|
"The supplemental report is a refinement of the analysis that was presented in the previous staff Wholesale Generator Investigation Report. It answers most, if not all, of the generators' questions and assertions that were made when the report was first issued," Ms. Prosper said.
The original report claimed that generators could have prevented most of the power outages and interruptions of the 2000-2001 energy crisis had they produced all available power. It said generators didn't follow the instructions of the state's grid operator and didn't make plants available as soon as possible after outages. The energy firms vehemently denied the accusations.
It isn't immediately clear if the conclusions of the supplemental report will be substantially different from the original.
The report was based on inaccurate outage data, underplayed the role of the state's grid operator in determining which plants are run and when, and overstated plant capacity, the generators have said.
The companies that were investigated for the report were AES Corp. (NYSE:AES - News) , Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK - News) , Dynegy Inc. (NYSE:DYN - News) , Mirant Corp. (NYSE:MIR - News) , Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE:RRI - News) , and Williams Cos. .
The state Independent System Operator, which manages 75% of the power grid, has said that the original CPUC report appears to have relied upon ISO plant outage data that the ISO itself had warned might be inaccurate. The ISO also said the report's authors may have made assumptions about ISO data that aren't consistent with actual market operations, and may have failed to consider technical constraints governing individual generators and the grid as a whole.
The report was released by Lynch in mid-September at a state Senate panel hearing, with little prior notice to other commissioners. The Senate panel was the Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market, chaired by Sen. Joe Dunn (D., Santa Ana). That committee is set to disband on March 31.
Duke Demands Data Used For Report
As reported, Duke has been assertive about fighting allegations by California officials that the company engaged in market misbehavior.
Duke has issued to the commission 89 requests for information related to the September CPUC report. In doing so, the company is making use of a 100-day discovery period state officials secured to gather evidence of manipulation for a refund case before federal regulators.
Duke's requests ask the CPUC to explain and provide data for specific conclusions reached in their report, and to identify all people who contributed to it. In addition, Duke asked the agency whether it has data that would refute defenses made by Williams, Mirant, Dynegy and Duke in letters responding to the report.
The state has until Feb. 28 to submit evidence to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which may then use it to rule on California's request for $8.9 billion in refunds for alleged power overcharges.
FERC has said it aims to issue a decision in the refund case, as well as other cases related to California's energy crisis, by the end of March. A FERC judge has recommended energy companies refund $1.8 billion, less than they are owed, but didn't consider evidence of market manipulation in figuring that amount.
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872; jessica.berthold@dowjones.com