Critical Analysis

News Story:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/coal/stories/040507dnbustxuwholesale.3b0f5a6.html

Initial Response:
http://www.txucorp.com/media/newsrel/detail.aspx?prid=1039

Second Response:
http://www.txucorp.com/media/newsrel/detail.aspx?prid=1040

On April 5, 2007, an article in the Dallas Morning News Article said, "TXU Corp. threatened to shut down some power plants, if it can't come to terms with state regulators over accusations that the Dallas power company manipulated the wholesale market."

The initial response issued by TXU did a good job of using the same language. They didn't state the exact headline of the article, but summed it up well enough by referring to it as the "Plant Shut Down" article. It was fitting that initial response was issued by Mike Morgan, CEO of TXU Wholesale, because he wrote the letter the article was about. The second response came from Morgan and TXU Corp. CEO, John Wilder. The media coverage and the organization response in agreement except for the point that the story suggests that TXU said they would close down necessary plants if certain conditions weren't met. TXU's statement said that not only were they not proposing that, but it wouldn't even be possible. They said that before they could close down a plant they would have to file that action for review by the EROTC. The EROTC would have to determine that the plant isn't necessary and grant approval to TXU. This seems to have been neglected completely in the Dallas Morning News article.

The tone in the initial response was very sharp and could possibly be considered rude. I think that Morgan should have acknowledged an understanding of how the statements in his letter could have been misconstrued. The second response is an apology. I have a problem with the contrast in tone of these two responses. It seems odd to follow up such a strong, unapologetic statement with a contrite apology. I feel if the initial response is to be believed, which I assume it is since there was never any further reference to that statement, the second response could have been titled to as a clarification rather than an apology, even if the apology was left in. If there was to be an apology it should have been the initial release.

I also have an issue with the fact that although they said that they can't unilaterally shutdown plants, they never make it clear in either of their statements that Morgan was aware of that the at the time the letter was written. It should be said in plain english, TXU has always been aware that it could not unilaterally shut down power plants and therefore wouldn't threaten such action. Wilder's appearance along with the sudden change in tone just makes the second statement seem like he is reprimanding Morgan. Also, I would have liked to see more common language in their two statements to show unity. The first sentence in the second response, "TXU apologizes for creating any perception of threatening to shut down power plants in Texas," should have been the first sentence in the initial response to the article.

WaterWays 2007 Lead

Philosophers, scientists, politicians and artists will join together before students and the public at The University of North Texas campus Tuesday, March 13 through Thursday, March 15, to discuss concerns and solutions to the world's water issues.

Grassroots or not?

The Rainforest Action Network, or RAN, is classified as a grassroots organization. According to RAN.org, they are staffed by 36 members in Tokyo and San Francisco, and depend on volunteers and donations to operate.

RAN is "one of the most radical organizations in the environmental movement that has nonprofit status under the 501(c)3 section of the tax code," according to captalresearch.org, a site that researches non-profit organizations. Capitalreasearch.org also refers to Patrick Reinsborough, RAN's coordinator, as "grassroots."

www.ran.org
www.capitalresearch.org