L
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`."I_I "F{"_. rn n,r,.
`
`03 JHL | EFHI.B&;. ENERGY REGULATORY cummiqg
`
`BEFORE THE
`
`Aquila, Inc.
`City of Redding, California
`City of Glendale, California
`
`Colorado River Commission
`Constellation Power Source, Inc.
`
`Coral Power, LLC
`
`El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P.
`
`Eugene Water and Electricity Board
`
`Idaho Power Company
`Koch Energy Trading, Inc.
`
`Las Vegas Cogeneration, L.P.
`
`MIECQO, Inc.
`Modesto Irrigation District
`Montana Power Company
`
`Morgan Stanley Capital Group
`
`Northermn California Power Agency
`
`PacificCorp
`FECO Energy Company
`
`Powerex Corporation (f'k/a British Columbia Power
`
`Exchange Corporation)
`
`Public Service Company of New Mexico
`
`Sempra Energy Trading Corporation
`TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.), and TransAlta Energy
`
`Marketing (California), Inc.
`
`Valley Electric Association, Inc.
`
`T Tt it it Tt Vi gt i Y Ve e ot Vot e T T et e T e e T e e T T
`
`53@ r““ '*"E':* .
`“1o p K
`H,‘.
`
`Ph
`£0z
`w"‘"“'flb Ay
`
`Docket No. ELm‘Hu:nfi“ur
`
`PW}"
`
`5/
`
`“'Efi.fq,?
`
`Docket No. EL03-181-000
`Docket No. EL03-182-000
`Docket No. EL03-183-000
`Docket No. EL03-184-000
`Docket No. EL03-185-000
`Docket No. EL03-186-000
`Docket No. EL03-187-000
`Docket No. EL03-188-000
`Docket No. EL03-189-000
`Docket No. EL03-190-000
`Docket No. EL03-191-000
`Docket No. EL03-192-000
`Docket Mo. EL03-193-000
`Docket No. EL03-194-000
`Docket No. EL03-195-000
`Docket No. EL03-196-000
`Docket No. EL03-197-000
`Docket Mo. EL03-198-000
`Docket No. EL03-199-000
`
`Docket No. EL03-200-000
`Docket No. EL03-201-000
`Docket No. EL03-202-000
`Docket No. EL03-203-000
`
`(Consolidated)
`
`INDICATED RESPONDENTS' ANSWER IN SUPPORT FOR EXPEDITED
`CLARIFICATION OF & AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE
`
`Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §385, 212 (2003), the Indicated Respondents’ move in support of
`
`the City of Glendale, California's ("Glendale™) July 3 motion to extend the date for responding to
`
`the June 25 show-cause order ("Partnership Order") in this case.
`
`! Indicated Respondents are Coral Power, L.L.C., Exelon Corporation, on behalf of Exelon
`
`Generation Company, LLC and PECO Energy Company, and Powerex Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Partnership Order directs the Indicated Respondents and other sellers to show cause
`by July 25 why they should not be found to have engaged in Gaming Practices pursuant to
`partnerships, alliances or other arrangements. But the Indicated Respondents are unlikely to be
`able to make an informed response to the show-cause demand of the Partnership Order by that
`date because it does not now know and likely will not know before July 16 what Gaming
`Practices it is alleged to have jointly engaged in. The date for showing cause should therefore be
`extend as requested in Glendale's motion.
`
`The Partnership Order, in the Commission's words, "complements an order being issued
`concurrently” ("Gaming Order™), Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 103 FERC 9 61,346 P3 (2003),
`which defines Gaming Practices for purposes of the Partnership Order, and directs the California
`ISO to provide by July 16 power sellers, including the Indicated Respondents, identified in the
`Gaming Order ("Identified Entities”) with the details of transactions in which the ISO alleges
`they engaged in Gaming Practices. American Electric Power Service Corp., 103 FERC 161,345
`(2003) (Ordering § C). The Identified Entities are then given 45 days or until September 1 to
`show cause why the ISO's allegations should be rejected. Jd. (Ordering § D).
`
`Not until the ISO publishes the data and analysis supporting its allegations on July 16
`will the Indicated Respondents and other Identified Entities know which transactions the ISO
`alleges were associated with the Gaming Practices they supposedly engaged in, be it individually
`or pursuant to a partnership, alliance or other arrangement that is the subject of the Partnership
`Order. Inexplicably, however, sellers subject to the Partnership Order are given only nine days
`to respond to the ISO's allegations, while the Identified Entities of the Gaming Order are given
`45 days to do the same thing. As Glendale contends in its Motion, this is not sensible. Every
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`target of the ISO's allegations should be given 45 days to evaluate the IS0 allegations and show
`
`cause with respect to them.
`
`For these reasons, Indicated Respondents endorse Glendale's motion and moves the
`
`Commission to extend the deadline for showing cause in this case to September 1.
`
`July 10, 2003
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Kimberly A, Curry
`
`Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
`
`A Registered Limited Liability Partership
`2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`Phone: (202) 828-5800
`
`Fax: (202) 223-1225
`
`Attorneys for Coral Power, LL.C. and on behalf of
`Indicated Respondenis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have this day served, by first class mail, a copy of the foregoing
`document on each party named in the official service list in this proceeding.
`
`Dated at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of July, 2003.
`
`y A. Curry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`