Findings on Avista reiterated

The Spokesman-Review | 4-16-2003 | Alison Boggs

[lilylangtree]

Federal regulators Thursday reiterated findings that Avista Corp. did not engage in improper trading strategies during the energy crisis of 2000-01.

They've asked a federal judge to approve an agreement forged with Avista stating that the Spokane energy company did not manipulate West Coast energy markets.

"They've asked the judge to certify it. It's good stuff," said Avista spokesman Hugh Imhof of the report released Thursday.

Curtis L. Wagner Jr., chief administrative law judge for the Federal Energy Regulatory commission, has scheduled a hearing Tuesday to review the report.

"The trial judge respectfully requests that the chief judge certify the agreement, as supplemented, to the commission for its approval," the report reads.

FERC had investigated Avista last year because of a series of trades between Enron Power Marketing Inc., Portland General Electric Co. (an Enron subsidiary) and two Avista entities. FERC staff concluded in an initial report that no one at Avista Utilities or Avista Energy had knowingly engaged in improper trading.

The agreement between FERC staff and Avista exonerated the Spokane company, but was contingent on Wagner's approval.

Then on March 26, a different group of FERC investigators released a report detailing the manipulation of West Coast energy markets and accusing numerous companies of improper trading. Avista, which thought its issues had been investigated and resolved, was surprised to see its name resurface.

"That report basically named everyone who participated in the California energy market," Imhof said.

Regardless, Wagner asked FERC staff to clarify Avista's involvement in a few areas of energy trading. In particular, the March 26 report accused Avista and other companies of profiting by selling energy it could not provide, improperly importing and exporting power, and clogging transmission lines and then receiving payments to ease that congestion.

Across the board, the trial staff restated its findings, detailing why it found no wrongdoing by Avista and supplementing its statements with the affidavits of two FERC economists.

"Staff reviewed literally thousands of calls and hundreds of hours of energy trading recordings," FERC economist Andrew Bieltz said in his affidavit. "In the energy trading calls it reviewed, staff did not come across any conversations which indicated that either Avista Utilities' or Avista Energy's traders knowingly colluded with Enron or PGE in any energy trading schemes."

[lilylangtree]

After participating with other utilities company and Enron in creating California's energy crisis, Avista will come out of the scandal without any problems. Does that mean that the RAT State Attorney General Christine Gregoire is free to sue the State of California for the return of millions of dollars supposedly owed to the State of Washington because of the Enron affair? Money that should be owed to California. Something is wrong.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I'll put this on the calpowercrisis list for comment!

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)

[okie01]

"Does that mean that the RAT State Attorney General Christine Gregoire is free to sue the State of California for the return of millions of dollars supposedly owed to the State of Washington because of the Enron affair? Money that should be owed to California. Something is wrong."

Are you complaining that Avista got a clean bill of health...or that Washington got screwed by California...or that California got screwed by the power companies.

Obviously, I failed to understand the nature of your complaint...

[snopercod]

Isn't it great how the media splash their "Energy Pirate" accusations all over the front page, but never manage print a retraction when the true facts come out?

[okie01]

"Isn't it great how the media splash their "Energy Pirate" accusations all over the front page, but never manage print a retraction when the true facts come out?"

They would...if they thought it would help Gray Davis and the Democrats.

But it won't. So, they don't...