Comment Text:
This is supplemental information supporting the CFTC adopting regulations over the markets operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) based on the FERC and CPUC inability to: (i) reduce systemic risk, (ii) increase transparency, and (iii) promote market integrity. This inability I contend is due to the revolving door between the regulated utilities and the so-called "prudent" regulators at CPUC and FERC whose policies and practices only protect the interests of their regulated natural gas and electric utilities and not the interest of the customers who were the victim of the 2000-1 energy crisis that sowed the seeds for the economic abyss the world faces today because of more than six hundred trillion dollars of unsecured debt worldwide that has resulted.
On October 6, 2000 CARE filed a complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in behalf of California's ratepayers.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=8036386 or
http://www.calfree.com/EL01-2FERCComplaint10-6-00.htm
Pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824e, and Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.206, CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE)[1] hereby petitions the Commission to rectify unjust and unreasonable prices stemming from the wholesale markets for energy and ancillary services operated by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX). CARE requests that the Commission find that wholesale markets in California are not currently workably competitive. CARE hereby petitions the Commission make findings that the events and circumstances surrounding the June 14, 2000 rolling outage in the San Francisco Bay Area warrant investigation by the United States Department of Justice of trust[2] activities in restraint of trade by Independent Energy Producers, all sellers of energy and ancillary services into energy and ancillary services markets operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange; all scheduling coordinators acting on behalf of aforementioned sellers; California Independent System Operator Corporation; and the California Power Exchange. CARE hereby petitions the Commission make findings that the events and circumstances surrounding the June 14, 2000 rolling outage in the San Francisco Bay Area warrant investigation by the United States Department of Justice of alleged civil rights violations[3], by Independent Energy Producers, all sellers of energy and ancillary services into energy and ancillary services markets operated by the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange; all scheduling coordinators acting on behalf of aforementioned sellers; California Independent System Operator Corporation; and the California Power Exchange. CARE petitions that said investigation include the identification of injury, loss of life, disability, or hospitalization associated with the June 14, 2000 rolling outage. CARE requests that this complaint be consolidated with Commission Dockets EL00-95-000, EL00-98-000, and EL00-104-000. CARE has not used any of the Commission’s alternative dispute resolutions services (ADR) described in Rule 206(b)(9) and believes that the nature of the complaint is such that ADR will not be useful.
FERC never answered CARE's October 6, 2000 complaint.
CARE alleges that PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E conspired with CPUC to violate the FPA and PURPA both by knowingly entering in to bilaterally negotiated contracts outside of the FPA and PURPA under the State’s authority purportedly to approve wholesale power contracts because they disagreed when the Commission determined that the CPUC’s AB 1613 Decision constituted impermissible wholesale rate-setting by the CPUC. Because the CPUC’s AB 1613 Decision sets rates for wholesale sales in interstate commerce by public utilities, the Commission found that it was preempted by the FPA.
Based on their pleadings in this and other proceedings before the FERC Complainants contend the Respondents have had this knowledge since January 1, 2000, the beginning of the refund period in FERC Docket EL00-95 et al. in the Western Energy Crisis proceedings, and that is why the consideration of all the evidence presented is crucial. The proceedings herein raise similar issues of fact and law to those prior Commission Decisions listed, which are the subject of CARE’s two Petition’s for Review before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case#08-70010 and Case#09-71515. Case#08-70010.
(1) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order Denying Rehearing" Docket Nos. EL00-95-136, et al., 121 FERC 61,184 (November 19, 2007),
(2) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order denying rehearing of FERC's 9/14/06 Order regarding CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc.’s (CARE) petition for rehearing of the Commission order issued on September 14, 2006",[] under EL00-95-189 et al., 118 FERC 61,088 (February 7, 2007),
(3) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on clarification", under EL00-95-000 et al., 112 FERC 61,249 (September 2, 2005),
(4) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on cost recovery, revising procedural schedule for refunds, and establishing technical conference", under EL00-95-000 et al., 112 FERC 61,176 (August 8, 2005),
(5) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on Auditor Selection", under EL00-95-098 et al., 111 FERC 61,434 (June 20, 2005),
(6) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on Williams Settlement 2", under EL00-95-000 et al., 111 FERC 61,186 (May 9, 2005),
(7) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order granting in part & denying in part rehearing, providing clarification & extending deadline for submission of fuel cost allowance claims", under EL00-95-098 et al., 110 FERC 61,293 (March 8, 2005),
(8) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order Granting Motion and Requesting Comments", under EL00-95-100 et al., 109 FERC 61,264 (December 10, 2004),
(9) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on Duke Settlement", under EL00-95-100 et al., 109 FERC 61,257 (December 7, 2004),
(10) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order denying rehearing on order issued 6/27/04", under EL00-95-000 et al., 109 FERC 61,024 (October 7, 2004),
(11) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on Williams Settlement 1", under EL00-95-104 et al., 108 FERC 61,102 (July 2, 2004),
(12) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order addressing fuel cost allowances issues ", under EL00-95-045 et al., 107 FERC 61,116 (May 12, 2004),
(13) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order addressing fuel cost allowances issues ", under EL00-95-062 et al., 105 FERC 61,065 (October 16, 2003),
(14) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order denying consolidation and granting protective order", under EL00-95-000 et al., 103 FERC 61,139 (June 27, 2003),
(15) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on Proposed Findings on Refund Liability", under EL00-95-000 et al., 102 FERC 61,317 (March 26, 2003),
(16) Fact Finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation, "Order directing the release of information re Fact Finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation of Electric & Natural Gas Prices", under PA02-2-000 et al., 102 FERC 61,311 (March 21, 2003),
(17) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on compliance filing", under EL00-95-071 et al., 102 FERC 61,285 (March 13, 2003),
(18) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on compliance filing", under EL00-95-063 et al., 101 FERC 61,112 (October 31, 2002),
(19) Mirant Delta, LLC et al v California Independent System Operator Corp et al., "Order accepting and denying requests for rehearing and denying requests for stay", under EL01-35 et al., 100 FERC 61,271 (September 16, 2002),
(20) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on rehearing and clarification", under EL00-95-053 et al., 99 FERC 61,160 (May 15, 2002),
(21) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order accepting in part & rejecting in part compliance filing", under EL00-95-058 et al., 99 FERC 61,158 (May 15, 2002),
(22) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order on clarification and rehearing", under EL00-95-001 et al., (December 19, 2001),
(23) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order rejecting petition and motion of Californians for Renewable Energy Inc request for compensation for participation expenses and other relief ", under EL00-95-045 et al., 97 FERC 61,275 (November 5, 2001),
(24) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, 96 FERC 61,203; Letter Order", under EL00-95-031 et al., 96 FERC 61,203 (August 13, 2001),
(25) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order Establishing Evidentiary Hearing Procedures, Granting Rehearing in Part, and Denying Rehearing in Part ", under EL00-95-004 et al., 96 FERC 61,120 (July 25, 2001),
(26) San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., "Order Directing Remedies", under EL00-95-000 et al., 93 FERC 61,294 (December 15, 2000),
(27) CAlifornians for Renewable Energy Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission, et al., "Order dismissing complaints." Docket Nos. EL07-49-000 and EL07-50-000, et al., 120 FERC 61,272 (September 24, 2007), and
(28) CAlifornians for Renewable Energy Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission, et al., "Order dismissing complaints." Docket Nos. EL07-37-000 and EL07-40-000, et al., 119 FERC 61,058 (April 19, 2007)[].
Case#09-71515
(1) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., "Order on rehearing, motion for conditions and compliance filing re Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. et al under EL03-152 et al., 126 FERC 61,234 (March 19, 2009),
(2) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., "Order on Conditionally Approving Settlement", Docket Nos. EL03-152-002, et al., 125 FERC 61,345 (December 22, 2008).
The common issue in CARE’s Petitions for Review before the Court is the same as is before the FERC.
See Request for Rehearing of CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc., v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al of the January 28, 2011 EL10-84 [pp. 8-9]
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=8913346
Order denying rehearing re Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc v Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al under EL10-84.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12589657
See 07/01/2009 Testimony and Exhibits of CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) under EL02-71, et. al.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12067590
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12067591
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12067592
See 05/04/2011 EL02-71-017 Opinion No. 512 - Order Affirming Initial Decision re State of California, ex rel Bill Lockyer etc v British Columbia Power Exchange Corp. et al that fails to include or address CARE's evidence.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12655197
See Memorandum to File dated 3/11/11 re CARE Recusal Motion under EL00-95 et al.
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12585973
Finally I am attaching my May 10, 2011 complaint to the IRS against CAISO.
"I respectfully complain against the referred organization California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CA ISO”). The organization is engaged in commercial, for-profit business activities whose income was unrelated debt-financed income, which was not excluded by reason of section 512(b)(3). Consequently, California Independent System Operator Corporation is operated for the primary purpose of carrying on a "trade or business" within the meaning of section 502, so as to preclude tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3)."
Respectfully,
Michael E. Boyd President (CARE)
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc.
5439 Soquel Drive
Soquel, CA 95073
Phone: (408) 891-9677
E-mail: [email protected]
