|
|
Enron Mail |
CPUC sees market abuses, claims overcharges
California regulators told FERC in a filing they have sufficient evidence o= f=20 market power abuse to warrant additional investigation. In response to FERC=01,s request for comments on proposals to repair Califo= rnia=01, s wholesale power market, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also argued= =20 retail electricity consumers had been overcharged by up to $4 billion by independent=20 generators. The CPUC did not name any specific generator. =01&The CPUC=01,s preliminary staff analysis =01* conducted under similar c= onditions=20 of imperfect data and inadequate time =01* suggests that claims of tight supply and incr= eased=20 costs, while real, are overstated and explain less of the increased costs than FERC staf= f=20 concludes,=018 the CPUC says. The CPUC=01,s filing cites FERC=01,s own assertion that California=01,s who= lesale=20 market structure provided the opportunity and potential for market power abuses. However, th= e=20 CPUC disagrees with FERC=01,s conclusion that insufficient evidence exists = to=20 prove actual abuses occurred. Claiming that FERC=01,s own investigation in= to=20 market manipulation was incomplete, the California regulators charge =01&th= at=20 market power played a much greater role in the summer=01,s prices than appe= ars=20 to be acknowledged in the [FERC] Staff Report.=018 California regulators, conducting their own investigation into market power= =20 abuses, examined the impact of increased costs due to higher-than-normal natural gas prices,= =20 as well as increased expenses related to obtaining limited environmental permits. =01&The CPUC=01,s preliminary analysis shows that as much as $4 billion of= =20 [California Power Exchange] costs are attributable to market power for the period between Jun= e=20 and September,=018 the state regulators reported. =01&FERC should set heari= ngs on=20 this issue.=018 More generally, the CPUC criticized FERC=01,s Nov. 1 order, claiming that i= t=20 =01&fails to provide meaningful relief to Californians who =01( have spent billions more for pow= er in=20 recent months than ever before, paying prices that are not justified on the basis = of=20 industry costs or any other measure.=018 In addition, the CPUC=01,s comments on the major aspects of the FERC report= were=20 similar to those of other market participants also filed last Wednesday. The CPUC said= =20 FERC should take interim measures to allow for immediate price relief for California=20 consumers, that the $150/ MWh =01&soft cap=018 suggested in the order would not hold prices down effe= ctively,=20 and that fines on purchasers that do not forward contract the majority of= =20 their load were one-sided.
|