California Breaking News

| News and Analysis | Other Resources |

Governor Davis Declares End of Energy Crisis 11/18

FERC Says State Can’t Void Inflated Energy Contracts 11/12

California Energy Commission Approves Notice of Electric Prices 11/5

PG&E’s Exit from Bankruptcy Predicted in First Quarter of 2004 10/29

Higher Natural Gas Rates for PG&E’s Sacramento Customers 10/17

IDACORP Settles FERC’s Calif. Trading Accusations 10/17

Schwarzenegger Aims to Repair Calif. Power Market 10/7

State Asks FERC to Reject Crisis Settlements 10/2

PG&E Customers Receive One-time Credit on Electric Bills 9/'26

State Legislature Key to CA Future Energy Policy 9/26

Grid’s Bottleneck Fix Results in Higher Rates 9/18

PG&E, Consumer Groups Agree to Rate Case Settlement 9/17

California Consumers To Get One-Time Electric Credit 9/8

Mirant Has Tentative FERC Deal on Califorina Case 8/29

AEP in Deal with FERC on California Power Case 8/28

Supreme Court Upholds Energy Bill Hikes 8/22

PUC Revokes Plan to Lay Off Power Plant Inspectors 8/22

Electricity Rates Drop Today For Southern California Edison Customers 8/1

Governor Davis Declares End of Energy Crisis

(November 18) Californians can finally relax, turn up their air conditioning and plug in the DVD to watch the latest Terminator movie - the state's energy crisis, which led to blackouts and bankruptcies, is officially over.

On Nov. 13, the state's former governor, Gray Davis, who was replaced on Nov. 17 by Terminator star Arnold Schwarzenegger, officially rescinded the state of emergency signed in January 2001.

And on Nov. 14, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) backed that view, with a report showing a dramatic improvement in the outlook for the western U.S.

"WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council) is showing the greatest increase in projected capacity margin," said George Bartlett of NERC said, referring to the region that covers the Western United States and parts of Western Canada.

Bartlett, who chairs a NERC subcommittee that monitors grid reliability across the whole of North America, attributed the improvement to the construction of a large fleet of new power plants, a factor Davis also highlighted.

"I thank those who worked to expedite construction of 24 new power plants. And I will always be grateful to Californians for their extraordinary efforts at energy conservation in 2001 and 2002," Davis said in a statement issued late Nov. 13.

California was hit by blackouts and the bankruptcy of its largest utility, San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric, a unit of PG&E Corp., as power prices skyrocketed in 2000 and early 2001.

The crisis was triggered partly by flaws in the state's experiment with electricity deregulation and exacerbated by rampant market manipulation by some power providers whom introduced Californians to terms like "megawatt laundering."

At its peak there was talk that senior citizens, scared of running up massive electricity bills they could never afford to pay, were turning off their refrigerators in scorching Southern California while workers sweated in state and federal buildings where the air conditioning had been turned down to save power.

Governor-elect Schwarzenegger's main job now will be to continue the battle to get federal regulators to back the state's claim that it is owed a refund on billions of dollars it spent buying power during the crisis.

"The market manipulators still owe California's ratepayers more than $9 billion. FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) should order that refund immediately," Davis said.

FERC has not yet ruled on California's refund demand.

Source: Reuters


FERC Says State Can’t Void Inflated Energy Contracts

(November 12)  Federal energy regulators have reiterated their stance that California officials should not be allowed to void long-term energy contracts that the state says were signed at inflated prices.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would not reconsider its original decision, made in June.

California began buying power in 2001 after the state's biggest utilities were driven into debt by soaring power prices. The state ultimately signed $42 billion worth of energy contracts, typically for periods of 10 to 20 years.

Many of the contracts have expired or been renegotiated. But officials had wanted to renegotiate others. They say that power generators manipulated the daily power market, which drove up the price of long-term contracts.

But federal officials said they found no reason to modify their original decision, noting there was no evidence that market manipulation "specifically affected the contracts at issue."

FERC Commissioner William Massey dissented from the decision, saying that the "public interest requires that the contracts at issue be reformed."

Source: San Jose Mercury News

California Energy Commission Approves Notice of Electric Prices

(November 5) The California Energy Commission on Monday approved a feasibility report to give utility customers advance notice of electricity prices so they could adjust their consumption of power.

The CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission are working on so-called dynamic pricing as one way to help the state save energy and reduce demand for power during the peak summer months. Pricing programs, which may give consumers real-time, 4-hour and 24-hour notice of power prices, drew interest during California's energy crisis in 2000-2001, marked by rolling blackouts and the financial collapse of the state's major utilities.

In summer 2001, a variety of energy conservation efforts cut peak demand by more than 5,500 megawatts, or power for more than 5 million homes.

The CEC said many commercial and industrial customers have already installed special meters needed for pricing programs, where higher prices during peak demand periods are offset by lower rates during hours of lighter demand.

"Use of these rates may help the state avoid electricity crises by sending strong price signals to customers to reduce peak electric demand or shift electric use to off-peak periods," the CEC said in a report to the Legislature and Gov. Gray Davis.

The CEC said real-time wholesale prices are expected to be set and publicly available from the California Independent System Operator, the state's grid manager, in spring 2005.

The pricing programs could cut 2,200 to 11,000 megawatts from California's total electricity peak demand of 50,000 megawatts, according to the CEC's report.

The CEC recommended more work on pricing for small and large customers and cost and benefit studies of new meters.

Source: Reuters

PG&E’s Exit from Bankruptcy Predicted in First Quarter of 2004

(October 29) PG&E Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Glynn said on Tuesday the company's Pacific Gas & Electric utility is on track to reemerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the first quarter.

"The proposed settlement agreement and a new plan of reorganization are proceeding on schedule through approval processes at the California Public Utilities Commission and in the bankruptcy court. We believe it is on track to achieve the first quarter 2004 target for the utility's exit from Chapter 11" Glynn told analysts at Edison Electric Institute's annual financial conference.

Glynn also reaffirmed the company's previously issued earnings forecast for 2003 of $1.90 to $2.00 per share and 2004 of $2.00 to $2.10 per share. Both projections exclude its merchant energy unit National Energy Group which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this year. PG&E has said it expects to sever ties with Bethesda, Maryland-based NEG as part of the latter company's restructuring under bankruptcy protection.

Earlier this month, PG&E announced that more than 97 percent of voting creditors voted to support utility Pacific Gas & Electric's plan of reorganization.

The company said Pacific Gas & Electric is expected to reemerge from bankruptcy with an investment-grade credit rating, an authorized return on equity of 11.22 percent and with a $2.21 billion "regulatory asset" that can be included in its rate base.

Glynn also said Pacific Gas' proposed "general rate case" settlement would ensure revenue that help the utility earn its authorized return on equity and also let it raise rates as needed to cover costs over the next three years.

Source: Reuters

Higher Natural Gas Rates for PG&E’s Sacramento Customers

(October 17) Natural gas rates went up 30 percent this month for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers, but it's uncertain what winter will bring.

A PG&E spokesperson said that October gas bills averaged $24.95 for the average household, up from $19.18 a year ago. The utility made no price forecast but said it believes supplies will be tight this winter and recommended conservation steps ranging from turning down thermostats to purchasing energy-efficient furnaces.

Despite the October price spike, most experts believe price increases this winter will be relatively moderate and nothing like the calamitous 60 percent increase PG&E customers suffered at the height of the energy crisis in early 2001.

The U.S. Department of Energy, in its official short-term outlook, says prices nationwide are expected to go up 9 percent this winter. David Maul, manager of the natural gas office at the California Energy Commission, predicted "slightly higher gas prices." And Tom Woods, a natural gas consultant with Platts Research & Consulting in Boulder, Colo., said consumers could catch a break. "Market fundamentals say things should go through in pretty good shape," he said.

Yet most experts believe the price increases could be worse if it's a colder-than-normal winter. Last March PG&E's prices went up 10 percent because cold weather in the Northeast triggered a huge spike in demand, drawing supplies away from the West Coast. But prices quickly subsided.

The state's supply situation has been stabilized by the completion of a pipeline expansion near the Kern River, which brings more supplies from the Rocky Mountains, according to Maul of the California Energy Commission. The expansion, completed in May, routed more gas to Southern California but is a boon to the whole state, Maul said.

Source: Knight Ridder Tribune Business News

IDACORP Settles FERC’s Calif. Trading Accusations

(October 17) On October 16, IDACORP Inc. said it would pay $83,373 in a settlement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to end allegations of unfair trading practices during the California energy crisis of 2000-01.

The Idaho utility's proposed settlement is the latest in a string of agreements that FERC lawyers have reached with energy trading companies in recent weeks.

In June, FERC commissioners identified 43 companies that may have used questionable electricity trading strategies, and ordered the firms to "show cause" why they should not have to repay the profits gained from such trades.

IDACORP did not admit any wrongdoing in the proposed settlement filed with FERC. FERC had accused IDACORP's Idaho Power Co. unit of a series of transactions that falsely appeared to relieve congestion in the market. The utility was paid $83,373 in congestion relief payments between January 2000 and June 2001.

"Idaho Power Co. has chosen not to bear the expense of pursuing the matter further, and will refund the full amount associated with the transactions in question," the company told FERC, which must approve the proposed settlement. The case is pending in docket EL03-156.

Source: Reuters

Schwarzenegger Aims to Repair Calif. Power Market

(October 8) Arnold Schwarzenegger vows to put market economics to work to fix California's electricity market, but critics warn his plan merely repackages much of the state's failed deregulation law.

"I give his plans a grade of 'F'. Arnold would impose a failed policy on us. It's dangerous for our economy," said Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission appointed by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the subject of an Oct. 7 recall that ousted him from office.

But the plan also contains elements that energy analysts advocate, including a more competitive marketplace, new power plants, upgrading the transmission grid, and closer coordination of power supplies with neighboring states.

Schwarzenegger's campaign attacked Davis for his handling of the 2000-2001 energy crisis, which ended up costing the state billions of dollars in emergency power purchases after the lights went out.

The poorly crafted 1996 law was also blamed for opening the door to market manipulation by energy traders who created artificial shortages to run up prices.

Republican Schwarzenegger's energy proposal has drawn little notice in a boisterous campaign rocked by allegations of sexual harassment of women by the action movie superstar.

While a Schwarzenegger spokesman was not available to discuss the energy strategy, a statement called "Solving California's Energy Crisis" on the candidate's Web site outlines a market-based strategy to "restore stability to our energy system and stimulate private investment in electricity generation and transmission."

The plan calls for reshaping California's wholesale power market by borrowing from market deregulation in Texas, New England and the Middle Atlantic states and adopting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's plan to revamp the nation's grid by creating super-regional transmission systems.

Among Schwarzenegger's 16-step program is a law to speed up CPUC rulings on utility contracts to buy electricity and limit "after the fact" price reviews by state regulators.

Another step calls for power generators to maintain a "critical buffer" of electricity reserves to prevent blackouts and price spikes, but offered no details.

The goal is "make markets work," but Lynch called most of the steps "a retread" of the deregulation bill signed into law by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

Chris Thornberg, senior economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said "the big problem was California never had deregulation; we had a bizarre form of reregulation that allowed small portions of the overall market to mimic a real market."

Thornberg said he had not seen Schwarzenegger's plan, but said a deregulated state market "must give consumers choices and a clear set of rules. We live in a world that relies on free markets to supply more of our goods. Why should power be different?"

Source: Reuters News Service

State Asks FERC to Reject Crisis Settlements

(October 2) On October 1, California agencies and utilities urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject a string of proposed settlements energy companies reached with the agency on price manipulation charges during the state's 2000-01 energy crisis.

FERC staff reached nine tentative settlements over the last month with companies including American Electric Power Co. Inc., Reliant Resources Inc. and bankrupt Mirant Corp. The largest agreement to date is with Morgan Stanley for $857,089. Most of the other proposed settlements, which must be approved by FERC commissioners, are for less than $75,000. California officials have criticized the settlements as a "drop in the bucket" which pale in comparison to the $8.9 billion the state has demanded for price gouging during its energy crisis. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the California Electricity Oversight Board, California Public Utilities Commission and two state utilities complained that FERC was taking a "piecemeal approach" to manipulation charges.

The agencies told FERC it should refuse to certify tentative settlements with Reliant, Sempra Energy, Morgan Stanley and Portland General, the utility arm of bankrupt Enron Corp., among others. The agencies heaped extra criticism on a proposed deal with Reliant, which they criticized as a "whitewash" that ignored "a concerted pattern of deception and distortion." Reliant has denied any wrongdoing. The company paid $13.8 million in January to settle allegations that it intentionally shut down some of its power plants during California's crisis to boost prices. FERC commissioners in June identified Reliant as one of 43 companies that may have used questionable electricity trading strategies.

FERC ordered the firms to "show cause" why they should not have to repay the profits gained from such trades. The agency did not quantify the total amount of money at stake. FERC staff has also proposed that 18 such cases be dropped because of insufficient evidence -- including those against Bonneville Power Administration, PG&E Corp. , Public Service of Colorado and the Western Area Power Administration.

Source: Reuters

PG&E Customers Receive One-time Credit on Electric Bills

(September 26) Earlier this week, Pacific Gas and Electric Company customers began receiving a one-time credit on the electric portion of their monthly utility bill. PG&E's residential customers will receive an average bill credit of approximately $40. (Credit amounts will vary depending on actual electric usage from August 2002 to July 2003.)

The refunds are the result of a California Public Utilities Commission decision on September 4 that authorized PG&E to refund customers a total of $444 million. That money had been previously collected from customers to pay the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for future power purchases.

The refund was made available because DWR, which was buying power on behalf of utility customers, no longer needed the reserve it had set aside. On PG&E bills issued between September 19 and October 19, the one-time rebate will appear as the "DWR Credit" on the line item portion of the electric statement.

Source: www.pge.com

State Legislature Key to CA Future Energy Policy

(September 26) California's state legislature needs to re-direct the state's energy policy in the next 12 months to avoid facing the same crisis the state had in 2000-01, according to a key state lawmaker who is pushing for a rollback of the state's failed electric deregulation effort.

State Sen. Joe Dunn, the chair of the state legislative investigative committee looking at wholesale energy market manipulation, was unsparing in his criticism of federal and state regulators' roles in California's lingering energy crisis. "Both failed miserably," Dunn said in a speech he gave Sept. 25 at a conference in San Francisco, titled "Energy Regulation in California." In addition, Dunn said he is on what he described as a "witch hunt" aimed at the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). He said many of CAISO's officials "simply have to go."

Daniel Fessler, a former president of the California Public Utilities Commission and one of the architects of the state's deregulation plan, said the CAISO was only conceived as an "interim" solution because longer term it has no incentive to invest in new transmission, which is still owned by the state's three major individual private-sector electric utilities.

Fessler said that the whole question of what is the "public interest role" for private-sector energy players still needs to be answered. He said the failure of California's electric industry restructuring was caused by much more than just a flawed market design, which is often ascribed as the heart of the problem.

An unabashed opponent of deregulation, Dunn said the experiment begun by Fessler and others "hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work." He said the state legislature needs to end its current stalemate over competing visions of the state's energy future and re-articulate a state energy policy by the end of next year's legislative session or there will be a state constitutional amendment on a future ballot for the electorate to decide. Dunn also said all of the political polls indicate that a solid 90% of the voters favor a return to re-regulation of energy.

Coming from different political and economical philosophies, Fessler and Dunn, however, agreed that the ball should be in the state legislature's court to address the lingering need for a clearer long-term policy.

Dunn was far more critical of both private- and public-sector stakeholders. He said while it is well-intentioned, the new state "energy action plan" carved out earlier this year by the state's three major energy agencies (the California Public Utilities Commission, California Power Authority, and California Energy Commission) will not work without state lawmakers answering the question of where California is headed on energy.

Source: NGI, Inc.

Grid’s Bottleneck Fix Results in Higher Rates

(September 18) Financing has been lined up for a $330 million project to ease a major transmission bottleneck that has contributed to California's electricity woes, and construction can begin immediately, officials said on September 16.

The project involves adding a third high-voltage transmission line to the 84-mile Path 15 corridor through the Central Valley to improve power transfers between Northern and Southern California.

Grid officials say the limited power capacity through that stretch contributed to the state's power problems during the 2001 energy crisis. California was hit with rolling blackouts and soaring wholesale prices.

The Western Area Power Administration, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and the Virginia-based transmission company Trans-Elect formed a public-private partnership to build the new line across largely open farmland.

The cost of the upgrade, proposed to be completed by the end of 2004, is expected to add about 20 cents per month to California electric bills.

Source: Associated Press

PG&E, Consumer Groups Agree to Rate Case Settlement

(September 17)  Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has announced that it has reached an agreement with The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), Aglet Consumer Alliance, the Modesto Irrigation District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association in its 2003 General Rate Case (GRC). The utility is now asking the CPUC for a final approval of the settlement.

According to the terms of the settlement, PG&E would receive an increase in revenues of approximately $236 million for its electric distribution operations, $52 million for its gas distribution operations, and $38 million for its electric generation operations. The settlement represents a significant reduction from the increases PG&E sought in its November 2002 application of $447 million for its electric distribution operations, $105 million for its gas distribution operations, and $149 million for its electric generation operations.

No increase in retail customer electric rates is expected because the increases stemming from this settlement would be offset by decreases in other areas. Residential gas customers would see an increase in the average natural gas bill of approximately $0.86 per month, from $37.95 to $38.81.

PG&E also agreed to enhance its customer service Quality Assurance Program by redefining some existing customer service standards and adding new standards as recommended by ORA. The settlement would also formalize PG&E's voluntary "Safety Net" program.

The settlement would also provide for yearly adjustments in revenues in 2004, 2005 and 2006 based upon growth in the Consumer Price Index.

The parties have requested that the CPUC issue a final decision approving this settlement agreement by February 5, 2004.

Source: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

California Consumers To Get One-Time Electric Credit

(September 8) Customers of PG&E and the state's two other major energy companies will start seeing a one-time refund credited to their bills this month. It is the first tangible relief for ratepayers since California plunged into an energy crisis three years ago.

The refund will average about $40 per residential user, the state Public Utilities Commission said. The actual amount will depend on each customer's energy use over the past 12 months.

Although the refund is modest and does not affect the base electric rates that customers pay, state regulators called it a sign that the state's energy woes are abating.

The refund totals about $1 billion statewide and also will go to customers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. The credit is possible because the state Department of Water Resources adjusted its estimate of how much money it needed to operate this year.

The department began buying power on behalf of the state's utilities during the energy crisis and has been collecting money from ratepayers to pay for the power and its operations.

PG&E had sought to delay the refund until it emerges from bankruptcy protection, expected in early 2004. The utility filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001, and company officials were worried the $444 million in refunds it is issuing would disrupt its cash flow.

A PUC administrative law judge echoed PG&E's concerns and issued a proposed decision in August to stall the PG&E refund until next year. But, sensing how unpopular that would be with PG&E ratepayers, commissioners quickly rejected that idea.

Refunds will start to appear in bills for all California ratepayers sometime around Sept. 19, the commission said. The exact date will vary based on customers' billing cycles.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Mirant Has Tentative FERC Deal on Califorina Case

(August 29) Bankrupt energy trader Mirant Corp. said it has reached a tentative deal with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff to settle charges that it violated rules during California's 2000-01 energy crisis.

Atlanta-based Mirant "has reached a settlement in principle in this proceeding with FERC staff," the firm said in a filing released by the agency on Aug. 28. The firm said it will file a formal agreement with the agency by Sept. 9.   The deal would still have to be approved by the three-member commission before being finalized.

The firm will not admit to guilt as part of the settlement, spokesman Buddy Eller said. "We strongly believe that we are not in violation of any tariffs," Eller said, declining to discuss financial terms of the settlement.

In June, FERC commissioners identified Mirant among 43 companies that may have used questionable electricity trading strategies and ordered the firms to "show cause" why they should not have to repay the profits gained from such trades. The agency did not quantify the amount of money at stake.

Mirant, strapped with $11.4 billion in debt, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in July after talks with bondholders and banks to restructure its debt failed.

Mirant's was the second tentative settlement to come out of closed-door agency talks set to run through November.

Source: Reuters

AEP in Deal with FERC on California Power Case

(August 28) American Electric Power has reached a deal with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff to settle charges the giant utility violated rules during California's 2000-01 energy crisis. It agreed to repay the amount it gained from the practices, only $45,240, according to a copy of the agreement with trial staff released by FERC on August 19. AEP admitted to no guilt by repaying the amount, it said.

FERC in June found that Columbus, Ohio-based AEP was among the firms that may have used questionable trading strategies, and ordered AEP to "show cause" why it should not repay profits gained from such trades.

The settlement is not effective until it is approved by a FERC judge and finalized by the three-person commission.

FERC's June show-cause order found that AEP submitted false transmission requests to create false congestion on the California grid, a practice dubbed as "Death Star" in internal Enron Corp. memos made public by FERC. However, FERC staff said AEP's trading "does not fit the Commission's definition of Death Star. Therefore, there is no cause of action to pursue."

Source: Reuters

Supreme Court Upholds Energy Bill Hikes

(August 22) Weighing in on the state's failed deregulated energy market for the first time, the California Supreme Court ruled on August 21 that California’s Public Utility Commission (CPUC) lawfully imposed an electricity rate increase of as much as 40 percent in 2001.

The seven-member court ruled 6-to-1 that the agreement did not violate California’s deregulation rules nor breached open meeting laws when commissioners approved the rate increase in private to settle a lawsuit from Southern California Edison Co. At stake was at least $3.3 billion in customer utility fees.

The settlement with the CPUC allowed Edison, and also Pacific Gas & Electric Co., to collect a surcharge to cover their costs of delivering power. The CPUC settled the federal suit with Edison in October 2001 to help Edison pay debts by maintaining for two more years a temporary rate increase approved a year earlier.

Consumer groups challenged the settlement after Edison and PG&E amassed billions in debts when wholesale electricity rates soared beyond the frozen retail rates that utilities could recover from customers in 2000 and 2001 under deregulation rules. Lawmakers debated for months what role the state should play in the utilities' future, but legislation to bail them out failed and the CPUC responded after being sued.

The utilities argued that federal energy rules demand they get compensated for the electricity they are selling. To settle Edison's suit, the CPUC extended the surcharge in a private meeting, allowing both utilities to generate billions in new revenues.

PG&E kept its suit against the CPUC alive, and rather than settle, decided to file for bankruptcy protection. Proceeds from PG&E's rate hike are now being factored into its proposed deal to restore its solvency.

Source: California newspapers

PUC Revokes Plan to Lay Off Power Plant Inspectors

(August 22) A plan to lay off recently hired power plant inspectors by mid-October has been rescinded by the California Public Utilities Commission, but it warns the layoffs could be part of a broader cutback in staffing early next year.

Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the PUC, said the commission was taking a risk by keeping employees on payroll longer. "We decided not to trigger the worst case scenario until the worst case arrives," Prosper said. The PUC opted for the delay in hopes that the budget cuts expected to hammer the agency aren't required, she said.

If nothing changes, the commission is likely to include the recently hired inspectors in a layoff plan it expects to submit early next year that includes 50 to 200 of its 875 employees.

The inspection team was created after the state power crisis to ensure that generating plants are properly maintained and reported outages are legitimate. State officials and consumer advocates believe bogus shutdowns contributed to the shortages during the crisis of 2000 and 2001. The team includes about 20 people most hired this year who are responsible for inspecting more than 200 generating facilities in the state. Under the last hired, first fired seniority system at the PUC, the inspectors were among the first in line for layoff.

Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, said it was likely that reaction to reports of the planned layoffs and the massive outage in the Northeast persuaded the commission to delay the layoffs as long as possible.  "I'm sure this is a battle we're going to have to fight, but this is a huge temporary relief.  It's a continuation of an insurance policy that is still on the block but at least we still have some coverage," Shames said.

Source: The San Diego Union Tribune

Electricity Rates Drop Today For Southern California Edison Customers

(August 1) Beginning today, electricity rates for customers of Southern California Edison (SCE) drop by 8 to 19 percent.

The rate change is based on SCE's previous forecast that during July it would complete recovery of $3.6 billion in uncollected power procurement costs incurred on behalf of customers during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis.

SCE filed a rate reduction plan last January, anticipating a midyear completion of its cost recovery effort and the possibility of reduced rates in early fall. Subsequently, a settlement was reached with representatives of various customer groups that included the use of forecasted rather than after-the-fact cost-recovery verification and made possible earlier rate reductions. Based on forecasts that pointed to full recovery in July, the California Public Utilities Commission voted on July 10 to authorize rate reductions, beginning today.

The anticipated reductions will benefit all customer groups -- residential, small, medium-sized, and large businesses as well as agricultural and street-lighting customers. Average rate reductions for businesses are larger than those for residential customers, because businesses paid higher energy crisis rate surcharges.

Participants in the state's low-income California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program will retain their 20% bill discount.

Source: http://www.edisonnews.com

Back to News