FERC Filings

MOTION OF EPSA FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT, CALISO

III. Argument

EPSA supports the Complainants’ action, and strongly urges the Commission to resolve this dispute in a manner that is consistent with its recent order in Morgan and Commission precedents in orders relating to other ISOs⁷. As explained in the Complaint, the Cal ISO’s refusal to compensate sellers for lost opportunity costs and liquidated damages resulting from curtailed exports is an extremely troubling disregard of Commission precedent -- and the plain language in Morgan. By subjecting curtailed energy transactions to its maximum purchase price of $250, and simply ignoring the financial impact on sellers, the Cal ISO would be overtly discriminating against export transactions and market participants who schedule energy for export.

Beyond the financial stakes, however, EPSA is also concerned that the Cal ISO’s proposed action will further distort market forces and signals, amplify the uncertainty that already exists and undermine the stability of the markets in California, as well as its neighbors. As the Complainants correctly observe, the Cal ISO itself precipitates shortfalls due to its unwillingness to pay market prices for energy; allowing the Cal ISO to then cap prices for energy in “emergency” situations it creates is clearly untenable.
New England Power Pool, 90 F.E.R.C. (CCH) 61,168 (2000); New England Power Pool, 91 F.E.R.C. (CCH) 61,045 (2000); New England Power Pool, 91 F.E.R.C. (CCH) 61, 303 (2000); New York Independent System Operator, Inc. 91 F.E.R.C. (CCH) 61,218 (2000).

• View Previous Section
• View Next Section
• Back to Issue Menu