Posted on 06/03/2002 11:11:05 AM PDT by Robert357
PORTLAND -- Oregon regulators are among groups pushing the federal government to investigate electricity markets during the energy crisis of 2000-2001.
But unlike some, Oregon doesn't want federal regulators to order refunds for victims of price gouging or other illegal trading activities.
Refunds, said the Oregon Public Utility Commission, "would punish the innocent along with the wrongdoers" and "be unfair, inequitable and impractical."
The comments, in documents submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week, hint at the complexities of a federal investigation that began 3 1/2 months ago. The comments also expose the divergent opinions held by the various states that trade electricity in the vast Western grid.
California officials are calling for an aggressive investigation and as much as $8.9 billion in refunds.
Earlier this month, after memos describing Enron trading strategies surfaced, California Gov. Gray Davis, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Public Utility Commission President Loretta Lynch all re-emphasized their demands.
"I call upon FERC to reinstate California's request to be reimbursed the entire $8.9 billion we believe consumers and businesses were gouged," Davis wrote in a May 23 letter to the federal commission.
In Washington, Attorney General Christine Gregoire made a similar plea on behalf of Northwest utilities and their customers.
"Electric utilities throughout the West -- not just California -- suffered because of Enron's manipulative tactics," Gregoire said in papers filed with FERC May 28. "As a matter of fairness, Pacific Northwest utilities should be allowed to make a case as to why they are entitled to recover those costs."
If refunds were ordered, Portland General Electric would have to pay some utilities that bought its power during the crisis.
"We oppose refunds because they could potentially harm Oregon consumers by driving up rates," said Bob Valdez, a spokesman for the Oregon Public Utility Commission.
The documents filed by the PUC also were signed by the Oregon Office of Energy and by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
The Washington UTC and the Oregon PUC serve similar regulatory functions. They oversee each state's investor-owned utilities and must ensure that just and reasonable electricity rates prevail.
The Washington UTC's opposition to refunds contrasts sharply with Attorney General Gregoire's vociferous pro-refund stance.
Marilyn Meehan, a spokeswoman for the UTC, played down the rift.
"It's just a difference of opinion," she said.
In Washington, the UTC and the state attorney general represent different interests.
The commission balances ratepayer interests against the financial requirements of utilities. The attorney general deals solely with consumer interests.
The divergent missions could explain the conflicting positions on refunds, except that, in dealings with the federal energy commission, the agencies hold similar responsibilities, Meehan said.
The Washington UTC's opposition to refunds contrasts sharply with Attorney General Gregoire's vociferous pro-refund stance.
Marilyn Meehan, a spokeswoman for the UTC, played down the rift.
"It's just a difference of opinion," she said.
In Washington, the UTC and the state attorney general represent different interests.
Actually, I think it is much more a difference of POLITICS than of interests. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is to protect the public interests regarding utility transactions, as is the Oregon Public Utility Commission. The WUTC is appointed with both republican and democrat nominees and tends to be non-partisan. The Attorney general is elected by the public, is a democrat, and wants headlines and to be a democratic party regular.
Yep, different interests, the people vs the democratic party. How sad that it is obvious even to the newspaper reporters.
Will put it on the list!
Calpowercrisis:
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Calpowercrisis | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
That is an interesting perspective, but let's see why it is likely wrong. Obviously you know something about Oregon and Washington utilities. In Washington State most of the public is served by PUD's, cooperatives or municipals. In Oregon the vast majority of the public is served by Portland General Electric and/or PacifiCorp, with some being served by cooperatives, PUD's and cities. Oregon government has often sided against public power.
Historically, the WUTC has never been a friend of public power in the state of Washington. The publics are not under the WUTC's control and it has repeatedly tried to gain control over them and failed. But in this case the WUTC is opposed to refunds. The Oregon PUD is also opposed to refunds, so the public ownership issue differences in the two states must not be the common thread. It is likely something else.
That is an interesting perspective, but let's see why it is likely wrong. Obviously you know something about Oregon and Washington utilities. In Washington State most of the public is served by PUD's, cooperatives or municipals. In Oregon the vast majority of the public is served by Portland General Electric and/or PacifiCorp, with some being served by cooperatives, PUD's and cities. Oregon government has often sided against public power.
Historically, the WUTC has never been a friend of public power in the state of Washington. The publics are not under the WUTC's control and it has repeatedly tried to gain control over them and failed. But in this case the WUTC is opposed to refunds. The Oregon PUD is also opposed to refunds, so the public ownership issue differences in the two states must not be the common thread. It is likely something else.
That is an interesting perspective, but let's see why it is likely wrong. Obviously you know something about Oregon and Washington utilities. In Washington State most of the public is served by PUD's, cooperatives or municipals. In Oregon the vast majority of the public is served by Portland General Electric and/or PacifiCorp, with some being served by cooperatives, PUD's and cities. Oregon government has often sided against public power.
Historically, the WUTC has never been a friend of public power in the state of Washington. The publics are not under the WUTC's control and it has repeatedly tried to gain control over them and failed. But in this case the WUTC is opposed to refunds. The Oregon PUD is also opposed to refunds, so the public ownership issue differences in the two states must not be the common thread. It is likely something else.
Wouldn't talk to me so I quit posting!
No idea what was the problem,
In fact thought it was my end until I saw your multiple post's!
Actually, I think you mean Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). One of the issues is that some publics are "FERC-Non jurisdictional" which makes it difficult for FERC to direct them to do things. However, in the price caps FERC did regulate many of these folks. I also think that some of your numbers may be a bit off the mark.
Freerepublic article on who the ISO said gouged California and by how much
If you look at the above article, BC Hydro was just small change compared to Duke, Williams, Reliant, and Dynergy power traders.
From what I know about the Bonneville Power Administration almost all of the power they provided to California was in the form of energy exchanges. That is, BPA supplied power during the peak hours of the day to keep black outs from happening and Cal returned the energy plus and increment to represent the lower value of energy at night during off peak hours. The last I talked to some folks at BPA they still hadn't been paid for some of the power they had shipped to CA over a year ago. That was actually one of the stated reasons BPA raised its wholesale power rates to NW customers last October.
Therefore, I don't think public power can be used as an explaination for why the Oregon PUC and the Washington UTC are recommending to FERC against refunds.
M.D.- If you're defining 'biggest offenders' as the ones who charged the most $$ per kilowatt hour than I agree with the statement above. If biggest offender means who charged the most ovewr time than I would agree with Robert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.