Electrical Power Restructuring:
A Fascist Power Grab!

By W. Ed Parker (Kentucky)

In World War II, America utilized all of its energy resources to win the greatest war in history; and to make itself the greatest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. Since that time, corporate greed and government "energy planners" have combined to control all energy resources, not for the benefit of our people, but for the benefit of government regulators and the maximization of Multinational Corporate Profits.

Based on research by Richard L. Lewis of Take Back Kentucky (a conservative organization), the US Government, in 1950, cut a deal with the International Oil Cartel (OPEC) to favor the Middle East Oil Barons. For cheap US oil prices, OPEC would be subsidized by the US taxpayers so that their profits would be guaranteed.

As reported by Lewis, "Oil subsidies disguised the cost of gasoline, which led Americans to buy more cars and burn more gasoline than they would have otherwise. At the same time, these subsidies yielded more state and federal taxes to finance more government welfare; at the same time producing higher profits for the Oil Cartel." The only losers were the American Taxpayers.

Elsewhere, the rest of the world has continued to pay top prices for gasoline even to this day (1999). For example, European motorists pay almost four times as much for gasoline as Americans do.

A second major US Taxpayer subsidy to OPEC was granted in 1974, immediately following the fabricated 1973 Oil Crisis. Both subsidies are still in place today, and OPEC still controls the world’s oil supplies.

Lewis’s information above came from several sources, including, "Dependence for a Crowded World," by George W. Ball; and "Buying America -- Selling Security," by Martin and Susan Tolchin.

Two major government agencies are directly tied to OPEC, and they are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE). These two agencies, supported by radical environmentalists in industry, as well as tax-free foundations, The Communications Oligarchy, and "Wave the Earth" type groups, have worked hand-in-hand with OPEC.

From a peoples point of view, DOE is not a creditable agency. According to Congressman Todd Tiahrt in Insight Magazine, 5/11/97, DOE no longer serves a core energy-related mission; Doe is a failed cabinet agency unable to meet its most basic obligations; DOE has devolved into a feeding trough for the corporate-welfare recipients; and DOE wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually."

Since the publication of Tiahrt’s article in 1997, DOE has been found very wanting in the management of America’s Nuclear Secrets.

As for the EPA, it has been caught lying to the American public on countless occasions. A prime example is the "Take Back Kentucky" article, "Ozone and Freon Fraud*;" which is based on the Manufacturing Meltdown in America book by this writer.

The first mention of the National Power Grid System (NPGS) which was made available to this writer is from "The Dan Smoot Report," 8/12/63. NPGS was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1960.

Kennedy’s report advocated "development of efficient regional giant power systems from all sources, including water, tidal, and nuclear power, to supply low-cost electricity to all retail electric systems, public, private, and cooperative."

The plan then, as now, was for a national wide power grid, owned by the Corporate Oil Cartel in order for it to enhance its profits; and controlled by the Federal Government. In other words, NPGS is simply a Fascist Power Grid.

The booklet, "Kentucky Coal Facts," published by the Kentucky Coal Marketing and Export Council and the Kentucky Coal Association, shows that coal is still the lowest cost fuel for electric utilities. The booklet lists relative costs for fuel, using 1996 rates, as about $1.00 per Btu for coal, $2.30 for gas and $5.20 for petroleum. However, it must be noted that this fact book did not cover nuclear fuel costs.

In 1985, Aubrey J. Wagner, who was head of TVA from 1962 through 1978, in a article entitled "Energy, the Essential for a Progressive Economy," published by the National Council for Environmental Balance (NCEB), pointed out some gains due to TVA energy utilization.

According to Wagner, the U.S.A. will need more energy of all types to continue to prosper. He then went into details on costs to produce that energy; pointing out that "Nuclear is one of the preferred ways to go. It is safe, economical, and reliable."

From TVA’s (Tennessee Valley Authority) historical data, Wagner listed the costs of nuclear power production at 1.05 to 1.45 cents per KWH compared to 2.33 cents for coal. However, he did not list gas or oil costs as they were not used by TVA.

In another NCEB article, Wagner stated, "for the longer term, we must research new and better systems where the basic energy source is available within our own borders. We are not progressing toward a solution, largely because of a lack of firm and informed leadership."

Further, he pointed out that 60% of all the world’s oil supplies went through the Straight of Hormuz, a channel 40 miles wide at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Whoever controls this narrow water way controls the worlds oil supply.

Based on Wagner’s original data, this writer feels that he would promote the use of coal for the State of Kentucky; mainly because Kentucky has a great supply of this fuel.

Due primarily to its abundant supply of coal, Kentucky, as a state, has turned its back on nuclear power. However, some comments on this energy source seem to be appropriate.

Galen Winson, a retired General Electric (GE) Nuclear Physicist, in the Spotlight Newspaper, 7/5/99, proclaimed, "nuclear energy is safe, clean, and efficient. The attacks on nuclear energy in the major media emanate from the international oil cartel (OPEC) which wants to suppress nuclear energy development."

Winson further testified that he had ingested uranium oxide, and swam in 700 metric tons of irradiated (nuclear) fuel in 1984; and that he is still alive and well in 1999. For his actions, to prove his points, he was reduced in pay by two pay levels by GE and reassigned to another GE operation.

As he pointed out, GE has consistently sided with OPEC, even though GE, itself, is in the nuclear power generation business.

From Winson’s data, we can readily see that GE has consistently deferred to the oil cartel against its own best interests in the nuclear business.

Furthermore, GE, in its own Appliance Business, has consistently supported environmental regulations that were detrimental to its own interests during my watch in that operation; while it usually issued memos blaming "bad government regulations" when it was advantageous to do so.

For additional information on this subject, one may wish to read the Take Back Kentucky article entitled "Communications Oligarchy in America*."

In the article entitled "The Waning of Nuclear Power," published in Insight Magazine, 5/7/99, "it may well be as difficult as ‘numbering sands and drinking oceans dry’ to convince a functional majority of us that, buy giving up nuclear, we are passing up an efficient, safe and non-polluting source of power."

By and large, the vast majority of the American people have been "spooked" on nuclear energy by a small group of environmental extremists, who are supported by major industry for profit motive reasons. Furthermore, these "useful idiots" are championed by government agencies such as EPA and DOE, and by tax free foundations, academic professionals, religious leaders and other assorted fringe groups.

To further illustrate the involvement of major industries in the energy and environmental field, a quote from Jack Welch, President of the General Electric Company, seems appropriate here.

In an article entitled "GE and the Environment," in the GE Senior Elfun News, 5/17/99, "We are a company of deeply held values and nothing is closer to the heart and core of those values than 100% compliance with the spirit and the letter of the law -- with no shortcuts, no winks, just a total commitment to integrity."

"Your company has spent $2 billion in the past decade, not only on remediation of the environmental conditions and complying with evolving environmental regulations; but by going beyond them voluntarily to improve the air, water, and soil in the communities in which we operate."

These statements by Welch, made for public relations effects, are questionable at best. In my book, "Manufacturing Meltdown in America," I detail the ways GE worked hand-in hand with government regulators and other industries to run up the costs of Appliances to consumers through bogus energy and environmental regulations. Millions of dollars were spent on these bogus projects that could have been better spent to improve productivity and enhance quality.

My first hand involvement showed that regulations were not just passed down from government lawyers to industry. They were developed jointly by government and industry lawyers, and then passed down as scientific government regulations.

From my book, the following quote is appropriate: "Based on my costs, the 1993 energy saving program cost, at the retail level, over $50.00 per Bloomington (side-by-side) refrigerator, along with reduced quality, to the consumer. This cost must be paid out of profits or passed on to the consumer. This is why I conclude that, overall, government/industry regulatory programs to date (1993) have cost GE Refrigeration over $1 billion in productivity."

Since Refrigeration is a very small part of the General Electric Company, Welch’s figure of $2 billion for energy and environmental regulations seems to me to be unrealistically low.

Available energy supplies have been vastly underestimated by people in the environmental movement for reasons best known to them. In an article in The New American, 5/17/93, "Sapping Our Energy," it was claimed that, "When (President) Carter was speaking of shortages, we were sitting on top of supplies estimated at 500 years’ worth of petroleum, 300 years’ worth of natural gas, and enough coal for 1500 years; not to mention nuclear power for untold centuries."

The New American article further concluded, "All the regulation and taxation of energy fit quite well into what President Clinton’s close friend (and 1993 Labor Secretary) Robert Reich proposed in his book, "Minding America’s Business." He advocated an industrial policy of "active government in partnership with large corporations." In other words, a FASCIST ECONOMY!

Some key studies of energy problems were made in the 1980's by the National Council for Environmental Balance, headed up by Dr. I.W. Tucker, retired professor from the University of Louisville.

One such article, "Energy and Environmental Responsibility," by James R. Dunn, Ph.D., a professional geologist, stated "took issue with the environmental community which seemed to push for regulations to giver our resources to others." As seen by Dunn, states like Kentucky, that have large energy resources of their own such as coal, have a responsibility of developing those resources so that they can be used to supply goods and services to others at affordable costs.

In reference to the country as a whole, Dr. Dunn further stated that, "We must increase our economic strength, which has actually been weakening; we must I increase our technological commitment, which has been waning since the early 1960's; and we must become energy independent, instead of ever more dependent" (on OPEC).

Another NCEB booklet by Dr. John J. McKetta, the Joe C. Walter Chair at the University of Texas, "US Energy Today and in the Nineties," is of interest: "There is a tragic irony in the energy crisis, and the security and foreign policy problems it is spawning. The irony is that God has endowed the US with a great abundance of energy resources. Oil, gas, coal, uranium, tar sands and oil shale represent 25% of the world’s energy. All right here in the U.S.A. No other country has so much. Not even the Middle East. Despite its huge petroleum reserves, the Middle East has only 3.5% of the world’s total energy resources."

Dr. McKetta further pointed out that the US was not competitive with the middle East in oil production, due to the arrangement with OPEC. for this reason, we are at a disadvantage in oil needs. "We could fill the gap (in energy needs) with our abundant natural gas, coal, nuclear, etc. But instead we simply import more "cheap oil." Dr. McKetta urged more investment in our own energy resources, such as coal.

Some advice has been offered by the Kentucky Journal of Commerce and Industry (AIK). On 9/18/97, AIK published an article, "Al Gore Advocates Emissions Trading Scheme." Gore also has plans to curb US oil use, apparently through the use of buses, trains, walking, etc. AIK reported, "As though revolving in a separate time warp, the Clinton Administration continues oblivious while concerns about the costs of ill-advised new climate policies has finally hit American economists and United Nations Negotiators."

In another AIK article, "Business Regulations Chase Jobs out of the US," by S. Rayburn Watkins, it was pointed out that, "If the present trend for more controls and higher taxes, started under Bush and extended by Clinton, are not brought to a halt, ...’you ain’t seen nothing yet’ in the scramble to export American jobs overseas." With the loss of these jobs, energy costs would go up significantly, Watkins indicated.

In summary, Take Back Kentucky has shown that the EPA and the DOE are tools of the OPEC Oil Cartel. Further, the Environmental Elite of our nation are directly supported by alien forces such as OPEC and The Communications Oligarchy. In addition, the other major multinational corporations continually follow the same guide lines, so long as their Bottom Line Profits Are Secure for their respective companies.

Since The Oligarchy, OPEC, EPA, DOE, and the Environmental Elite are all pushing for Electrical Power Restructuring, it stands to reason that it cannot be favorable to the people of Kentucky. Simply put, it is a Fascist Energy Plan!

The cost information on restructuring is unfavorable to Kentucky. This fact is shown in several references earlier in this report. If restructuring goes into effect as proposed by the advocates of this program, Kentucky citizens will see a 20 to 50% increase in their utilities bills at an early date. Advocates, such as Louiseville Gas and Electric, that have vested interests in gas pipe lines, would therefore be in line for higher profits.

W. Ed Parker is an Environmental Engineer.