Executive Summary Template
Submitter (Party Name) Contact or Representative (Name, Org., Address and Phone No. Finding of Fact
SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. Margaret A. Moore Van Ness Feldman, P.C. 1050 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 298-1847 The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. The Commission should deny the relief requested by the California Parties. SET-1; SET-2; SET-3; SET-4; COR/SET-1; COR/SET-2; COR/SET-3; COR/SET-4; COR/SET-5; COR/SET-6; COR/SET-7; COR/SET-8; COR/SET-9; COR/SET-10; COR/SET-11.
Relief Requested Index Exhibit Number(s) pertaining to the Finding of Fact Finding of Fact Relief Requested Index Exhibit Number(s) pertaining to the Finding of Fact
The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. The Commission should not initiate new proceedings or investigations and should bring to an end the proceedings in Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al,. by entering a final determination as to the amounts owed to sellers for sale of electricity in California. SET-1; SET-2; SET-3; SET-4; COR/SET-1; COR/SET-2; COR/SET-3; COR/SET-4; COR/SET-5; COR/SET-6; COR/SET-7; COR/SET-8; COR/SET-9; COR/SET-10; COR/SET-11.
Finding of Fact
Relief Requested Index Exhibit Number(s) pertaining to the Finding of Fact
The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). The Commission should not adopt any market-wide remedy beyond those adopted in its July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). SET-1; SET-2; SET-3; SET-4; COR/SET-1; COR/SET-2; COR/SET-3; COR/SET-4; COR/SET-5; COR/SET-6; COR/SET-7; COR/SET-8; COR/SET-9; COR/SET-10; COR/SET-11.
Index of Relevant Material Template Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. SET-1 No Initial Report on Company-Specific Separate Proceedings and Generic Reevaluations; Published Natural Gas Price Data; And Enron Trading Strategies. Fact-Finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation of Electric and Natural Gas Prices. Docket No. PA02-2-000 Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission August 2002 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al., San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, et al. Docket Nos. EL00-98-000, et al., Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. Issuance in Docket No. PA02-2-000
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing
1) “Overscheduling” was a response to the IOUs’ procurement strategy and the ISO was aware of it; 2) “Ricochet” and “Get Shorty” can be legitimate forms of arbitrage.
Not applicable
any alleged manipulation * This entry is not limited to the California and Northwest Docket Numbers.
Index of Relevant Material Template Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. SET-2 No Transcript of the Deposition of Jim Detmers Esquire Deposition Services February 4, 2003 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al., San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, et al. Docket Nos. EL00-98-000, et al., Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. New
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
ISO was aware of the practice of “overscheduling.”
Not applicable
* This entry is not limited to the California and Northwest Docket Numbers.
Index of Relevant Material Template Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. SET-3 No Substituting Outrage for Thought: The Enron “Smoking Gun” Memos Jonathan Falk August/September 2002 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al., San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, et al. Docket Nos. EL00-98-000, et al., Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. New
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
Most of the Enron strategies were forms of arbitrage that enhanced market efficiency.
Not applicable
* This entry is not limited to the California and Northwest Docket Numbers.
Index of Relevant Material Template Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. SET-4 No Transcript of Hearing Re: ISO Review of Various Investigations State of California, Senate Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market January 21, 2003 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al., San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, et al. Docket Nos. EL00-98-000, et al., Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. New
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
The ISO is unable to determine the market impact of the Enron strategies.
Not applicable
* This entry is not limited to the California and Northwest Docket Numbers.
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-1 Yes Rebuttal Testimony of Arthur S. De Vany Arthur S. De Vany 03/20/03 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-2 No Curriculum vitae of Arthur S. De Vany Arthur S. De Vany 03/20/03 N/A N/A EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
New
N/A
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-3 No Statement of Frank A. Wolak, Professor of Economics, Stanford University, Chairman, Market Surveillance Committee, California Independent System Operator, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Frank Wolak 05/15/02 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-4 No "Substituting Outrage for Thought: The Enron 'Smoking Gun' Memos" Jonathan Falk August/September 2002 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-5 No An Experimental Study of Market Behavior Vernon Smith 1962 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-6 No "An Empirical Examination of Deregulated Electricity Prices" Christopher Knittel and Michael Roberts 10/01 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-7 No "High Frequency Electricity Spot Price Dynamics: An Intra-Day Markets Approach" Graeme Guthrie and Steen Videbeck 12/21/02 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-8 No Cointegration Analysis of Spot Electricity Prices: Insights on Transmission Efficiency in the Western US Arthur De Vany and David Walls 1999 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-9 No Price Dynamics in a Network of Decentralized Power Markets Arthur De Vany and David Walls 03/99 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-10 No "Uncertain Markets, Reliability, and Peak-Load Pricing" Thomas Saving and Arthur De Vany 04/81 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties performing any alleged manipulation
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
Index of Relevant Material Submitter (Party Name) Index Exh. No. Privileged Info (Yes/No) Document Title Document Author Doc. Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Specific finding made or proposed SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING CORP. COR/SET-11 No Initial Report on Company-specific Separate Proceedings and Generic Reevaluations; Published Natural Gas Price Data; and Enron Trading Strategies; Fact-finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation of Electric and Natural Gas Prices. FERC Staff 08/02 1) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for asserting that Sempra Energy Trading Corp. engaged in market manipulation and provided no legal basis under the Federal Power Act for the relief they seek. 2) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis that justifies the initiation of further proceedings. 3) The California Parties did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis to justify expanding market-wide relief beyond that ordered in the Commission’s July 25, 2001 Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part, 96 FERC ¶ 61,120 (2001), Order on Clarification and Rehearing, 97 FERC ¶ 61, 275 (2001). a) before 10/2000 and b) between 10/2000 and 6/2001 EL00-95-000, et. al.; EL00-98-000, et. al.
Time period at issue Docket No(s). and case(s) finding pertains to * Indicate if Material is New or from the Existing Record (include references to record material) Explanation of what the evidence purports to show Party/Parties
New
California Parties' witness Dr. Fox-Penner's proposition that sellers strategically withheld power is inconsistent with economic analysis and evidence.
N/A
-20-
performing any alleged manipulation
-21-