2002 AGN JUL 02 I17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

On September 15, 2000, the Southern Cities filed a complaint against the California ISO in Docket No. EL00-111-000. In their complaint, the Southern Cities (1) challenged the allocation to all Scheduling Coordinators of the costs of acquiring energy due to underscheduling by some Scheduling Coordinators and (2) alleged that the California ISO violated its filed Tariff by assessing neutrality adjustment charges to Scheduling Coordinators in excess of the $0.095/MWh limit contained in the ISO Tariff, after June 1, 2000, without first obtaining prior authorization from the California ISO Governing Board to increase the limit or providing notice to Scheduling Coordinators of any increase in the limit authorized by the Board. On September 25, 2000, the California ISO filed an answer to the Southern Cities' complaint. In its answer, the California ISO defended the allocation of energy purchase costs to all Scheduling Coordinators and alleged that the limit on neutrality adjustment charges was intended to be applied for budgeting purposes only on an annual basis, not an hourly basis, and was never intended to prohibit it from recovering legitimately incurred costs. On March 14, 2001, the Commission granted in part and dismissed in part the Southern Cities' complaint.2 The Commission concluded that the California ISO violated the $0.095/MWh limit on neutrality adjustment charges in the California ISO's filed Tariff that was in effect from June 1, 2000 until September 15, 2000, and ordered the California ISO to pay refunds for amounts charged in excess of this limit to one of the complainants. The Commission found that there was no basis for requiring the California ISO to absorb the costs of such refunds, and therefore allowed the California 3 Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, and Riverside, California V. California Independent System Operator Corporation, 94 FERC %61,268 (2001). 3