| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
It was designed to protect ratepayers and utilities as well. The objective was
to work in the public interest, which I've always interpreted [as] a balancing
of both ensuring companies' viability and financial health ... and consequently
that meant that rates to utility consumers should be as low as possible. ...
Yes, which is still in the statutes that FERC is mandated to ensure that the
rates that it allows utilities and power marketers to charge are just and
reasonable. ...
In the past, under regulation, ... the commission always could go back to
looking at the cost and determining what the rates would be just and
reasonable, based on booked costs of the utilities. ...
No, in the era of deregulation, the theory is that if you have competitive
markets, then the competition between the utilities and power marketers will
ensure that the rates are at the level of cost. That is not happening in the
West. The rates are, as best I can tell, averaging 10 times what they were a
couple of years ago and costs have not increased 10 times over the last couple
of years, so...
It hasn't been the case so far, not in the U.S. Generally, prices have been
higher in most of the regions where we have these independent systems operating
... and where the price of electricity generally within those regions is being
set by auctions. Probably, during parts of the year, those prices are lower
now than they were in the past. But during peak seasons, in the summertime,
those prices have skyrocketed in just about all the [independent system
operators]. ...
Yes. ... The vagueness of that standard was made clear in then-Chairman [Jim]
Hoecker's January 4 concurrence to that order, where he said that the
commission has not specified a workable standard for evaluating when rates are
not just and reasonable, and the future commission is going to have to do
something about that. He conceded, essentially, that the commission was
operating without a clear standard for market power. ...
I believe we're letting the market police itself. We are not policing. We
haven't historically been a policeman. In fact, I believe if you go back to
the commission's order in instituting its investigation of California and
markets around the country last July, it made clear that it wasn't going out
there looking for bad guys and trying to police the situation. They wanted to
understand what was happening in the markets, and then to make some judgments
about it. The commission did not--could not--see that prices being so much
higher than they were the previous summer was a problem that should be remedied
at that point. They were not willing to do anything to limit the liability of
the utilities or consumers in California. ...
Yes. And the commission has not been there. The commission [has] not set
itself up to be a cop looking for rule infractions and market power abuse. The
commission has deregulated in a way that it expects the marketplace will work
itself out; or it wants the marketplace to work itself out, and thinks it's
going to do a better job than if it lets its staff go out and try to enforce
rules and regulations.
... My sense is that quite a few of the staff agree with me that the commission does not have a clear interest in enforcing any of its rules and regulations in the sense that it relies on the marketplace to bring it filings and to complain. When the complaints do come in, the commission will look at something.
But generally, if you're going [to] file a complaint with the commission saying
that somebody's exercising market power over you in an area, you have to
pretty much have all of the information together and present it as a full case
to the commission. ... The commission has some good staff who actually go out
and have done some good investigations. But generally, the commission does not
have the staff capability, does not have the resources, to go out and
investigate every instance. ...
"Once again, it seems that FERC has caved in to the utility industry or some
segment, with the effect of making us, FERC staff, impotent in our ability to
lodge or foster and ensure competitive electric power markets."
Yes. ... Coincidentally, because I didn't have a clear picture of was going to
happen in California throughout last summer, but it was just right after the
May price spikes in California ...
Very little. What I did with my memo was, I attached it to an email to all commission staff, an open memo. ... I emailed that around to people around 8:30. A little after 9:00, my supervisor came in. He discovered it, he'd heard about it, and he asked me to retract it. I held off retracting it until I felt at least 50 percent of the staff had opened it, and I retracted it from the rest of the people who hadn't opened it.
I got a few emails from other staff, most of them praising me for talking the
risk. One senior staff emailed me, very angry that I would complain about
something--that this is the first time he had ever heard about any of these
issues. I thought that was crazy.
Oh, yes, I was pretty angry. ... And I have to tell you, California was not on
my mind when I was writing my memo.
It was the rest of the country. It was a presentation by a consultant a couple
of weeks earlier where he documented--after painstaking efforts, pulling
together data that we've allowed to be made almost impenetrable by market
players--that he made a good presentation showing market power abuses around
the country using control of transmission lines.
No. ... Actually, he was brought in by Enron. Enron was paying him, Enron and it was a group of power marketers. They were raising issues about market power abuses in areas outside of the ISOs, where transmission was the motive. ...
The [FERC] staff hadn't done any of that kind of work. We knew that it would
take a humongous effort to be able to pull together the data that this
consultant had pulled together, follow through it and identify market power
abuses specific that we could take...
That was exposing in that area that we were impotent in our ability to monitor and police the industry and that rampant abuses were taking place.
The second thing was that a group of senior staff, the week before I wrote my
memo, went to the North American Electric Power Reliability Council to talk ...
to them about getting access to data on supply and demand for electric power in
the industry, which they were the primary holders of.
Yes.
Yes. They would have a lot of the physical information about what was
happening around the country. Without that data, [it] was virtually impossible
to understand how power was flowing around the country, and where market power
abuses might be taking place. ... I was upset because I wasn't even asked to
attend, and I probably was the one staff person who had been complaining about
this data for two years. ...
I didn't think my job was going to be on the line. I feel like--I've been
there 25 years. I've essentially got tenure. They can't fire me unless
they've got cause, and as far as I know, writing a memo like that is not just
cause for firing somebody.
No, what made me into a whistleblower was when it was leaked to the press. ...
Within a few days, the office director for my office wrote a short memo that he
sent to all staff referring to my issues as legitimate, but difficult issues,
saying that the process that I used was inappropriate--that I was essentially
trying to do an end run around ...
Yes, because nobody was listening to me. ...
Early on in the California market, when it was first deregulated, prices went
up as high as $1,000. ... In the same kind of markets in New York, shortly
after they opened up, prices went up to like $6,000 or $10,000 a year, I'm not
sure. ...
Yes, I get very little direction from anybody above me to go and do anything
specific. Essentially, during the summer of 1999, all of my analysis and
everything, I was just told to be on this team, to look at and monitor markets.
So I spent most of that time pulling data and analyzing the data, and looking
at it more closely than we normally would.
Yes, I was suspicious. I did not see that normal supply and demand conditions
were explaining everything that was going on. I wanted to learn about how the
markets were working. ... In the past, under regulation, we didn't have to know
how trading was taking place between people, because it was all cost-based. ...
There just no clear signals from the commissioners or the majority of the
commissioners or from senior staff that anybody wants commission staff to look
for problems in the industry. If the commission finds problems out there, it
means that its policies are not working. So it's kind of an incentive to
not find the problems. It only goes out and looks for problems when it
wants to set a new policy. ...
I call it the "Field of Dreams" approach to deregulation of electric utilities. We've deregulated utility by utility, power market by power market and things. If we deregulate everybody's rates, the more people that we'll let charge whatever they want, then competition will come. Well, I don't think we've seen competition come anywhere in the country yet. And whether or not it's going to come is hard to imagine. ...
There's been some prediction that only a few, less than 10 companies, are going
to own 80 percent of the generation capacity in the country. ...
The commission's approach to deregulation has been haphazard, and designed to
create a rocky road to deregulation, to competitive markets. I have not come
to any firm conclusions about whether or not deregulation can work for electric
utilities. ... But I do believe that if it's going to come, it's got to be
managed a lot better than it is. ...
Yes. I, along with everyone else, believe that California is going to have
horrendous prices, and I don't see any end to it unless the commission makes
some changes. ... FERC has primary responsibility for the California problem
because FERC controls the wholesale electricity markets. California cannot do
anything about what generators want to charge for their generation. If FERC
lets them charge 10 times what their costs are, California can't do anything
except eat the cost. ...
A price cap, or Commissioner [William] Massey has a proposal that makes a lot
of sense. I think it's been proposed by academics in California, too-- where
you just require the generators to recover their costs, the variable operating
costs. It's not a return to cost-based regulation. It's just knowing what
their fuel costs are and allowing them to get those costs. ...
To me that has to reflect a purely ideological focus. ...
Yes. But he has fought price caps ever since he's been a commissioner on the
commission. He does not believe in price caps. He thinks that any attempt to
restrain prices is going to backfire in giving the wrong signals to companies
in building new generation. ... To me, that's wrong. ...
What's wrong with a price cap that is above the costs needed to build a new
plant? ... That should be adequate to incent people to build new plants,
especially if that's a definite price. ... Essentially, what I'm saying is that
price caps should not be a problem to generators and new construction as long
as the cap is set at a level that is above costs. ...
Yes. A big part of why I'm speaking now is because I'm seeing the beginnings
of some projects that involve getting additional data, getting more capability
to do the things that I've thought the commission should be doing for years.
And if I back off now and stop pushing, then those might get stopped when they
get finalized by the commission or the chairman, who I don't believe would, on
his own, have an inclination to do the investigation.
Yes.
I think he's a laissez-faire believer. And he probably epitomizes my perception of the commission over the last 10 years, in the sense of thinking that the less role the commission has out in the marketplace, the better the markets are going to work. Enforcing, going out and searching for problems, trying to enforce our regulations, would hamper competitive behavior. ...
I have no reason to believe that he's anything other than an honorable man and
following his beliefs. But his beliefs are different than mine in terms of how
you get competition working in the industry. You can't let the marketplace
enforce itself, at least not in this transition stage. We don't have
competition anywhere, and we won't get competition as long as there is no
incentive for people to have a level playing field set up for them. ...
FERC is the only one who can do anything about the wholesale prices. FERC has
full authority.
Yes. ... If the traders see an advantage that they can take advantage of a
situation, and they don't know whether that's going to be available the next
day, they'll take advantage as soon as they can. That's their job. There's
nothing malicious about it. It's just what they do, and it's how they make
their money. ...
I haven't been especially proud of FERC in the last few years. And I've
probably said things that might be hyperbole a little, but to make a point. I
think that FERC needs to acknowledge that it does not have the staff, the
resources, to do an adequate job of policing the industry, and it should not
tell the public that it is policing when, in fact, it is not. ...
... FERC has permitted everybody to do whatever they want to do, and we'll
tinker on the edges. Many FERC staff believe that California brought their
problems on themselves, because they bulldozed their deregulation plan through
the FERC. They probably did do a lot of bulldozing, and FERC acquiesced on a
lot of stuff. But FERC had the ultimate responsibility of regulating the
wholesale market in California. And if FERC thought that there were problems
in that market, they should have fixed them or told California to fix them--and
I know they did in some situations. But FERC needs to take responsibility. ...
I find it hard to believe ... I suspect that companies like Enron and probably Dynegy--some of the big companies--they probably have sophisticated staff. ... That's what they want to find. They want to find pockets of where shortages are going to be, and that's where they're going to go out and buy power.
I would find it hard to believe that Enron didn't have a better viewpoint of
what was going to happen in 2000 in California than FERC did. Because FERC,
you know, wasn't...
... didn't have a clue. Didn't, and wasn't doing anything that would have
allowed it to have a clue on that. ...
Yes. It's so different now at FERC than it used to be when I first started.
There was open debate by staff and the commissioners there. Now it's a few
people up at top who make all the policy calls and decisions. And in recent
years, I have to believe that ideology has taken hold and led policy. ...
Economists, who at least supposedly are charged with understanding
marketplaces, have been delegated to the bottom rungs of the decision-making
at FERC right in the last few years.
Yes. Politics. The people who have the most say are the politicians ... and
the senior staff, who are primarily lawyers and engineers.
Yes. ...
I think there's a lot of people at FERC, a lot of staff, who really would like
to make a difference and work hard in what they do. But there are a lot of
them that don't have the right training. And the agency is currently being run
by people who have a certain belief system that doesn't permit the finding of
problems that might be out there in the industry. ...
video - interviews - glossary - discussion - synopsis - press - tapes & transcripts - credits FRONTLINE - wgbh - pbs online
power lines photo ©2001 entropy media/images | ||||||||||||||||||||||||