the region.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Let’s say, for arguments sake, that there was a large wind and solar</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy company that sent its electrons into NEPOOL (according to the NH</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">PUC, there is NOT ONE kilowatt of wind or solar power going into the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">grid despite claims by WA, reported in numerous press releases and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">stories pulled up on the web, that it supplies wind and solar power to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">its NH customers). That energy would get mixed with nuclear, coal, oil</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and water power electrons, so every customer would get the same energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">IF a third party contracted with this wind-solar supplier, all they</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">would get would be the right to offer this third party’s “excess”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">capacity. The mix, including nuclear energy, would remain at the same</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">percentage.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">WORKING ASSETS STRIKES A DEAL TO OFFER THIS EXCESS CAPACITY FROM NEW</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">ENGLAND POWER. New England Power is a subsidiary of New England Electric</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">System (NEES: NYSE: NES) which is a $2.3 billion holding company, whose</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">subsidiaries comprise New England’s second largest electric utility</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">system. MASSPIRG calls NEES “the dirtiest utility in New England.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• It is part-owner of the SEABROOK 1 nuclear power plant.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• It is part-owner of the Millstone 3 nuclear power plant.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• It has a 30% interest in Yankee Atomic Electric Company which owns a</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">185 MW nuclear generating station in Rowe, Massachusetts.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• It is part-owner of Maine Yankee nuclear power plants.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• NEES participates in rate-regulated oil and gas exploration</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">development through a partnership with an non-affiliated oil company and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">has coal interests.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">• NEES and its subsidiaries have been named by the EPA or the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection as responsible for</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">22 hazardous waste sites. Legal proceedings are ongoing against NEES.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">NEES acknowledges at least 40 Superfund toxic waste sites altogether.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Does Working Assets Stimulate the Production of Green Energy?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">How does the energy market in New Hampshire work, who benefits from the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">current deregulation plan, and why are alternative energy producers so</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">critical of the plan while some large environmental groups support it</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and Working Assets?</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">There are some “green” competitors in the region. For instance,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Northeast Utilities, primary owner of most of the nuclear capacity in</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the region, maintains that it offers its Massachusetts customers as part</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">of another pilot project (in which WA also participates) a 100% hydro</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">product, although it too offers electricity off the NEPOOL grid. Its</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">promotion is no different in substance or energy provided than is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets – although it’s a lot less expensive.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Is Working Assets investing in new wind or solar plants to replace coal,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">oil or nuclear facilities? NO. Would its current actions increase</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">wind-solar development? NO. Could its actions ever reduce reliance on</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">coal or nuclear energy? Not for decades in the New England region,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">according to energy officials and activists, because of the excess</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">capacity. The electricity mix for the buying consumer didn’t change by</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">ONE electron as a result of Working Assets contractual relationship. In</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">effect, it is an accounting function.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Given the current oversupply, even a stand-alone wind or solar plant</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">would be so cost-inefficient that only a few boutique consumers would</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">foot the very high premium. Building an alternative energy plant is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">beside the point, however, since Working Assets isn’t proposing to build</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">alternative energy plants.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Just for a moment, imagine your reaction, disgust and horror if you saw</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">a full-page ad from New England Power claiming that it offered “nuclear</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">free” energy at great savings to its customers...yet, you knew it</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">offered nuclear-filled energy and charged 53% more than companies who</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">provided the same energy mix. In its defense, New England Power claims</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">that it “promises” that all of the money that new “green” customers paid</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">to them would not be utilized in any operations of its nuclear plants</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">(they would use it, say, to pay off legal costs in their hazardous waste</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">disputes).</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Would you say, “hey, what a great company. Their greenwash marketing</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">helps create a “critical mass” of demand for alternative energy. New</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">England Power is a model progressive company. This sure promotes the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">goal of sustainable energy.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Of course not.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Now substitute ‘Working Assets Green Power’ for ‘New England Power.’</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">It turns out that New England Energy Systems and Laura Scher have other</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">intertwining interests. Joan Bok, NEES Chairman, is a board member of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Business for Social Responsibility along with Laura Scher. Bok is also</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">on the board of Monsanto and numerous other organizations and companies</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">including the Urban League.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">The Politics of “Green” and “Alternative Energy”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets is also behind a plan that California alternative energy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">activists contend could force the shut down of some alternative energy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">plants and result in the generation of LESS, not more, renewable energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">In another cleverly-worded appeal, it has just sent its idealistic</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">California phone customers an “action alert” which urges them to support</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">alternative energy subsidies in California. It NEVER discloses that the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">money would end up in Working Assets coffers by way of its “Green Power”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">business.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets has NOT disclosed just how it would supply alternative</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy. In its two previous forays into “green” power – in New Hampshire</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and Massachusetts – it contracted with old-line nuclear and fossil-fuel</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy companies and not alternative suppliers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Many renewable energy companies in California, which now generate 10% of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the state’s power, opposed Working Assets’s plan and say it would dry-up</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">support for maintaining these plants, and for building new ones.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">It is revealing that renewable energy companies line up</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition to WALD’s scheme, yet many large</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">environmental groups are cautiously supportive of its strategy, but</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">unaware of the breath of its less-than-honest marketing tactics. These</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">environmental groups are, by and large, not involved in the actual</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">production of alternative energy. Many are also in a position to receive</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">considerable financial support directly from Working Assets if WALD’S</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">clever but deceptive marketing scheme should spread. It is also</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">revealing that WALD gives NO money to directly develop alternative</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">This raises serious conflict-of-interest issues and underscores the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">potential of green dollars driving the issue instead of public policy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">and environmental concerns.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Neither WALD nor mainstream environmental groups who regularly offer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“objective opinions” on the relative merits of green marketing and green</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">power disclose this insular relationship. Working Assets AND these</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">environmentalist groups should be REQUIRED to PUBLICLY reveal the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">SPECIFICS of any and all financial, “charity” and contractual</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">relationships, past and future. That would make it an OPEN process.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">That’s full disclosure.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Bottom Line: Working Assets actions demonstrate that it believes that</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">sales of a smaller amount of renewable energy – by Working Assets of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">course – is more important that actually GENERATING clean power.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">A recent study of the New Hampshire deregulation effort commissioned by</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the Rhode Island environmental group “Save the Bay” concludes that</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“public education campaigns are needed to help consumers to understand</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">that their selection of an energy product can influence the future</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">generation of electricity.” In other words, the current approach does</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">NOT EFFECT THE CURRENT ENERGY MIX. That is NOT the message being sent to</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">its customers, most of whom have swallowed the marketing pitch that they</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">are getting “nuclear free” energy.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Working Assets had a wonderful opportunity in New Hampshire to educate</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">its customers to the complexity of this issue. Instead, they issued</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">deceptive marketing come-ons. They are undercutting the credibility of</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the alternative energy movement which has worked diligently and honestly</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">to educate consumers that there is NO EASY FIX, as Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">suggests.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Let’s be clear about what the issue is. Working Assets has no products</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">to speak of. It leases out other companies telephone lines – WALD is</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">called a “pass through” company.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">In the electrical business, Working Assets “buys” electricity generated</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">by others and technically supplies it to customers. In fact, WA has done</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">nothing to explore for new energy sources or provide a stronger energy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">infrastructure. In effect, its only real product is its reputation for</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">being ‘socially responsible’ and more honest that competitors.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Apparently Laura Scher believes that it is okay for WALD to make</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">misleading and even <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">fraudulent </span>marketing claims on the grounds that her</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“intentions” are honorable. Whatever are the intention of Working Assets</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">– and we can be certain that as a for-profit business, it has many</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">conflicting intentions including making a bundle of money – its actions</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">have not been above-board.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Even now, as Scher<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> feels the heat from these disclosures,</span> [st'd MO?]she is making</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">the rounds of energy activists and trying to strong-arm them.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Organizations such as MASSPIRG (617-292-4800) have tried to get the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">message out about the greenwashing activities of Working Assets and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">other “green” electricity marketers, but the ‘social responsibility’</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">movement in general has been loathe to criticize one of its “friends.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">Character demonstrated by actions, not by rhetoric or intentions, is the</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">only reliable measure of corporate ethics. Working Assets’ markets its</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">“good intentions” as if it’s a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. Good</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">intentions demand FULL DISCLOSURE AND AN OPEN PROCESS.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"> “The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing,” Mark Twain once</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">said. “If you can fake these, you’ve got it made.”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">[Mrs. Joan T. Bok was elected Chairman in 1984 and held that position through 1993. She was elected Chairman of the Board in 1993 and held that position until 1998 when she retired as Chairman of the Board and was elected Chairman Emeritus. From July 1988 until February 1989, she also served as President and Chief Executive Officer. Until 1997, Mrs. Bok served as a director of each of NEES's direct subsidiaries, including Massachusetts Electric Company, The Narragansett Electric Company, and New England Power Company. Mrs. Bok is a Director of Avery Dennison Corporation, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, and Solutia, Inc., and is a Trustee of the Boston Athenaeum, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and Urban Institute.]</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div>