View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

\                                                                  EXHIBIT 99(a)

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                      FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman;
                      Nora Mead Brownell and Joseph T. Kelliher.

Avista Corporation                                       Docket No. EL02-115-000
Avista Energy, Inc.
Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
Portland General Electric Company

                      ORDER APPROVING CONTESTED SETTLEMENT

                             (Issued April 19, 2004)

I.       INTRODUCTION

1.       In this order, we approve the contested Agreement in Resolution of
section 206 Proceeding (Settlement) in this docket between Avista Corporation
d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista Utilities) and Avista Energy, Inc. (Avista
Energy) (collectively, Avista) and the Commission Trial Staff (Trial Staff). The
Settlement resolves: (1) whether Avista engaged in trading strategies designed
to manipulate the California energy markets in 2000 and 2001; (2) whether Avista
engaged in trading activities in violation of the Commission's rules on
affiliate transactions; and (3) whether Avista had responded fully to a show
cause order. Further, the Settlement provides that Avista will improve its
system of taping energy trader conversations, improve its account settlement
process, and maintain an annual training program on the applicable Code of
Conduct for all employees engaged in the trading of electric energy and
capacity. The Settlement represents a reasonable resolution of the complex
matters at issue in this proceeding, and is approved.

II.      BACKGROUND

         A.       PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2.       On August 13, 2002, the Commission issued an order initiating the
instant proceeding.(1) In its order, the Commission stated that its
investigatory staff had uncovered evidence warranting investigation of Avista
and two affiliates of Enron

- -----------------------
         (1) Avista Corp., et al., 100 FERC(P) 61,187 (2002) (Hearing Order).



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        2

Corporation: Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (EPMI) and Portland General Electric
Corporation (PGE). (2) It appeared that Avista may have: (1) engaged in trading
strategies that were designed to manipulate the California energy markets in
2000 and 2001; (2) engaged in trading activities in violation of the
Commission's rules on affiliate transactions; and (3) failed to cooperate with a
Commission investigation in a show cause proceeding that concerned possible
manipulation of electric and natural gas prices in the West.(3) In the Hearing
Order, the Commission initiated an investigation and hearing concerning those
matters pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 824e
(2000).(4)

3.       Subsequently, Avista and Trial Staff engaged in settlement
negotiations, and on January 30, 2003, Avista filed the Settlement on behalf of
itself and Trial Staff.(5) Appendix A to the Settlement is Trial Staff's
Investigative Report, which explains how Trial Staff conducted its investigation
and sets forth Trial Staff's findings.

- ----------------------------
         (2) Id. at P 6-14.

         (3) In the earlier show cause order, issued on June 4, 2002, that
preceded the Hearing Order, the Commission directed Avista and others to show
cause why their market-based rate authority should not be revoked for their
failure to comply with a Commission-ordered fact-finding investigation.
Fact-Finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation of Electric and Natural Gas
Prices, 99 FERC (P) 61,272 (2002) (Show Cause Order).

         (4) Hearing Order, 100 FERC (P) 61,187 at P 13. A number of parties
were allowed to intervene, including: the California Attorney General, the
California Electricity Oversight Board (EOB) and the California Public Utilities
Commission (collectively, the California Parties); and the City of Tacoma,
Washington (Tacoma).

         (5) The Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief Judge), who is the
presiding judge in this proceeding, severed non-Avista issues dealing with
allegations against EPMI and PGE and consolidated them into the proceeding in
Portland General Electric Company and Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Docket Nos.
EL02-114-000 and EL02-115-001, for purposes of hearing and decision. By order
issued on December 18, 2003, the Commission approved an uncontested partial
settlement that resolved all issues in that proceeding that pertain to PGE.
Portland General Company and Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 105 FERC (P) 61,302
(2003). That order also consolidated issues pertaining to EPMI into Docket No.
EL03-154-000, which concerns alleged gaming practices by EPMI in the markets
operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation (California
ISO) and the California Power Exchange Corporation (California PX).



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        3

4.       On February 19, 2003, the California Parties and Tacoma each submitted
initial comments opposing the Settlement, and PGE submitted comments in support
of the Settlement. On March 3, 2003, Avista and Trial Staff each submitted reply
comments in support of the Settlement.

5.       On April 9, 2003, the Chief Judge ruled that the Settlement could not
be certified because it was in conflict with the Commission investigative
staff's Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets: Fact-Finding
Investigation of Potential Manipulation of Electric and Natural Gas Prices,
Docket No. PA02-2-000 (March 26, 2003) (Staff Final Report).(6) Thus, the Chief
Judge directed Trial Staff to supplement its Investigative Report and describe
the scope of its investigation.

6.       On May 15, 2003, Trial Staff submitted a Supplemental Investigative
Report, with affidavits which were admitted into evidence, and it presented a
witness at a conference before the Chief Judge to summarize the supplement and
answer clarifying questions. On May 27, 2003, the California Parties and Tacoma
each submitted supplemental initial comments on the Supplemental Investigative
Report. On June 3, 2003, Avista and Trial Staff each submitted supplemental
reply comments on the Supplemental Investigative Report.

7.       On June 25, 2003, the Chief Judge denied the request to certify the
Settlement to the Commission because there appeared to be unresolved issues of
material fact, which included: (1) the definitions of the trading practices
known as ricochet, get shorty and counter-flow revenues from cut schedules in
real time; (2) a lack of evidence concerning affiliate transactions; and (3) a
conflict between the Trial Staff's conclusions and the transcripts of the trader
conversations referenced by Tacoma's witness.(7)

8.       On July 10, 2003, the Trial Staff filed a motion asking the Chief Judge
to reconsider his order denying certification, and Avista sought interlocutory
appeal of the Chief Judge's order. On July 17, 2003, Avista filed an answer
supporting the Trial Staff's motion for reconsideration. On July 25, 2003, the
California Attorney General filed an answer in opposition to the Trial Staff's
motion for reconsideration.

9.       The Chief Judge subsequently issued two orders. On July 24, 2003, as
amended on July 28, 2003, the Chief Judge certified the Settlement as a
contested settlement and

- ---------------------------------

         (6) The Staff Final Report is available on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/western.

         (7) Avista Corp., 103 FERC(P) 63,058 (2003) (Order Denying
Certification).



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        4

recommended its approval.(8) On the same date, upon further consideration and in
light of the Commission's Gaming Practices Order,(9) the Chief Judge found that
there were no longer any pending unresolved issues of material fact and that the
record in this proceeding was sufficient for the Commission to base a
determination on the merits of the Settlement. (10) Thus, the Chief Judge issued
a separate order granting Trial Staff's motion for reconsideration, denying
Avista's motion for leave to take interlocutory appeal as moot, and canceling
the procedural schedule.(11)

10.      On August 8, 2003, the California Attorney General and EOB submitted a
motion for reconsideration asking the Chief Judge to reconsider the
Certification and the July 24 Order. They asked the Chief Judge to certify their
motion to the Commission if he believed that he could no longer act on the
motion. On August 22, 2003, Avista filed an answer to the California Attorney
General and EOB's motion for reconsideration.

         B.       THE SETTLEMENT

11.      According to the Settlement, the results of Trial Staff's investigation
into Avista Utilities and Avista Energy, as set forth in the Trial Staff
Investigation Report, form the basis for the Settlement. Trial Staff's
investigation found no evidence that any executives or employees of Avista
Utilities or Avista Energy knowingly engaged in or knowingly facilitated any
improper trading strategy. Further, Trial Staff's investigation found no
evidence that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in any efforts to
manipulate Western energy markets during 2000 and 2001. Further, the Settlement
states that the responses of Avista Utilities and Avista Energy to Trial Staff's
investigation indicated an overall cooperative attitude and response. The
Settlement also states that Trial Staff's investigation did not find that Avista
Utilities and Avista Energy withheld relevant information from the Commission's
inquiry into Western energy markets for 2000 and 2001 in Docket No. PA02-2-000.
Based on its findings on the issues set for hearing, Trial Staff did not
recommend or advocate any remedial measures to be taken against Avista Utilities
or Avista Energy under section 206 of the Federal Power Act, and did not

- -------------------------
         (8) See Avista Corp., et al., 104 FERC(P) 63,021 (2003)
(Certification).

         (9) American Electric Power Service Corp., et al., 103 FERC(P) 61,345
(2003), reh'g denied, 106 FERC(P) 61,020 (2004) (Gaming Practices Order).

         (10) Avista Corp., 104 FERC(P) 63,020 (2003) (July 24 Order).

         (11) Id.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        5

recommend any monetary remedy, or relinquishment or modification of market-based
rate authority, or assessment of penalties.

12.      The Settlement further states that, during the investigation, Trial
Staff identified concerns and made a number of recommendations, which Avista
Utilities and Avista Energy have agreed to address. On Trial Staff's
recommendation that Avista Utilities improve its taping system, Avista Utilities
agrees to: (1) memorialize any transactions entered into on a non-recorded line
due to an emergency; and (2) continue to tape record energy trader conversations
for two years from the date the Commission accepts the Settlement.(12) The
Settlement also notes that Avista Utilities began to supplement its accounting
system with a double-entry system of recording transactions and that Avista
Utilities changed to a more powerful and more accessible data recordation
software package, as of November 20, 2002.

13.      Trial Staff expressed concern that account settlement procedures for
disputed energy transactions were not clear or auditable. In response, the
Settlement provides that Avista Utilities agrees to: (1) continue to resolve
disputes pursuant to the Western Systems Power Pool Agreement and tariff's
dispute resolution provisions; (2) develop better procedures for documenting the
chain of command for resolution of accounting disputes; and (3) develop an
internal tracking mechanism for auditing such adjustments.

14.      Trial Staff expressed concern that trader tapes showed that energy
traders for Avista Utilities suspected that transactions during the period in
question may have been in violation of the Commission's Code of Conduct, but
they did not inform upper management of their suspicions. In response, the
Settlement provides that Avista Utilities and Avista Energy commit to maintain a
training program, to be conducted at least annually, on the applicable
Commission Code of Conduct for all employees engaged in the trading of electric
energy and capacity, and maintain records of successful completion of each
training session.

15.      Avista Utilities and Avista Energy also commit to supplement their
responses filed in this docket should they discover new information material to
the issues set for hearing. The Settlement does not preclude the Commission or
its staff from pursuing any matters based upon new information. The Settlement
states that Trial Staff believes that Avista Utilities' responses are adequate
to address Trial Staff's concerns. The Settlement further

- ------------------------
         (12) The Settlement provides that, if industry commercial practices
change within that two year period, Avista Utilities shall provide 60 days'
notice to the Commission if it intends to change to a new industry standard.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        6

provides that Avista Utilities and Avista Energy will submit four semi-annual
compliance reports documenting fulfillment of the measures they have committed
to undertake.

         C.       INITIAL COMMENTS

16.      Tacoma argues that the record does not support the Settlement, because
it is not supported by any witness under oath. Further, Tacoma contends that
Trial Staff improperly limited its investigation to the strategies identified in
an internal Enron memorandum dated December 6, 2000 (Enron Memorandum) and, in
particular, transactions involving Enron and Enron's affiliates. It contends
that Trial Staff's review of transaction data from the California ISO obtained
in Docket No. PA02-2 provides only part of the information necessary to
investigate the occurrence of Enron-type trading schemes with certainty.
According to Tacoma, such analysis requires access to hourly schedule data from
markets outside of California. It contends that the necessary data can be found
in the Data Template filed by all parties in Docket No. EL01-10-000, et al., but
the Commission has sequestered that data in that proceeding.

17.      Further, Tacoma asserts that the scope of this proceeding should have
included all of Avista's trading practices, including the possibility that
Avista facilitated improper transactions between Enron and PGE through
transactions with other parties and the possibility that Avista independently
engaged in improper transactions. Tacoma also alleges that Trial Staff pursued
secret discovery and refused to provide the results of that discovery to other
parties.(13) Tacoma also argues that the Commission's rules and regulations are
unclear regarding the role of intervenors in FPA section 206 proceedings
initiated by the Commission. Tacoma asserts that it is unclear whether Trial
Staff examined all available evidence, including the California ISO's October 4,
2002 "Analysis of Trading and Scheduling Strategies Described in Enron Memos,"
which the ISO posted publicly on January 7, 2003. Tacoma concludes that it has
raised issues of material fact that require an evidentiary hearing.

18.      The California Parties object to the suspension of the procedural
schedule prior to the completion of discovery and the submittal of any
testimony. They also claim to have been excluded from the discovery process.
Further, the California Parties contend that the Hearing Order initiated an
investigation of whether Avista Utilities or Avista Energy participated in the
trading strategies identified in the Enron memoranda, and it was not intended to
include inquiry into the totality of Avista Utilities' and Avista Energy's

- ----------------------
         (13) Tacoma alleges that Trial Staff visited Avista Energy, met with
energy traders and other representatives of Avista Energy, and had access to
management reports, without providing Tacoma notice of these meetings,
interviews or document requests.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        7

activities in Western energy markets during the relevant period. They contend
that those issues are subject to expanded discovery and potential submittal of
additional evidence in Docket Nos. EL00-95-069 and EL00-98-058. They further
argue that it is prejudicial for Trial Staff to offer an opinion that relieves
Avista of all liability for Western market manipulation when Trial Staff is
excluded from the ongoing phase of those dockets and not permitted to sponsor
any new evidence or opinion.

19.      The California Parties also argue that the Settlement does not contain
sufficient evidence to support its conclusions that Avista did not engage in
Enron trading strategies. They also claim that neither they nor other
intervenors were made aware of Trial Staff's meetings with representatives of
Avista, including site visits and discussions, prior to release of the proposed
Settlement. They also contend that Trial Staff's review was minimal and does not
support its conclusion, arguing that Trial Staff reviewed only a small fraction
of taped trader conversations during the period at issue.

20.      The California Parties also argue that Trial Staff's conclusion that
Avista Utilities' role in buy/sell transactions involving EPMI and PGE did not
constitute or aid in the violation of any Commission rule or Code of Conduct
with respect to affiliate transactions even though EPMI and PGE could have
transacted directly is inconsistent with Trial Staff's allegations in the PGE
proceeding, where it was alleged that PGE assisted EPMI in implementing trading
transactions for benefit of an affiliate, and prejudges the PGE docket.(14) The
California Parties further argue that Trial Staff failed to investigate whether
PGE and EPMI met the Commission's requirements for the transactions in question.
They contend that the logical assumption is that PGE and EPMI did not meet the
Commission's requirements, or else they would not have needed to employ Avista
as a middleman. They also dispute Trial Staff's finding that Avista Utilities
acted as a "sleeve" under common industry practice and was not a knowing
participant. They view the traders' questioning of the transactions, reflected
in the trader tapes, as evidence that Avista Utilities was a knowing participant
and warrants more than a recommendation that energy traders get better training.

21.      Tacoma argues that its analysis, using the spot market marginal
clearing prices, shows that it overpaid for its purchases from the market for
the October 2, 2000 - June 20, 2001 period. Tacoma asserts that it paid prices
that were in excess of just and reasonable prices.

- --------------------------
         (14) As noted, supra note 5, the Commission has since approved an
uncontested settlement in the PGE docket.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        8

22.      PGE supports the Settlement. However, it disagrees with Trial Staff's
characterization of circular transactions as contrary to the California ISO's
rules and anti-gaming provisions.

         D.       REPLY COMMENTS

23.      Trial Staff argues that the conclusions reflected in the Settlement are
well documented and supported by a review of relevant, available data.(15)

24.      Trial Staff disputes Tacoma's argument that it improperly narrowed the
scope of the proceeding by not examining all available data with respect to
Avista's trading practices. It explains that it took a broad view of its
investigative responsibilities with respect to affiliate issues. As the Trial
Staff Investigative Report explains, it investigated every transaction in which
either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in simultaneous buy/sell
transactions with two affiliates, and all of the transactions in which Avista
Utilities served as an intermediary between two affiliates during 2000-2001.
These included EPMI and PGE. Trial Staff explains that it gave particular
attention to sleeving transactions, which could hide or obscure certain
transactions and thus evade the Commission's regulations.

25.      Trial Staff further explains that its review of tape recordings of
trader conversations was extensive and thorough and that an all-encompassing
review of the thousands of hours of tapes in the possession of Avista Utilities,
as suggested by the California Parties, was not practicable. Further, Avista
Utilities' taping systems do not permit the use of word searches. Therefore,
Trial Staff placed special emphasis on the investigation's period of primary
concern (April to June 2000), as well as other periods in which there was price
volatility. Additionally, it reviewed a sample of the remaining tapes.

26.      Trial Staff maintains that its position in this case does not
contradict its position in the PGE proceeding, Docket No. EL02-114-000. It
states that Avista Utilities' conduct is not implicated by any of Trial Staff's
allegations against PGE in the PGE proceeding.

27.      Trial Staff contends that the discovery and settlement procedures in
this proceeding did not deprive the contesting parties' access to information.
Regarding the Chief Judge's protective order that provided for a class of
protected materials limited to review by federal government employees, Trial
Staff states that the contesting parties did not seek the Chief Judge's
reconsideration of or interlocutory appeal of the protective

- ----------------------
         (15) Trial Staff attached an affidavit of Patrick Crowley in support of
the Investigative Report.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                        9

order and that it is now untimely for them to do so. Trial Staff further argues
that it is irrelevant that the presiding judge in the PGE proceeding rejected a
similar protective order. It also contends that Tacoma could have requested an
in-camera review of documents submitted only to Trial Staff, but it did not make
such a request until after the motion to suspend the procedural schedule was
filed.

28.      In response to Tacoma's claim that the Commission's published rules and
regulations do not describe the role of intervenors in section 206 proceedings
initiated by the Commission, Trial Staff argues that Tacoma could and should
have requested clarification earlier in an appropriate proceeding and that
settlement comments are not an appropriate forum to challenge the Commission's
rules and regulations. Further, Trial Staff argues that the contesting parties,
in fact, were provided an ample opportunity to participate in the discovery and
settlement process. It contends that the Commission's rules and regulations
permit Trial Staff to meet with any party, and any such meetings need not be
noticed. Further, regarding Tacoma's claim that it was not made aware of Trial
Staff's visit to Avista, Trial Staff contends that Tacoma was not only aware of
Trial Staff's site visit to Avista, because the Chief Judge referred to the
prospective visit in a discovery ruling issued on October 10, 2002, and Tacoma
expressed some interest in accompanying Trial Staff on the visit. (16)

29.      Trial Staff further explains that it provided the contesting parties
with notices of settlement conferences. In support, it attaches e-mails that it
sent to the contesting parties announcing the settlement conferences. Trial
Staff adds that it convened a settlement conference early after it had completed
its investigation. It also states that the process of conducting discovery
before setting forth a written position on the case was similar to the process
of preparing "top sheets" in a typical rate case. Trial Staff further states
that the contesting parties never attempted to privately inquire about the
status of the investigation. Further, Trial Staff argues that it made all of its
witnesses available at two settlement conferences (December 5 and 9, 2002), but
each time the contesting parties raised no specific issues and sought more time
to review the draft settlement. Since Trial Staff's testimony was due on
December 20, 2002, Trial Staff and Avista filed a motion to suspend the
procedural schedule on December 9, 2002. Trial Staff states that, at a final
settlement conference on December 13, 2002, the contesting parties again raised
no issues regarding the draft settlement. Trial Staff also argues that the due
date for it to respond to data requests from the contesting parties was after
Trial Staff and Avista filed the motion to suspend the procedural schedule.

- ---------------------------
         (16) See March 3, 2003 Reply Comments of Avista at 33 n.26.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                       10

30.      Trial Staff disputes the claim that it ignored the California ISO's
so-called Death Star data base. It argues that it did seek to correlate the
thousands of California ISO Death Star data base transactions with the many
thousands of transactions between EPMI and Avista Utilities, and between PGE and
Avista Utilities. Trial Staff explains that it found no correlation between
these data sets beyond the known 17 days. Finding no further correlation, it did
not mention the California ISO Death Star data base in the Investigative Report.

31.      Trial Staff argues that Tacoma's arguments on the amount it believes it
overpaid to Avista were raised in Docket No. EL01-10-000 and are not relevant to
this case.

32.      Finally, Trial Staff concludes that the Settlement is supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

33.      Avista contends that the contesting parties' arguments mischaracterize
the nature and extent of Trial Staff's investigation, and misapprehend the
statutory framework of this proceeding. Avista further argues that the
contesting parties' arguments are unfounded and that they did not present any
evidence of misconduct by Avista Utilities or Avista Energy.

         E.       SUPPLEMENT TO TRIAL STAFF'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, SUPPLEMENTAL
                  INITIAL COMMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY COMMENTS

                  1.       TRIAL STAFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

34.      Trial Staff's supplement to its Investigative Report, which the Chief
Judge requested, describes the additional analysis performed related to possible
misconduct by Avista Utilities or Avista Energy in the areas of: ricochet or
megawatt laundering; ancillary services-related practices (Get Shorty); and
counterflow revenues from cut schedules in real time.(17) As to the latter
matter, Trial Staff reiterated that a one-time occurrence of counterflow
revenues from cut schedules does not constitute evidence of a pattern of
behavior to engage in wrongful conduct; Trial Staff states that a one-time
rescission of ancillary services payments to Avista Energy due to a one-time,
one-hour incident of non-performance was not sufficient evidence of an intent to
engage in

- --------------------------------
         (17) Trial Staff attached affidavits of the two Trial Staff members who
performed the analysis, one of whom was presented as a witness at a conference
before the Chief Judge to summarize the supplement and answer clarifying
questions. The affidavits were admitted into evidence.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                       11

wrongful conduct. It further found no evidence that Avista knowingly assisted
EPMI and PGE in false imports. Thus, the supplement concluded that this
additional analysis did not alter the conclusions in the Investigative Report.

                  2.       SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL COMMENTS

35.      The California Parties and Tacoma maintain that Trial Staff's
conclusions are not supported by the evidence and that the review was
insufficient. The California Attorney General argues that Trial Staff absolved
Avista Energy despite its finding that Avista Energy improperly retained
counterflow revenues from cut schedules in real time. The California Attorney
General argues that the Trial Staff failed to explain why a single instance of
this behavior does not constitute a pattern of behavior. Regarding Trial Staff's
review of trader tapes, Tacoma argues that it is necessary to review hourly
schedule data concerning all transactions, both inside and outside California.
The California Parties also argue that Trial Staff's witness who reviewed the
bulk of the trader tapes lacks experience with wholesale electric markets and
regulation, and electricity trading. Tacoma asserts that consideration of the
Settlement should be deferred in light of the announced release by the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) of 200 Enron data tapes.

                  3.       SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY COMMENTS

36.      Trial Staff and Avista respond that the contesting parties reiterate
otherwise-unsupported arguments. Trial Staff believes that the lack of a pattern
of behavior is probative of a lack of intent to participate in any gaming
strategy as defined in the Staff Final Report. Furthermore, Trial Staff notes
that even the single instance of a cut schedule for one day was done in
accordance with the terms of the California ISO Tariff, and therefore there is
no evidence that the conduct was unlawful. Trial Staff further contends that
Trial Staff personnel have been trained in all aspects of the trading of
electricity. Trial Staff also contends that Tacoma mischaracterizes the extent
of the release of Enron data tapes by DOJ, stating that the tapes are not public
and are to be provided by DOJ on a limited basis in Docket No. EL02-114-000, and
are subject to a protective order in that proceeding. Moreover, Trial Staff
notes that the Settlement allows the Commission or its staff to pursue any
matters based on new information. Thus, Trial Staff argues that there is no
reason for the Commission to delay consideration of the Settlement.

         F.       MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ANSWER

37.      The California Attorney General and EOB argue that the Certification
and July 24 Order are procedurally defective because they were issued prior to
consideration of the California Attorney General's answer to the Trial Staff's
motion for reconsideration.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                       12

Under Rule 213(d), a party has the right to file an answer within 15 days after
the motion.(18) Trial Staff filed its motion for reconsideration on July 10,
2003 and the Chief Judge certified the Settlement 14 days later on July 24,
2003. The California Attorney General filed an answer on July 25, 2003.

38.      On August 8, 2003, the California Parties and EOB sought
reconsideration of the Certification, and asked the Chief Judge to certify the
motion to the Commission if he is no longer empowered to consider the motion.
Avista filed an answer in response.(19)

III.     DISCUSSION

39.      The Commission finds that in light of the issues being investigated,
and the nature and scope of Trial Staff's investigation, detailed above, the
Settlement represents a reasonable resolution of the proceeding insofar as
Avista is concerned and should be approved. The record in this proceeding
indicates that: (1) Avista Utilities and Avista Energy did not knowingly engage
in or facilitate the improper trading strategies at issue here; (2) there was no
evidence that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in efforts to manipulate
Western energy markets during 2000 and 2001; and (3) there was no indication
that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy withheld relevant information from the
Commission's inquiry into Western energy markets from 2000 and 2001 in Docket
No. PA02-2-000.(20) Moreover, the remedies agreed to in the Settlement represent
a reasonable resolution of any concerns raised in this proceeding as to Avista's
conduct.

40.      We note that the Trial Staff, to investigate the questions set for
hearing by the Commission: (1) reviewed Avista Utilities' June 14, 2002 answer
to the Commission's Show Cause Order; (2) met informally with senior executives
and employees of Avista Utilities and Avista Energy on numerous occasions at the
Commission's headquarters and by conference call to discuss both companies'
operation, and to have questions answered; (3) reviewed Avista Utilities and
Avista Energy's answers to extensive data requests issued by the Trial Staff;
(4) undertook a field audit at the offices of Avista Utilities and Avista Energy
to review the books and records of both companies, interview

- ------------------------------
         (18) 18 C.F.R. Section 385.213(d) (2003).

         (19) We have considered these pleadings in reaching our conclusions
below. Indeed, to the extent that the California Parties and EOB seek
certification of their motion for reconsideration, our consideration of these
pleadings effectively grants their request for certification of their motion for
reconsideration.

         (20) Certification Order at P 9-12.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                       13

company employees, and observe firsthand how those companies operate; and (5)
issued data requests to PGE, Enron Power Marketing, Inc., the California
Attorney General, and the California ISO, conducted several telephone conference
calls with PGE representatives, met with PGE representatives at Commission
headquarters, participated in a Field Audit at PGE's offices, and reviewed
information relative to Bonneville Power Administration.

41.      The record shows that Trial Staff conducted an extensive and thorough
investigation. Its investigation concerning the 17 days in question was, indeed,
exhaustive. Further, its approach to reviewing other transactions was a
well-reasoned approach to determining whether further investigation was
warranted.

42.      We agree with the settling parties that, if the contesting parties were
uncertain of their role in this proceeding, they could and should have sought
clarification in a more timely manner - and certainly well before the filing of
the Settlement. Moreover, section 206 of the FPA dates to 1935 and here have
been countless proceedings under that section since then - including many
proceedings initiated by the Commission sua sponte. The role of intervenors in
these many other proceedings has only rarely been in doubt,(21) and we see no
good reason why the role of intervenors in this proceeding should have been any
more in doubt than in these many other proceedings where all participants
plainly understood their rights, responsibilities and, in short, roles.

43.      Regarding the scope of the proceeding, we note that the definitions of
alleged misconduct that Trial Staff based its investigation upon were consistent
with certain alleged "gaming practices" set for hearing by the Commission
concerning a number of public utilities operating in the California ISO and PX
markets.(22) Further, in any event, Trial Staff properly took a broad view of
its investigative authority in this proceeding.

44.      With respect to the California Attorney General's answer to the Trial
Staff's motion for reconsideration, as well as the California Attorney General
and EOB's subsequent motion for reconsideration, the arguments raised were not
new and were considered by the Chief Judge as well as addressed in detail and
persuasively by the Trial Staff's various filings described above. The
California Attorney General and EOB have

- ----------------------------
         (21) Fact-Finding Investigation of Potential Market Manipulation of
Electric and Natural Gas Prices, 105 FERC (P) 61,063, order on reh'g, 105 FERC
(P) 61,281 (2003). While that order found that in certain identified
Commission-initiated proceedings there were no "parties," the instant proceeding
was not one of those proceedings. Id. at P 5-7.

         (22) See supra note 9.



Docket No. EL02-115-000                                                       14

failed to persuade us that the Chief Judge's decision that the Settlement should
have been certified after all, and his recommendation that it be approved, is
incorrect.

45.      In sum, we agree with the Trial Staff and the Chief Judge that the
matters are issue here were thoroughly investigated, that in particular Avista
Utilities and Avista Energy did not engage in the three improper trading
strategies at issue here, and that the proposed Settlement reasonably resolves
this proceeding. Accordingly, we will approve the Settlement.

The Commission orders:

         The Settlement is hereby approved, as discussed in the body of this
order.

By the Commission. Commissioner Kelly not participating.

( S E A L )

                                  Linda Mitry,
                                Acting Secretary.