Subject: FERC Coverage
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:38:00 -0800 (PST)

California Power Exchange May Lose Monopoly on Federal Ruling
Bloomberg, 11/04/00

Grp Urges Re-Regulation In Wake Of FERC Calif Pwr Order
Dow Jones Energy Service, 11/03/00

FERC Leaves Calif Pwr Consumer Relief In Lap Of Congress
Dow Jones Energy Service, 11/03/00

State Utilities Left With Burden of Reclaiming Costs From Crisis Energy: 
Issue will remain unsettled until next year when a new agreement is reached 
and flaws in deregulation are fixed.
Los Angeles Times, 11/03/00

USA: Calif. gov. scraps Asia trip to deal with power woes.
Reuters English News Service, 11/02/00

FERC Leaves Calif Pwr Consumer Relief In Lap Of Congress
Dow Jones Energy Service, 11/02/00

Calif Legislators Urge FERC To Hold Nov Mtg In San Diego
Dow Jones Energy Service, 11/02/00
USA: Calif. Senator Boxer wants more help for power markets.
Reuters English News Service, 11/02/00

California Power Exchange May Lose Monopoly on Federal Ruling
11/4/0 11:56 (New York)

California Power Exchange May Lose Monopoly on Federal Ruling

     Pasadena, California, Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The California
Power Exchange, the marketplace where the state's three investor-
owned utilities must buy electricity, is on the brink of losing
its monopoly following this summer's power-price surge.
     The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week proposed
eliminating a state rule that PG&E Corp., Edison International and
Sempra Energy purchase almost all their power through the
exchange, which cost California consumers more than $100 million
to create. FERC expects to issue a final order by year-end.
     Under the proposal, the utilities could buy electricity
through other exchanges or directly from providers such as Enron
Corp. and Dynegy Inc. FERC said the move would help fix
California's ``seriously flawed'' market, where supply shortages
forced utilities to cut power to some customers this summer.
     ``The role of the power exchange is going to shrink,'' said
Josh Rokach, an adviser to FERC Commissioner Curt Hebert. ``People
will rely more on bilateral contracts'' between utilities and
generators, he said.
     Nettie Hoge, executive director of the Utility Reform
Network, a San Francisco-based consumer group, went further:
``It's quite possible that the exchange will wither away if we
follow everything FERC has ordered.''

                         Expansion

     Others aren't so sure. Though intended to serve only
California, the exchange now handles one-fourth of the power
delivered in the Western Systems Coordinating Council, whose
members supply 14 western states, two Canadian provinces and parts
of Mexico.
     Further expansion into areas such as Nevada, Arizona and
Alberta, Canada, will offer local electricity buyers and sellers
``a well-developed market operator ready for competition,''
exchange President George Sladoje said in a statement.
     California lawmakers established the nonprofit exchange in
1996, as part of the deregulation of the state's electricity
market.
     The utilities buy 80 percent to 90 percent of their
electricity on the exchange, based in Pasadena, California. The
three utilities together supply about 75 percent of the state's
power, with the rest coming from cooperatives and municipal
agencies.

                         Long-Term Contracts

     The exchange is a day-ahead market, where buyers and sellers
set prices for power to be delivered the next day. The California
Independent System Operator, which oversees the state's grid,
sells electricity in the hourly market, which fills last-minute
needs.
     FERC wants to give the utilities the opportunity to lock in
prices for power through longer-term contracts known as forwards.
Arranging supplies in advance would reduce the amount of power
that utilities must buy during periods of peak consumption, when
prices can soar, FERC says.
     Though the exchange has operated a forwards market since July
1999, the utilities until recently were prohibited from using it.
Even now, they must receive approval from the California Public
Utilities Commission to enter such contracts, and the amount of
electricity they can buy is limited.
     By comparison, municipal utilities such as the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power can freely enter into long-term
contracts and don't pay the transaction fees charged by the
exchange.
     Even if PG&E, Edison and Sempra are allowed to obtain
supplies through alternative means, the exchange isn't likely to
go away, said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of Sacramento-
based Independent Energy Producers, a trade group that represents
about 50 power producers.
     ``There will continue to be a need for a place for people to
do day-ahead transactions,'' Smutny-Jones said.

                         Transparency

     The exchange's ability to compete would depend in part on
whether rivals such as Enron and Dynegy, which sell electricity
throughout the U.S., are required to list prices openly, exchange
spokesman Jesus Arredondo said.
     ``Those folks don't have transparency right now,'' he said.
``If there isn't a level playing field, we're going to be at a
disadvantage.''
     Yet transparency on the exchange hasn't kept prices low.
During this year's hottest months, as demand for air conditioning
soared, the prices utilities paid for electricity through the
exchange and the California ISO more than quadrupled from a year
earlier.
     Utilities weren't able to respond to the price jump by
cutting their purchases because they needed the power, noted Bob
Levin, senior vice president of planning at the New York
Mercantile Exchange, one of the exchanges hoping to attract
business from California's utilities.
     ``FERC's proposal is a good way to start improving the
market,'' Levin said.
     Not everyone thinks allowing companies to buy outside the
exchange is without risk. State Senator Steve Peace, a Democrat
from El Cajon who co-wrote the state's 1996 deregulation law,
worries that oil and gas companies, big users of electricity for
their refineries, might draw up supply agreements in secret and
keep consumers in the dark about the terms.

                        Monopoly's End

     He warned in an Oct. 3 letter to FERC Chairman James Hoecker
that eliminating the exchange in favor of bilateral contracts
``would be disastrous, particularly for small commercial and
residential consumers.''
     Keeping California power prices a secret would be difficult,
even without the exchange, some industry observers say.
     Publishing companies such as Platt's, the commodities
division of Standard & Poor's, Financial Times Energy, and
Bloomberg LP report energy prices from around the world.
     They would be expected to begin collecting more information
in California as well if the market requires it, said Mark Palmer,
vice president of communications for Houston-based Enron Corp.,
the world's largest trader of electricity.
     ``You'll probably see California price indexes,'' Palmer
said.
     Spokesmen for Rosemead, California-based Edison and San Diego-
based Sempra said their companies wouldn't comment on future of
the exchange or their power purchases until FERC issues a final
order. PG&E, based in San Francisco, is reviewing the agency's
report, a spokesman said.
     Whatever FERC's decision, the exchange's future ultimately
should be decided by the market, not the state, said Richard
Bilas, a member of the California Public Utilities Commission.
     ``If the exchange is operating efficiently, it will survive
on its own,'' he said. ``Not as a sanctioned monopoly.''

--Daniel Taub in the Los Angeles newsroom (323) 801-1261, or at
[email-masked], and Christopher Martin in Chicago, with
reporting by Liz Skinner in Washington, through the Princeton
newsroom (609) 279-4000/shf/alp

Story illustration: For California Power Exchange prices, see
{CAPX <GO>}. For a chart of California-Oregon border electricity
prices for the past year, see {ELGFCOON <Index> GP D <GO>}.

Grp Urges Re-Regulation In Wake Of FERC Calif Pwr Order

11/03/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- State regulators and legislators should re-regulate 
deregulated power markets after federal regulators left California consumers 
in the lurch, Public Citizen said Friday. 
The Ralph Nader-founded activist group decried an order by the U.S. Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission Wednesday, which found electricity rates in 
California were unjust and unreasonable, but failed to find legal reason to 
refund money to consumers.
FERC found that the "seriously flawed" state-mandated market structure was to 
blame, rather than deregulated power producers, for the sky-high power prices 
roiling the first-in-the-nation deregulated electricity market. 
"In short, FERC found that California consumers were robbed of billions of 
dollars - reportedly more than $5 billion. But the agency can't find the 
robber, and thus it can't protect the victims of the crime," said Charlie 
Higley, the group's energy research director. 
"FERC's inability to protect consumers from unlawful price gouging reveals 
that state electricity deregulation has created unregulated monopolies and 
cartels that are free to fleece consumers for billions without fear of 
retribution," Higley said. 
Public Citizen's reaction served to underscore concerns voiced by FERC 
regulators that the consumer backlash spurred by California's flawed market 
design will work against continuing efforts by federal and state policymakers 
to further deregulate U.S. electricity markets. 
Public Citizen also called for the U.S. Justice Department to launch an 
investigation "to determine who is responsible for the unlawful abuse of 
California ratepayers by greedy power suppliers." 
Power producers angrily reject such characterizations. They say market 
forces, environmental regulations, hot weather, depressed hydropower supplies 
and record-high natural gas prices are behind the state's electricity-supply 
and market-volatility woes. 
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-6647, [email-masked]

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

FERC Leaves Calif Pwr Consumer Relief In Lap Of Congress

11/03/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

(This article was originally published Thursday) 

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Members of Congress representing the San Diego area 
expressed disappointment Thursday that federal regulators found they couldn't 
order refunds to power consumers hard by the state's high-flying power market.
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Wednesday issued an order in 
response to chronic power-supply problems in California that have sent 
wholesale power prices soaring. 
While the order called for a sweeping restructuring of the market to lessen 
wholesale power price volatility, the commission found it lacked authority to 
refund money to consumers. 
"Clearly federal legislative action is necessary because FERC didn't take the 
authority I think it has," said Rep. Bob Filner, R-Calif. 
"All the consumers and utilities are still on the line (to absorb soaring 
power costs) because FERC couldn't find any culpability anywhere," Filner 
said. "FERC should have found some specific culpability here." 
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who has made the power price shock an issue in 
his re-election campaign, criticized the commission for blaming the market 
structure dictated by state legislators, rather than power providers, for the 
soaring costs. 
"I've never known a federal agency to override a state legislature like 
that," Bilbray said, accusing FERC of shrugging its shoulders by recognizing 
that market abuses occurred, but blaming the state lawmakers for it. 
"FERC's pointing the fingers at the state and not the power companies," he 
said. 
The commission's conclusion will make it all the more difficult to prod 
Congress to provide relief for California consumers, said Bilbray, who like 
Filner has sponsored a windfall profits bill in Congress. 
Bilbray suggested that California Gov. Gray Davis should call back the state 
Legislature in emergency session to address the problem. If he doesn't, then 
Congress will need to step in, he said. 
Filner said he is drafting legislation based on FERC's conclusions to give 
FERC the authority to refund consumers the windfall profits of the state's 
deregulated power producers. 
The bill would allow FERC to provide refunds in cases like California's where 
the commission found rates to be unjust and unreasonable, but found no 
specific companies to blame for the situation, Filner said. 
FERC Chairman James Hoecker anticipated disappointment as the commission 
discussed its order Wednesday. 
"Those eagerly anticipating this order expected two things, a lynching and a 
transfer of large amounts of money," Hoecker said. "Round up the bad guys ... 
and order digorgement of all their ill-gotten gains." 
Hoecker noted that if he were a retiree on a fixed income or a small business 
owner in San Diego, "I'd want my money back." 
But, he said, it's "not as simple as all that." 
Instead, Hoecker put the onus on Congress to act legislatively if the 
commission is to respond for consumers. FERC's ability to order retroactive 
refunds "ultimately rests with Congress," he said. 
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-6647, [email-masked]

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

Business; Financial Desk
State Utilities Left With Burden of Reclaiming Costs From Crisis Energy: 
Issue will remain unsettled until next year when a new agreement is reached 
and flaws in deregulation are fixed.
CHRIS KRAUL; NANCY RIVERA BROOKS
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

11/03/2000
Los Angeles Times
Home Edition
C-1
Copyright 2000 / The Times Mirror Company

The $6-billion wrecking ball that is waiting to slam either California 
consumers or the utility industry is back in the control of state officials 
after a federal commission this week failed to even address the problem. 
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission declared Wednesday that California 
has defects in its deregulated electricity market and proposed sweeping 
changes, but declined to deal with one of the most serious problems.
The summer's electricity crisis forced the state's three investor-owned 
utilities to purchase wholesale electricity costing $6 billion more than what 
they could charge consumers under existing rates. 
Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric now want consumers to 
pay the full cost of those purchases in the form of monthly surcharges over 
the next five years--a plan that would push into the distant future any hope 
that deregulation would bring relief to the high-cost California electricity 
market. 
But state officials and Wall Street experts doubt the industry has any 
realistic chance of collecting all $6 billion. Despite their confident public 
stand, the utilities will likely settle with consumers. 
"I'd say the chances of utilities being made whole is zero, and the chances 
of them eating all the undercollections is zero," said Steve Fetter, an 
analyst with debt raters Fitch of New York. Fetter is former chairman of the 
Michigan Public Service Commission. 
A high state official who asked not to be named said a majority of the Public 
Utilities Commission believes that utilities are not entitled to the $6 
billion under current law. "The commission has interpreted the law the same 
way five times in a row," the official said. "So if anything is to change, 
the legislature will have to write new law." 
And yet division within the PUC has been evident lately, adding to the 
confusion. Despite repeated PUC declarations that SCE and PG&E cannot raise 
rates under the current deregulation law, the utilities were encouraged when 
PUC President Loretta Lynch said on Oct. 17 that "the basic assumptions 
underlying AB 1890 are ripe for reconsideration." 
The electricity cost issue is a political hot potato that California 
politicians and regulators clearly hoped the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission would handle by declaring costs "unjust and unreasonable" and by 
ordering generators to give back profits. 
But FERC said it found no evidence of specific market abuses and that it 
lacked the legal authority to order refunds of federallysanctioned wholesale 
rates in the absence of market-power evidence. 
Early next year, after a new state Legislature is sworn in and Gov. Gray 
Davis appoints his third of five members on the state Public Utilities 
Commission, lawmakers, officials and stakeholders will have to hammer out an 
agreement, which will probably require a new law. Wall Street is already 
signaling its impatience. 
"Our position has been that it is an unsettled situation as far as utilities 
are concerned," said Richard Cortright, a director at Standard & Poor's 
debt-rating service that downgraded its outlook on California utility debt to 
negative last summer. 
Consumer groups on the one side are clamoring for the utilities and power 
companies to pony up for the costs of a failed experiment in a free market 
for electrons, while on the other side the utilities who want full 
restitution from customers for the electricity they dutifully delivered at 
going market rates. 
"What FERC effectively did was say to California: You guys have to choose 
between utilities and consumers," said Douglas Heller, consumer advocate at 
the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "It's up 
to Gov. Davis and the Legislature to do the right thing and stand up to these 
utility companies." 
FERC's proposed order "really passed the buck" and left the PUC with clear 
jurisdiction over the utilities' transition costs, said Bob Finkelstein, a 
lawyer with The Utility Reform Network. 
The San Francisco consumer group has proposed that the PUC require the 
utilities to use sharply increasing profits earned through deregulation, such 
as from the sale of power into the market, to pay off the cost of electricity 
that they have not been able to pass along to customers. 
Utilities will argue just as strenuously that to make them absorb the 
unexpected costs of a vital service is unfair and would impinge on needed 
investments in electric infrastructure. 
PG&E and SCE have each petitioned the state Public Utilities Commission for 
permission to begin collecting those billions of dollars by approving rate 
increases. In SCE's case, the proposed rate increase would be no more than 
10%, which would add about $5.50 to the typical monthly residential bill. 
Although wholesale electricity rates have risen dramatically, SCE and PG&E 
customers are still protected by a rate freeze until utilities pay off costs 
related to "stranded assets" such as nuclear, wind and other noneconomic 
assets, or until March 2002. 
San Diego Gas & Electric got out from under the rate freeze after paying off 
its stranded assets early in 1999, and began passing along wholesale 
electricity costs directly to customers. But the state legislature imposed a 
rate cap last summer after wholesale rates doubled and tripled, causing a 
political firestorm. 
Steve Baum, chief executive of SDG&E parent Sempra Energy, said Thursday that 
he was disappointed that the FERC did not open the way for refunds from the 
power generators. 
"This is going to make Wall Street less than happy," Baum said. "They say 
they have no basis for refunds but that door is not slammed shut."

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

USA: Calif. gov. scraps Asia trip to deal with power woes.

11/02/2000
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2000.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov 2 (Reuters) - California Gov. Gray Davis Thursday 
scrapped a planned trip to Asia this month to remain at home to cope with the 
state's increasingly troubled power market, officials said. 
"The Asia trip has been postponed. We do not have a date for rescheduling," 
spokeswoman Hilary McLean said.
Davis had been due to visit Singapore, Brunei, Beijing, Shanghai between Nov. 
11-18. Instead, he now intends to remain in California to tackle the energy 
problems head-on. 
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) this week said that a probe 
into California's newly deregulated electricity markets had shown that 
drastic changes were needed to prevent a repetition of this past summer's 
price spikes and near power blackouts. 
But the regulators, though declaring power prices charged this summer were 
not "just and reasonable," as required by law, said they did not have the 
legal authority to demand refunds from generators, some of whom have made 
huge profits selling power in the California market. 
McLean said that Davis "has been very focused on California's electricity 
problems, and wants to make sure that California's electricity supply is 
reliable and affordable." 
"The governor is going to be needed to here to continue to engage in this 
issue," she said, without providing any further detail. 
(Andrew Quinn in San Francisco bureau, 415-677-2541, 
[email-masked]).

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

FERC Leaves Calif Pwr Consumer Relief In Lap Of Congress

11/02/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Members of Congress representing the San Diego area 
expressed disappointment Thursday that federal regulators found they couldn't 
order refunds to power consumers hard by the state's high-flying power 
market. 
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Wednesday issued an order in 
response to chronic power-supply problems in California that have sent 
wholesale power prices soaring. 
While the order called for a sweeping restructuring of the market to lessen 
wholesale power price volatility, the commission found it lacked authority to 
refund money to consumers.
"Clearly federal legislative action is necessary because FERC didn't take the 
authority I think it has," said Rep. Bob Filner, R-Calif. 
"All the consumers and utilities are still on the line (to absorb soaring 
power costs) because FERC couldn't find any culpability anywhere," Filner 
said. "FERC should have found some specific culpability here." 
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who has made the power price shock an issue in 
his re-election campaign, criticized the commission for blaming the market 
structure dictated by state legislators, rather than power providers, for the 
soaring costs. 
"I've never known a federal agency to override a state legislature like 
that," Bilbray said, accusing FERC of shrugging its shoulders by recognizing 
that market abuses occurred, but blaming the state lawmakers for it. 
"FERC's pointing the fingers at the state and not the power companies," he 
said. 
The commission's conclusion will make it all the more difficult to prod 
Congress to provide relief for California consumers, said Bilbray, who like 
Filner has sponsored a windfall profits bill in Congress. 
Bilbray suggested that California Gov. Gray Davis should call back the state 
Legislature in emergency session to address the problem. If he doesn't, then 
Congress will need to step in, he said. 
Filner said he is drafting legislation based on FERC's conclusions to give 
FERC the authority to refund consumers the windfall profits of the state's 
deregulated power producers. 
The bill would allow FERC to provide refunds in cases like California's where 
the commission found rates to be unjust and unreasonable, but found no 
specific companies to blame for the situation, Filner said. 
FERC Chairman James Hoecker anticipated disappointment as the commission 
discussed its order Wednesday. 
"Those eagerly anticipating this order expected two things, a lynching and a 
transfer of large amounts of money," Hoecker said. "Round up the bad guys ... 
and order digorgement of all their ill-gotten gains." 
Hoecker noted that if he were a retiree on a fixed income or a small business 
owner in San Diego, "I'd want my money back." 
But, he said, it's "not as simple as all that." 
Instead, Hoecker put the onus on Congress to act legislatively if the 
commission is to respond for consumers. FERC's ability to order retroactive 
refunds "ultimately rests with Congress," he said. 
-By Bryan Lee, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-6647, [email-masked]

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

Calif Legislators Urge FERC To Hold Nov Mtg In San Diego

11/02/2000
Dow Jones Energy Service
(Copyright (c) 2000, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

LOS ANGELES -(Dow Jones)- Seven federal legislators from California are 
urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold its scheduled Nov. 9 
public hearing on California's electricity problems in San Diego, not 
Washington. 
At the hearing, FERC will announce proposed remedies based on a FERC report 
issued Wednesday that found California's electricity market seriously flawed.
The legislators said in a Nov. 1 letter to FERC chairman James Hoecker that 
FERC should hold its hearing in San Diego because that is where people 
affected by proposed remedies live. The letter was signed by Sens. Dianne 
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer; and Reps. Bob Filner, Brian Bilbray, Ron 
Packard, Duncan Hunter, and Randy Cunningham. 
San Diego residents were the first in the nation to be charged deregulated 
rates, and many saw their bills double and triple this summer due to a spike 
in wholesale power prices. FERC held hearings in San Diego in August to 
determine why those prices were so high. 
The letter asked that a supplementary hearing be held in San Diego if the 
Washington hearing couldn't be moved. 
"Clearly, the electricity crisis has caused more than a ripple in San 
Diegans' lives - a tsunami is more like it. For that reason, your Commission 
should hear of the real impacts that your order would have on the people and 
institutions of San Diego," the letter said. 
Nobody at FERC could be reached for comment. 
-By Jessica Berthold, Dow Jones Newswires; 323-658-3872; 
[email-masked] 
USA: Calif. Senator Boxer wants more help for power markets.
By Patrick Connole

11/02/2000
Reuters English News Service
(C) Reuters Limited 2000.

WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - California Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday said 
she was "distressed" that U.S. regulators did not provide immediate relief 
for her state's power consumers when they backed draft measures on Wednesday 
for fixing the troubled electricity system there. 
Democrat Boxer, in a letter to U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) Chairman James Hoecker, urged the commission to take stronger actions 
before their draft order becomes final next month to aid consumers.
"It is imperative that FERC act promptly to address California's energy 
crisis," Boxer wrote to Hoecker. 
Boxer wants FERC to approve a regional price cap throughout the 14 Western 
states on electricity price rates, order utilities to provide refunds to 
California customers and convene the next FERC meeting on the issue in San 
Diego on Nov. 9 so that California consumers can weigh in on the matter. 
San Diego consumers were most impacted by a sharp price rise in California's 
wholesale power markets this summer, since under the state's deregulation 
plan they were forced to pay market rates without a safety net. 
FERC did not order refunds as part of its draft remedies announced on 
Wednesday, saying they legally did not have the power to do so. The Nov. 9 
meeting is scheduled at commission headquarters in Washington D.C. 
The commission approved measures on Wednesday to establish independent 
oversight boards for the California Independent System Operator and Power 
Exchange (PX). Both entities help balance power supplies for state utilities 
and act as auction houses for buying and selling last-minute power. 
Other measures would eliminate the need for the three largest California 
utilities - Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric and SoCal 
Edison - to have to sell power to, or buy power from the PX. 
San Diego Gas & Electric is a unit of Sempra Energy , SoCal Edison is a unit 
of Edison International and Pacific Gas is owned by PG&E Corp. . The three 
are based in the San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, 
respectively. 
Other changes backed by FERC would allow the three investor-owned utilities 
to manage risk by allowing long and intermediate-term power supply contracts 
and would temporarily modify market auction bid processes.

Copyright , 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.