Subject: ISO Motion for Issuance of Refund (ISO Report on Unjust Prices)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 06:52:00 -0800 (PST)

All:

A couple of interested points from the CAISO report, in addition to the good 
points raised by Sue Mara:

During December and January, California relied on imports as much as it 
relied upon California non-utility-owned generation (p. 18).  Assuming a 70% 
capacity factor, the ISO said that in-state nonutility gen (i.e., Duke, 
Reliant, AES, Dynegy) is about 2,000 MW and the imports were about the same 
over the 55 day period analyzed.

There is no mention anywhere in the report regarding the level of scarcity in 
the state--nothing on reserve margins or outages.  Thus, there are huge holes 
in the analysis w.r.t. the claim that prices were unjust and unreasonable.