UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales
Of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary )
Services by Public Utilities )
)
Docket No. RM14-14-000
Comments of Dr. Romkaew Broehm and Mr. Gerald A. Taylor
I. Introduction
My name is Romkaew Broehm. I am a Principal of The Brattle Group, 44 Brattle Street, 3rd
Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. I am a consulting energy economist who has been active in
Commission, international, and state regulatory proceedings for many years. I have provided
testimony and/or advice in market-based rate proceedings for the past seven years.
My
credentials are attached to my comments.
My name is Gerald A. Taylor. I am a Principal of The Brattle Group, 44 Brattle Street, 3rd Floor,
Cambridge, MA 02138. I am a consulting energy economist who has focused on litigation and
regulatory proceedings in the petroleum, natural gas, electric power and transportation industries. I
provided testimony and declarations in various proceedings before the Commission related to the
crisis in the energy markets in the Western US during 2000-2001. My credentials are attached to
my comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments in response to the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-based Rates for
Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities (hereafter
2014 MBR Refinements NOPR) in Docket No. RM14-14-000. These comments are our own and
do not represent those of The Brattle Group, other Brattle principals, or our many and varied
past, present or future clients.
Since 2004,1 the Commission has witnessed the implementation by public utilities of its current
market power analyses and regulations governing market-based rate authorization for wholesale
sales of electric energy and ancillary services. The Commission understood the pros and cons of
these requirements. To reduce the burden to the industry, while ensuring adherence to the
Federal Power Act (FPA) standards, in this 2014 MBR Refinements NOPR the Commission
proposes and seeks comments on a number of changes to its market-based rate regulations.2 Our
focus our comments on two parts: 1) relevant geographic markets; and 2) availability factors of
energy limited resources.
II. Relevant Geographic Markets
For the purpose of its market power analysis, it has been the Commission’s policy to define
relevant geographic markets as balancing authority areas (BAAs) that include a BAA where the
seller’s generation is located (Home BAA market) and first-tier BAAs that are interconnected to
the Home BAA market (“default markets”). But through the course of the Commission’s marketbased reviews, the Commission found that this definition may not be clear where a supplier
1
See Market-Based Rates For Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services By
Public Utilities (Order No. 697 or Final Rule), 119 FERC ¶61,295 (2007). Later, the Commission
issued orders clarifying its Final Rule in Order Clarifying Final Rule, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), Order
No. 697-A, 124 FERC ¶ 61,055 (2008), [July 17 Clarification Order], 125 FERC ¶ 61,326 (2008), Order
No. 697-B. The Commission initially adopted the interim approach for analyzing generation market
power in AEP Power Mktg. Inc., 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 (“April 2004 MBR Order”), order on reh’g, 108
FERC ¶ 61,026 (2004).
2
2014 MBR Refinements NOPR at P.10.
2
(namely the independent power producer or “IPP”) is located in a generation–only BAA.3 Under
this circumstance, there is no clear nexus between the supplier and the load that the supplier
actually serves.4 The Commission proposes to define relevant markets as the BAAs that are
directly interconnected to the generation-only BAA.
We agree with the Commission’s logic. The purpose of defining a geographic market is to
measure market size, and ultimately assessing whether buyers have alternative supplies. In
principle, if the BAA market does not have any load, it should not be considered a relevant
geographic market. On the other hand, IPPs in a generation-only BAA are considered to be part
of a nearby market, if their power can reach buyers in a nearby market.
Nevertheless, we encourage the Commission to look beyond the Commission’s default market
rule when defining a proper relevant geographic market for a market power analysis. Our
comment provided herein is not about whether or not the Commission should use a seller’s
balancing authority area as a default market, but rather whether the BAA of a seller’s generation
and its first-tier BAA would be adequate for determining relevant default markets. As the
Commission may recall from the 2000-2001 Western power crisis experience, suppliers with
generation more than two wheels away could easily reach the California buyers and became
pivotal sellers.5 This was accomplished simply by having firm transmission rights at the key
interfaces as these rights could facilitate a seller’s generation position.
To illustrate this
circumstance, consider the following example. Suppose Supplier A is located in BAA 1 with a
topology as shown in Figure 1. Under the Commission’s market power test, Supplier A would
only perform the indicative screen analyses for its home market, BAA 1 and BAA 2.
3
Id. at P.49
4
Id.
5
See Docket No. EL00-95 et al. and Docket No. EL-01-10.
3
Suppose further that Supplier A has transmission rights on Path 2-3 from the BAA 2 to BAA 3
direction. Under the Commission’s current test, Supplier A neither needs to study the BAA 3
market nor has obligation under its market-based rate regulations to report to the Commission
whether it has any firm transmission rights on Path 2-3 in the direction of BAA 2 to BAA 3. The
Commission generally addresses sellers’ import rights on transmission capacity leading into their
default markets when performing a horizontal market power analysis.6 In the context of vertical
market power, it focuses on a transmission provider’s discriminatory behavior.7
Figure 1
Hypothetical Topology—For Illustrative Purpose Only
The transmission reservation data, which would be useful for determining a seller’s relevant
geographic markets, are not required to be reported in its asset appendix (Appendix B).8 As in
6
Order 697 at P. 354.
7
The Commission relies on the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) regulations to oversee
whether a transmission provider with an affiliated MBR seller violates any OATT rules. See Id. at PP.
397-421.
8
Electric Transmission Assets and/or Natural Gas Interstate Pipelines and/or Gas Storage Facilities.
4
our example, if the Commission would require sellers to report their transmission reservation
data regardless of whether they are for the default markets, Supplier A would need to perform
the market power analyses for the BAA 3 market.
This suggests that the Commission should expand its review to consider sellers’ other
information. The Commission has long sought comments on factors (such as the transmission
information, historical wholesale trading data, and historical pricing patterns among neighboring
areas) that it should consider when assessing a geographic market boundary.9 In fact, pursuant to
Order 642, the Commission adopted a review process for approving a M&A transaction that
relies in part on the merger applicants’ two years historical trade data.10 It stated that it is
appropriate to consider whether certain market participants are likely candidates to be included
in the market when their historical sales data suggest that they actually have been able to reach
the market in the past.11
We therefore recommend that the Commission require market-based rate sellers to summarize
their historical short-term trade patterns outside their Home BAA market and report their firm
transmission service reservations of one month or longer12 as part of their triennial update
9
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Market-based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services for Public Utilities, Docket RM04-7, May 2006, PP.51-64. (hereafter
2006 MBR NOPR).
10
See Revised Filing Requirements Under Part 33 of the Commission’s Regulation Final Rule (Order No.
642), November 15, 2000, at §33.3 (6)..
11
Id. at n 41.
12
In Order 697, the Commission required sellers to account for firm and network transmission
reservations with a duration of longer than 28 days when performing the net Simultaneous Import
Limit study for a home BAA market. See Order 697 at P.368.
5
market-based rate filing.13 An MBR seller is required to report these data to the Commission via
the Electricity Quarterly Reports (EQRs), which was recently updated to include the E-tag
information. This information can be used to determine whether or not default geographic
markets as defined by the Commission are adequate for the purpose of the market power
analyses.
III. Availability Factors of Energy Limited Resources
For availability factors of new energy limited resources, we propose that the Commission
consider the use of the average historical capacity factor of existing energy limited resources with
the same technologies within the same region instead of the use of the EIA-derived, regional
capacity factor estimates that the Commission has proposed.14 The EIA-derived, regional
capacity factor estimates are an annual average value that does not reflect seasonality creating a
disconnect with the Commission’s two indicative screens, which are required to be performed on
a seasonal basis. Generation patterns for certain energy limited resources such as solar and wind
in certain locations may vary by months and seasons. As an example, Table 1 below compares
the EIA–derived WECC Southwest 2009-2013 average annual capacity factor for wind
generation with average seasonal capacity factors of wind generation located in Arizona and New
Mexico (AZ & NM) of the same period.
13
Although the transmission reservation data can be obtained from the OASIS, it would be helpful to
integrate key information in one place for the purposes of the market power review.
14
2014 MBR Refinements NOPR at P.69. The five-year average monthly (seasonal) capacity factors of
existing energy limited resources can be derived using historical generation data reported in Form
EIA-923. See www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923
6
Table 1
2009-2013 Historical Average Capacity Factors of Wind Generation
EIA-Derived WECC Southwest vs. EIA Form 923-Derived AZ-NM
Location & Fuel Type
AZ & NM Wind
Winter
Seasonal Capacity Factors
Spring
Summer
Fall
EIA AEO
(Southwest)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
32.2
37.7
23.0
27.4
26.0
Sources a nd Notes :
[1] ‐ [4]: Avera ge of 2009 ‐ 2013 Hi s tori ca l Sea s ona l Ca pa ci ty Fa ctors .
Monthl y Net Genera ti on from EIA Form‐923
[5]: Ca l cul a ted ba s ed on 2009‐2013 GW a nd TWh da ta obta i ned from the 2012, 2013, a nd 2014 EIA Annua l Energy Outl ook publ i c
Ta bl e 58.19 ‐ Renewa bl e Energy Genera ti on by Fuel ‐ Wes tern El ectri ci ty Coordi na ti ng Counci l / Southwes t
Additionally, we seek Commission clarification on whether the availability factors are required
to be applied only to nameplate capacity ratings of energy limited resources. Does the
Commission’s statement that sellers without five years of historical data cannot use seasonal
ratings imply that the availability factors should not be applied to seasonal ratings?15 If this is the
case, it is appropriate to apply the same availability calculation to both new and existing units of
energy limited resources. A cautionary note is that one needs to be consistent in using capacity
ratings for calculating historical capacity factors. If the capacity ratings are nameplate in the
historical capacity factor calculation, these capacity factors should be applied to nameplate
capacity ratings.
The Commission also seeks comments whether peak hours should be used to calculate the
availability factor of photovoltaic solar. However, the Commission did not provide the definition
of peak hours whether it refers to those 16 hours under the standard trading period of hour
15
Id.
7
ending 7 am to hour ending 22 pm or 8 to 12 hours during daylight savings??? time. The number
of daylight hours also varys depending upon season. Summer months would have longer
daylight hours than winter months. Different study areas could also have different peak hours.
Some market areas have daily peak hours towards the evening hours but some could have daily
peak hours fall in the early afternoon. Moreover, these peak hours could vary from year to year.
The Commission’s screens capture a study area’s daily peak load (either of the annual peak month
for the Pivotal Supplier Screen or the average daily peak within each season for the Market Share
Screen). We suggest that the Commission give reasonable flexibility to sellers with regard to the
number of peak hours when calculating the availability factors for energy limited technologies as
long as applicants justify their approach.
8
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
Principal
Cambridge, MA
+1.617.864.7900
Romkaew.Broehm@brattle.com
Dr. Romkaew Broehm is an economist whose practice is focused on the electric utility industry. She
specializes in the areas of market deregulation and oversight, market power analyses, studies of bulk
power markets, evaluation of demand-side management, and utility cost structures. She has led
numerous Brattle Group studies in competitive impact analyses for M&A, market-based rate, price
forecasting, network transmission simulation, strategic bidding behavior, and generation and
transmission asset valuations. Dr. Broehm has submitted testimony and comments before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on market-based rates (MBR) and merger and acquisition
(M&A) matters. She also has experience in analyzing potential market manipulation allegations.
Recently, she co-authored comments to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that
proposed a practical definition of market manipulation.
Dr. Broehm also has experience analyzing and testifying on potential market manipulation allegations.
She has presented to energy audiences on navigating the complexities of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which focuses on how energy companies should address the
economic, governance, regulatory, and transaction issues that they will face as they begin implementing
the requirements of the Act.
In addition, Dr. Broehm provides to her clients analyses and litigation support on the prudence of
particular investment decisions and power procurement decisions, as well as the valuation of “provider
of last resort” supplies. Her experience in pricing and ratemaking includes designing and evaluating
dynamic pricing programs, such as a real-time pricing programs and block rate designs. She has
implemented demand simulation models to analyze changes in net economic benefits due to changes in
rate design.
Before joining The Brattle Group, Dr. Broehm worked at Christenson Associates and taught economics
and statistics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Cardinal Stritch College.
EDUCATION
B.S. in Economics, Chulalongkorn University, (1983).
Ph.D. in Economics with an Industrial Organization major, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, (1994).
AREAS OF EXPERTISE





Market Monitoring and Market Power Analyses (including M&A and Market-Based Rate)
Pricing and Ratemaking
Valuation of Generation Assets/Contracts and Price Forecasting
Resource Planning and Industry Restructuring
Demand Response Bidding Strategy
1
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
EXPERIENCE
Market Monitoring and Market Power Analyses

Provided testimony on market manipulation in the Pacific Northwest bilateral power market
during 2001. Dr. Romkaew Broehm analyzed transmission data on major interfaces of the
California ISO and found a supplier enjoyed and manipulated transmission dominance to
strengthen its bargaining power and demand high power prices.

Market-based rate (MBR) applications before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). Assisted electric utility clients in the eastern and western United States, developing
expert testimonies and analyses in accordance with the FERC’s final MBR rules.
Her
understanding of transmission networks has allowed her to work closely with the client’s
transmission team in preparing simultaneous import limits and determining relevant market
product definitions.

Oversee Southern Company’s Energy Auction from April 2009 to April 2010. The Brattle
Group was selected as the Independent Auction Monitor (IAM) for the Southern Company
Energy Auction. As part of its mitigation for prospective market power, Southern Company
has offered a must-offer, bid-based energy auction for day-ahead and hour-ahead “Into SoCo”
products for at least three years.
The auction began on April 23, 2009.
Dr. Broehm
developed, designed, and managed the implementation of protocols used in monitoring the
auction and Southern Company’s compliance to its tariff. Brattle’s first report as IAM was
filed at FERC on April 23, 2010.

Evaluation of competitive impacts of utility mergers on wholesale power and gas markets in
various regions, including ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, SERC, FRCC, SPP, Entergy System, and
WSCC. Dr. Broehm led the development of The Brattle Group’s Delivered Price Test (DPT)
model, as well as its strategic behavioral model used for analyzing potential horizontal and
vertical (electricity and natural gas) market power. She led a team in examining whether a
transaction potentially created any short-term incentive to exercise vertical wholesale market
power using a locational-marginal pricing simulation model. She has conducted analyses in
support of an M&A application as well as provided critical studies for opposing an M&A case.

Examination of market conditions of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) wholesale power
markets, including day-ahead and energy imbalance markets and transmission congestion
management in SPP. Dr. Broehm testified that the SPP wholesale power markets did not
2
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
provide Qualifying Facilities (QFs), particularly wind QFs, to have a meaningful opportunity
to sell to third parties.

Analysis for California investor-owned utilities in the competitiveness of wholesale power
markets at major trading hubs in WECC. She examined liquidity of the day-ahead power
markets, the CAISO real-time power market, the CAISO ancillary services markets, and the
effectiveness of the CAISO market power mitigation measures.

Investigation and evaluation of the California electric power crisis. She coordinated an
extensive discovery effort and the in-depth analysis of market data and other evidence, such
as trading records and compliance logs. She supervised the evaluation of numerous trading
strategies and the extent to which individual market participants used those strategies to
game market rules and manipulate the spot energy and ancillary service markets in
California. She also provided a detailed analysis of market participants’ bidding strategies, the
extent of economic and physical withholding by suppliers, the potential for coordinated
interaction and collusion, and the relationship between market fundamentals, market rules,
and the behavior of market participants.

Evaluation of the impacts of the California power crisis on the western forward markets. She
developed the methodology to estimate artificial price inflation in forward contracts
transacted during the crisis period, based on estimated implied heat rates during outside crisis
periods.
Price and Ratemaking

Estimation of the incremental costs to the utility of serving additional demand and customers
by time period, sub-region, and customer class. Assisted an integrated utility in PJM in
conducting marginal cost studies for the utility’s transmission and distribution sectors.

Assisted in the design of a demand simulation model used to analyze a block rate proposal in
support of rate filing. Implemented the Constant Elasticity of Substitution demand model
and analyzed changes in net economic benefits due to the change in rate design.

Revision of the structure of transmission access charges in the context of membership
negotiations with non-participating transmission owners for the California Independent
System Operator and a working group of stakeholders. The effort involved data collection,
cost-benefit analyses of various access charges and membership scenarios, and the
presentation of these analyses at monthly stakeholder meetings.
3
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM

Redesigned rates of transmission and ancillary services, and drafted testimony on these issues
for the rate case as well as for the restructuring plan for a cooperative utility close to
bankruptcy.

Analysis of the strategic considerations associated with various TransCo and ISO membership
and design alternatives, and evaluated financial and customer rate impacts of those options.

Preparation and the development of cost of capital, for a Canadian electric utility, using
standard estimation techniques (DCF, CAPM). The project also assessed more customized
models specific to the industries or lines of business in question, e.g., based on the structure
and risk characteristics of cash flows, or based on multi-factor models that better characterize
regulated industries.
Valuation of Generation Assets/Contracts and Price Forecasting

Advisor to an investment firm in the valuation of the generation assets in the southeastern
part of the U.S. This task involved reviewing the work done by third parties as well as the
preparation of Brattle’s own evaluation of the assets. She unpacked the key drivers of the
assets’ value and provided insights into how different variables (such as fuel prices, heat rates,
early retirement option, and load growth) affect the underlying valuation. As part of the
valuation, she also examined the transmission system surrounding the plants and market
rules to determine whether they could diminish the value of these plants.

Provision of a market-based revenue forecast for energy and capacity for a valuation of a
power plant in a property tax dispute to a cogeneration plant in the northeastern part of the
U.S., The report prepared by The Brattle Group was used to negotiate a settlement of the
plant’s assessed value.

Development of a multiple-factor price and load model which could estimate an optimal
hedging strategy while recognizing limitations of the liquidity and competitiveness of the
market for a utility seeking to demonstrate prudency of its forward contracts, which were
used to hedge against spot market price volatility.

Analysis and support to demonstrate a utility’s prudence in procuring forward purchased
contracts for both power and gas during the western crisis, even though those contract prices
were high relative to actual spot prices. During the course of the project, she estimated the
market-based credit-risk premium embedded on forward prices. The results of her analyses
were presented before the Nevada Public Utility Commission.
4
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM

Valuation of profitability of power plants in New York City and on Long Island. Developed
and simulated the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) wholesale power
market conditions in order to obtain forecasting Locational-Based Marginal Prices (LMBPs)
using DAYZER, a commercial, state-of-the-art LBMP simulation model.

Identification of components of short-run avoided costs for qualifying facilities (QFs) and
assessed whether day-ahead power prices and “out-of-market” costs were a reasonable
measure of the true short-run avoided costs, given QFs’ attributes.

Estimation of damages resulting from a breach of a land purchase contract on behalf of a
plaintiff in a bankruptcy matter. Her work involved assessment of ability to build and
finance a power plant, preparing energy price forecasts for the New York City market, and
estimating associated capacity prices in accordance with the NYISO downward sloping
demand curve requirement.

Advised electric power utilities on corporate strategy and structure issues in the areas of
stranded costs, market power, and deregulated markets. Her project work has included
development of methodology for market price forecasts, including modeling of scarcity
premiums and volatility under alternative restructuring scenarios.
Resource Planning and Industry Restructuring

Developed a resource and procurement plan for an investor-owned utility in the West. She
particularly focused on the development of a set of scenarios on key issues such as potential
federal climate legislation, natural gas prices, electricity demand and demand side
management strategies, and the complex interplay between these factors.

Conducted a serious of studies for an EPRI/GRI joint research venture on the impact of
electric utility restructuring on fuel use. Developed a new market condition that examined
impacts of simultaneous changes in market conditions (such as new generation expansion
risks and changes in transmission flow patterns) on various types of fuel consumption. These
assumptions were then used in a price forecasting model. The results allowed her to examine
power plants’ viability (particularly nuclear and old power plants) for each of the nine NERC
sub-regions, their interaction with each other, and how restructuring was likely to play out
in each region.

Construction of a model that calculated the option value of offering price-capped services,
given uncertainty in the prices and quantities of power needed to cover the obligation.
Additionally, a logit model was applied to simulate the impact of customer switching
5
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
behavior on the option value. In response to utility clients seeking to demonstrate the costs
of their potential exposure associated with being the Provider of Last Resort for nonswitching customers, Construction of a model that calculated the option value of offering
price-capped services, given uncertainty in the prices and quantities of power needed to
cover the obligation. Additionally, a logit model was applied to simulate the impact of
customer switching behavior on the option value.

Examination of potential for hydroelectric generators, for an EPRI research project, to
provide a larger share of operating reserve generating capacity in a restructured electricity
market. She conducted interviews with several utilities to discuss strategies that the company
wanted to pursue, versus what practices they were following.

Preparation of a marginal cost study for an integrated electric utility in PJM, studying
estimated incremental costs of the utility for serving additional demand and customer by
time period, sub-region, and customer class. These costs consist of marginal costs of energy,
capacity, transmission, distribution, and customer-related costs. Since the utility is operated
in PJM and relies on the PJM markets to serve its customers, the study entailed projections of
both the utility’s costs and wholesale power prices for energy, congestion, losses and
generation capacity. The results of the study were used as a basis for their rate designs.
Demand Response Bidding Strategy

Examination of a demand response and energy efficiency programs and the ISO-New
England market rules in order to develop bidding strategies that maximize the utility’s
demand responses and energy efficiency programs when participating in the ISO-New
England’s Forward Capacity Market (FCM), for a utility in the ISO-New England.

Led a seminar on load management strategies to mid-management executives for a large
southeastern utility.
Examples were drawn from other utilities’ strategies in other
restructuring states.
Evaluation of the value of the utility’s existing load-management
program, and advised on appropriate strategic responses to retail competition.

Development of marginal costing procedures, for a day-ahead and week-ahead two-part realtime pricing program for various utilities, For a Real-Time Pricing Program. Application of
econometric techniques to analyze the actual and expected load response of large industrial
customers with on-site generation.
6
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Northeast Energy and Commerce Association
PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS
“Is It Possible to Charge Market-Based Pricing for Ancillary Services in a Non-ISO Market?,” presented
at the 33rd Annual Eastern Conference of Center for Research In Regulated Industry, May 16, 2014.
“Dodd Frank Compliance for Oil and Gas Companies,” (with Julia Sullivan and Cary Oswald) Oil and
Gas Monitor, February 6, 2012.
“Impacts of Dodd-Frank on Energy Market,” presented at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Houston, February 2012.
Comments on the FERC Notice of Inquiry on Analysis of Horizontal Market Power Under The Federal
Power Act, (with Peter Fox-Penner, Oliver Grawe and James Reitzes), Docket No. RM11-14-000, May
24, 2011.
“Losing Money to Increase Profits: A Proposed Framework for Defining Market Manipulation,” (with
Shaun Ledgerwood, Gary Taylor, and Daniel Arthur), The Brattle Group Discussion Paper, March 2011.
“Energy Trading Under CFTC’s Expanded Authority” presented at February 10, 2011.
Comments on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Prohibition of Market Manipulation (with Daniel Arthur, and Gary Taylor), 17 CFR Part 180 Rin No.
3038 AD27, January 3, 2011.
“Is Thailand Ready for Nuclear Power?” Bangkok Post, April 5, 2007.
Comments on the FERC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Market Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of
Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities (with Peter Fox-Penner), Docket No.
RM04-7, August 7, 2006. Presented the comments at the FERC MBR Outreach Meeting, FERC,
November 30, 2006.
“The New Art of Plant Acquisition”, Public Utilities Fortnightly, June 2006, pp. 68-72.
Deregulated Electricity Pricing In the U.S. – Dramatic New Rules From the FERC (with Peter FoxPenner), April 25, 2004.
“Competition in Wholesale Electric Power Markets” (with Peter Fox-Penner, Gary Taylor, and James
Bohn), Energy Law Journal, 2002, Volume 23, No. 2. pp. 281-348.
“Price Responsive Electric Demand: A National Necessity, Not an Option” (with Peter Fox-Penner),
Electricity Pricing in Transition, Chapter 10, 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers (Norwell, MA).
7
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
Impact of Changing Fuel and Power Market Structures on Price Behavior (with F. Graves, L. Borucki, S.
Thumb, and M. Schaal), Technical Report, August 2001, EPRI1001197 GTI GRI-01/0163 (Palo Alto, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute).
How Competitive Market Dynamics Affect Coal, Nuclear and Gas Generation and Fuel Use — A 10 Year
Look Ahead (with F. Graves, L. Borucki, S. Thumb, and M. Schaal), Final Report, May 1999, TR-111506
(Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 1999).
Mechanisms for Evaluating the Role of Hydroelectric Generation in Ancillary Service Markets (with
F.C. Graves, R.L. Earle, T.J. Jenkin, and D.M. Murphy), Final Report, November 1998, TR-111707 (Palo
Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 1998).
Energy Market Impacts of Electric Industry Restructuring: Understanding Wholesale Power
Transmission and Trading (with S.L. Thumb, A.M. Schaal, F. C. Graves, and L.S. Borucki), Final Report,
March 1998, EPRI TR-108999, GRI-97/0289 (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 1998).
“Retail Pricing of Reactive Power Service” (with Fernando Alvarado, Laurence Kirsch and Allen
Panvini), Proceedings: 1996 EPRI Conference on Innovative Approaches to Electricity Pricing Managing
the Transition to Market-Based Pricing, Electricity Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California,
March 1996.
“The Effects of Imports on Domestic Wages by Unions,” with John Heywood revised for Cambridge
Journal of Economics, March 1996.
TESTIMONY
Testimony on behalf of the California Parties, United States of America before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Complainant, v. All Jurisdictional Sellers of Energy
and/or Capacity at Wholesale into Electric Energy and/or Capacity Markets in the Pacific Northwest,
Including Parties to the Western System Power Pool Agreement, Respondents., Docket No. EL01-10085, September 2012 and March 2013.
Affidavit on behalf of El Paso Electric Company, Triennial Update Market-Based Rate Filing, United
States of America before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER99-2416-008,
December, 2012
Affidavit on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Triennial Market-Based Rate update Filing,
United States of America before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER10-1107002, ER03-198-018, ER01-198-018, December 2012
Independent Auction Monitor, “Annual Report for Southern Companies’ Energy Auction April 23, 2009
to February 10, 2009,” The Brattle Group, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 09-88,
April, 2010.
Affidavit on behalf of National Grid USA, Triennial Market-Based Rate Update Filing, Federal Energy
8
ROMKAEW P. BROEHM
Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER96-2585-006, ER98-6-011, ER99-2387-004, ER02-1470-004,
ER02-1573-004, ER05-1439, EC06-125, December 2013, December 2010 and January, 2008.
Affidavit with Philip Hanser on Behalf of Northeast Utilities Service Company and Select Energy, Inc.,
Triennial Market-Based Rate Update Filing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER96496-015, ER99-14-012, and ER99-3658-003, December 2010 and January, 2008.
Affidavit on behalf of El Paso Electric Company, Triennial Market-Based Rate Authority Filing, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER99-2416, March, 2010.
Affidavit on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Triennial Market-Based Rate Authority Filing,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER03-198-012, December, 2009.
Affidavit on behalf of Southern California Edison, Triennial Market-Based Rate Authority Filing,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER09-712, ER06-736, ER02-2263, ER01-2217,
ER08-931 and ER08-337, December, 2009.
Affidavit on behalf of NV Energy, Market Power Update to Assess Changes in Status, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER01-1527-10, ER01-1529, November, 2008.
Affidavit on behalf of Sierra Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power Company, Market Power
Update to Assess Changes in Status, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER01-1527-10,
ER01-1529, May, 2008 and June, 2008.
Affidavit on Behalf of Watson Cogeneration Company, Application of Watson Cogeneration Company
for Order Accepting Initial Market-Based Tariff, Waving Regulations, and Granting Blanket Approvals,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER08-337, December, 2007.
Affidavit with Dr. Fox-Penner on Behalf of American Wind Energy Association, The Wind Coalition,
and John Deere Renewables, LLC, Motion to Intervene and Protest Opposing SPP IOU’s Request to
Terminate PURPA Purchase Obligations, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. QM07-5,
November, 2007.
Affidavit, Change In Status Filing on Behalf of El Paso Electric Company, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Docket Nos. ER99-2416, July, 2006.
Affidavit with Dr. Fox-Penner, Market Power Analysis for Market-based Rate Application on Behalf of
Vandolah Power Company L.L.C., Front Range Power Company, LLC, and Dartmouth Power Associates
Limited Partnership, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER02-1336, ER96-1149, and
ER02-1173, July, 2005.
Affidavit with Dr. Fox-Penner, Market Power Analysis for Market-based Rate Application on Behalf of
Dartmouth PPA Holdings, LLC and Dartmouth Power Associates, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Docket Nos. ER05-598 and ER05-559, February, 2005.
9
GERALD A. TAYLOR
Principal
Cambridge, MA 02138
+1.617-864-7900
Gary.Taylor@brattle.com
Mr. Gary Taylor’s areas of expertise include contract and market incentives, antitrust and regulatory
economics. His consulting activities have focused upon litigation and regulatory proceedings in the
petroleum, natural gas, electric power and transportation industries. Mr. Taylor has also provided assistance
to clients in matters involving corporate financial and strategic planning. Prior to founding Incentives
Research in 1983, he worked for the firm of Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett.
EDUCATION
B.A. in History, University of Kansas, 1970
J.D., University of Kansas, 1973
M.S. in Finance and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 1978
AREAS OF EXPERTISE: - CHECK THESE TO SEE IF ALL APPLY








Contract and market risks and incentives
Antitrust and Regulatory Economics
Transition Markets
Market Monitoring and Market Power Analyses (including M&A and Market-Based Rate)
Valuation of Generation Assets/Contracts and Price Forecasting
Resource Planning and Industry Restructuring
Demand Response Bidding Strategy
Pricing and Ratemaking
EXPERIENCE
 For the California Attorney General analyses and expert testimony (both written and at hearing)
regarding the manipulation of prices in the bilateral power markets in the Pacific Northwest of the
U.S. in late 2000 and through 2001. The proceeding before the Federal Energy Commission required
the development of an extensive contract by contract database to address the potential application of
the Mobile-Sierra Doctrine to short-term bilateral transactions. The allegations involved Coral
Trading, (Shell North America), Powerex, Trans Canada and TransAlta.
 For the California Parties litigation support and extensive written and oral (hearing) expert testimony
regarding manipulation of electric power and prices in the California Power Exchange day-ahead and
hour-ahead markets and the California ISO real-time imbalance energy and ancillary services
markets during 2000-01. The proceeding, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
involved Enron, Dynegy, Mirant, Reliant, Williams, Sempra, Powerex and many other suppliers in
the U.S. and Canada.
1
GERALD A. TAYLOR

For a major electric utility in the Southeast development of recommendations for the design of a
greenhouse gas emissions control policy. The engagement involved detailed modeling and analysis of
the impacts of pricing carbon on electric utilities and their customers in the Eastern half of the
United States (the Eastern Interconnect) as well as upon fuel prices and households more generally.
An assessment was made of the implications of various approaches for technology development and
investment, for the potential scope of control programs and any resulting inequities, and for limiting
economic disruption and hardship.

For a Public Utility District in the Pacific Northwest, an assessment of “down-the-road” economic
impacts of an out of market long-term power purchase contract under the Mobile-Sierra standard.

For a large Canadian conglomerate, evaluation of refining assets serving the Northeastern US. The
analysis included assessment of sales of comparable assets and modeling and evaluation of future
inputs, outputs and cash flows.

In a proceeding before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an assessment of the impacts of
price manipulation and market dysfunction in electric power spot markets upon the prices in forward
power prices in contracts signed during the period of market dysfunction. The analysis was based
upon the relationship between prices in forward power and natural gas contracts.

For the State of California an investigation of the impacts of the activities of the El Paso companies
and others upon natural gas and electric power prices in California Markets. This investigation
addressed pipeline operations and capacity, affiliate abuse, and potential collusion.

For a private litigant analysis of the impacts of OPEC cartel activities on petroleum products prices in
the United States during the period from March 1999 to the end of 2000. The assessment included
the development of a mean reversion model of oil prices that provided the basis for estimating oil
prices in the absence of production restrictions undertaken by OPEC.

For several major petroleum firms involved in litigation over a disputed patent for reformulated
gasoline, a review of avoidance costs and a critique of estimates of both avoidance costs and
reasonable royalty rates provided by expert witnesses for the patent holder. This engagement
required detailed assessment of gasoline product specifications, component blending characteristics
and blending processes and costs.

For two electric utilities in the southwest an assessment of the market power implications of their
proposed merger. The analysis required application of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
2
GERALD A. TAYLOR
Appendix A methodology as well as that outlined in Department of Justice Horizontal Merger
Guidelines. Existing modeling techniques were extended to encompass both a flow-based
transmission representation and simultaneous, equilibrium market solution.

For a major industrial concern, an analysis of balancing charges proposed by an LDC for its natural
gas transportation customers, including a review and assessment of actual balancing costs and
preparation of alternative proposals for cost recovery.

For a Pennsylvania electric utility company, assistance in assessing options for procuring and
transporting natural gas for re-powering oil-fired generating plants and in developing regulatory
strategies and support for conversion of an oil pipeline to gas service. The analysis, which included
estimating the cost of procuring gas supply and transportation under terms offered by the franchised
LDC and comparing this cost to those that could be achieved by dealing directly with interstate gas
pipelines and gas suppliers, support the utility’s application to interconnect with the interstates by
converting an existing oil pipeline to gas service.

For a large shipper of crude oil and petroleum products, an analysis of pipeline transportation rates
proposed by a Midwestern carrier. Detailed assessment of carrier costs demonstrated rates were
excessive even under “light-handed” oil pipeline regulatory standards.

For a refiner in the western United States, an assessment of pipeline carrier concentration and market
power in the Salt Lake City region and possible justifications for and market impacts of restrictive
pipeline access terms proposed by a carrier.

For the State of Alaska, a review of litigation positions and damage evaluation models developed for a
large-scale court action to recover unpaid royalties on crude production from the Alaska North Slope.

For the Internal Revenue Service, an assessment of the appropriate price levels for Alaska North
Slope and Cook Inlet crude oil production and of the Windfall Profits Tax liabilities of crude oil
producers in Alaska; the engagement involved determination of crude value in end markets,
evaluation of crude oil exchange transactions, determination of crude oil disposition by market area,
estimation of appropriate marine, pipeline and gathering costs, and consideration of the impacts of
tax levies and royalty interests.

For the State of California, the plaintiff in an antitrust action, ongoing litigation support in the area of
West Coast crude oil market conditions including analyses of market logistics, major oil company
crude oil pricing, valuation and trading practices, an assessment of the competitiveness of prices
established by major refining companies for crude oil produced in California and other West Coast
fields, and the computation of damages resulting from non-competitive pricing.

For the City of Long Beach, California, ongoing support in the assessment of major oil company crude
oil trading practices and agreements and their implications with respect to valuation terms in
3
GERALD A. TAYLOR
contracts for the sale of crude oil produced from the Wilmington field. The analysis included
modeling production and revenues resulting under alternative proposed contracting provisions.

For a group proposing a large scale interstate natural gas pipeline project to serve the California
enhanced oil recovery market, assistance in the development of expert testimony on the competitive
benefits of the proposed project in support of a request for FERC certification.

Assistance to counsel for a major oil company in an assessment of the competitive impacts of the
Texaco/Getty merger.

For the State of Connecticut, a review of the performance of the market for home heating oil in the
Northeast during winter of 1989-90.

For a natural gas pipeline company, assistance in preparation of expert testimony on the economics
and regulation of the U.S. natural gas industry for use in ongoing antitrust litigation.

For a producer of silicon and silicon alloys, an assessment of allegations of price fixing. The
engagement included analysis of and expert testimony regarding market structure, the behavior of
market participants and prices in the marketplace. Particular attention was given to product, market
definition, the impact of imports on domestic prices, the production costs of domestic producers, and
the effects of contracting practices in the industry.

For the Internal Revenue Service, an assessment of the value of the unregistered common stock of a
large newspaper company obtained in a stock swap. Option pricing concepts and analyses of pricing
in similar large block transactions established that the discounts claimed by the taxpayer as a result of
trading restrictions on the shares were too large.

For a large conglomerate, an assessment of damages arising from misrepresentations regarding the
sales of a consumer appliance manufacturer being purchased by the company. The analysis involved
estimating the magnitude of the misrepresentation and its impact upon the value of the purchased
entity.

For a large New York electric utility, development of testimony on the level of variance around stated
estimates of output in purchased power contracts that is “commercially reasonable” in the context of
PURPA and New York statutes regarding pricing of power sales by small independent power
producers. The analysis required identification of sources of variance in capacity and output,
assessment of how and by whom variances might be controlled, a review of the allocation of risks
between the parties and the impacts of relevant legal restrictions and market conditions. Twentytwo separate contracts were involved in the litigation.

For a Massachusetts electric utility, assistance in responding to federal and state initiatives to
deregulate and restructure portions of the electric utility industry. The engagement involved
4
GERALD A. TAYLOR
assessment of the company’s stranded investment exposure, assessment of potential market power
problems in a restructured power market, the development of incentive rates for portions of the
company that would remain regulated and the development of testimony in response to a wide range
of specific proposals made by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities including the
divestiture of utility generating assets.

For a Massachusetts electric utility involved in arbitrating a contract damage claim, an evaluation of
the impacts/benefits upon ratepayers of completing a development-stage, coal-fired NUG facility
whose developer failed to meet contract performance requirements and deadlines. The engagement
required review of renegotiated contract terms and application of the utility’s capacity expansion
planning/production costing models to assess the system impacts of proceeding under these new
terms. The damage claims put forth by the NUG’s expert were also reviewed and critiqued.

For an electric utility in New England, assessment of the financial exposure that might result from
the breach of a purchased power agreement with a non-utility generator. The NUG had an operating
facility (QF) using renewable fuels. The engagement involved development of contract performance
and financial impact models for both the utility and the NUG, development of approaches for
addressing uncertainties in parameters affecting contract performance such as fuel (wood chips) and
O&M costs and dispatch pool system lambdas, and assessment of the damage exposure and feasible
settlement ranges involved in litigation.

For NASA, an evaluation of the appropriate prices to be charged for “in space” services provided to
possible commercial users of NASA’s Space Station Polar Platform.

For the U.S. Department of Energy, studies of the economic effects of alternative methods for
establishing rates for petroleum pipelines with particular emphasis upon the impacts of the
procedures set out by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the Williams 154 Opinion.

For the State of California, an analysis of the financial impacts of alternative contractual approaches
for leasing oil and gas rights to state-owned offshore properties.

For a large combined gas and electric utility company, the development of an integrated, computerbased planning system which encompassed electric and gas demand and pricing, rates and required
revenues, generation/production planning, and financial forecasting.

For a major research institution, specification of a financial model as part of a comprehensive system
(EGEAS) for use in capacity expansion planning by electric utility companies.

For numerous utility companies throughout the United States, assessment of the financial feasibility
of continued investment in coal and nuclear electric generating plants under construction. The
engagement involved critiquing construction cost escalation estimates derived through econometric
techniques and developing alternative estimates.
5
GERALD A. TAYLOR

For a financially distressed major electric utility in the Mid-Atlantic region, an assessment of
innovative financing options for end-user conservation programs.

For the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, development of a linear programming based refinery
operations model and database for all major U.S. refiners for use in assessing refinery efficiency and
costs.

Research staff, Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Taylor assessed the
potential of photovoltaic power generation to displace central station alternatives. Included in the
analysis was a review of the legal barriers to the penetration of photovoltaic technology.

Staff attorney, Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Taylor practiced as part of a unit seeking to reform
various aspects of the legal system for the benefit of clients with limited resources.
PUBLICATIONS
“Losing Money to Increase Profits: A Proposed Framework for Defining Market Manipulation,” with Shaun
D. Ledgerwood, Gerald A. Taylor, Romkaew P. Broehm and Daniel S. Arthur, The Brattle Group, Inc., March
2011.
“Comments of Dr. Daniel Arthur, Dr. Romkaew P. Broehm and Mr. Gary Taylor to the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Prohibition of Market
Manipulation, 17 CFR Part 180l,” with Daniel S. Arthur, Romkaew P. Broehm and Gerald A. Taylor, The
Brattle Group, Inc., January 2011.
“When Sparks Fly: Economic Issues in Complex Energy Contract Litigation, Energy, No. 1, 2009.
“Developments and Risks: What’s Happening Along the LNG Supply Chain?,” with Steven H. Levine, LNG
Development in the Northeast, December 2006.
“Competition in Wholesale Electricity Markets,” with Fox-Penner, Peter, Bohn, James, and Broehm,
Romkaew, Energy Law Journal, Volume 23, No. 1, p. 101, January 2003.
“The Regulation of Competition in Wholesale Electric Power Markets,” with Romkaew P. Broehm and Peter
S. Fox-Penner and James G. Bohn, Energy Law Journal, Fall 2002.
“Energy Markets: Time for a Broader Perspective”, The Brattle Group Energy Newsletter, September 2000.
“Distributed Generation Technology in a Newly Competitive Electric Power Industry”, with
Paul R. Ammann and Johannes P. Pfeifenberger, in the proceedings for the American Power Conference,
April 9-11, 1996.
6
GERALD A. TAYLOR
“Improving the Allocation of California Water Supplies,” with Frank C. Graves, Incentives Research working
paper, October 1992.
An
Economic Comparison of Alternative Methods of Regulating Oil Pipelines, with
Paul R. Carpenter, Incentives Research, Inc. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Competition,
July 1985.
Oil Pipeline Rates and Profitability under Williams Opinion 154, with Paul R. Carpenter, Incentives
Research, Inc. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Competition, September 1984.
An Economic Analysis of Residential, Grid-Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Systems, with
Paul R. Carpenter, MIT Energy Laboratory Technical Report No. 78-007, May 1978.
TESTIMONY
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. All Jurisdictional Sellers of Energy and/or Capacity at Wholesale into
Electric Energy and/or Capacity Markets in the Pacific Northwest, Including Parties to the Western
System Power Pool Agreement. Docket No. EL01-10-085, Prepared Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of
Gerald Taylor on Behalf of the California Attorney General and Southern California Edison regarding
supplier activities in the Pacific Northwest involving manipulation or fraud, duress and bad faith
affecting the negotiation of bilateral contracts during the period 1/17/01 – 6/20/01 and the application of
the Mobile-Sierra doctrine to the disputed contracts. Direct: September 21, 2012, Rebuttal: March 12,
2013.
San Diego Gas and Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the
California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, Docket No. EL00-95-248.
Prepared Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Gerald Taylor on Behalf of California Parties to address: 1)
which market practices and behaviors constitute a violation of the tehn-0current CAISO, CalPX, and
individual seller’s tariffs and Commission orders; and 2) whether any of the sellers named as respondents
in this proceeding engaged in those tariff violations. Direct: August 25, 2011, Rebuttal: March 2, 2012.
State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California v. British Columbia
Power Exchange Corporation, Coral Power, LLC, Dynegy Power Marketing Inc., Enron Power
Marketing, Inc., Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Williams Energy
Marketing Trading Company, All Other Public Utility Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services to the
California Energy Resources Scheduling Division of the California Department of Water Resources, and
All Other Public Utility Sellers and Energy and Ancillary Services into Markets Operated by the
California Power Exchange and California Independent System Operator. Prepared Direct and Rebuttal
Testimony of Gerald Taylor on Behalf of the California Parties, Docket No. EL02-71-000, assessing
whether improper or untimely filing of quarterly transaction reports by sellers who are respondents in
the proceeding masked an accumulation of market power such that the market rates were unjust and
unreasonable. Direct: July 1, 2009, Rebuttal: December 17, 2009.
7
GERALD A. TAYLOR
San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services; Investigation of
Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, State of
California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General v. British Columbia Power Exchange Corp., et al;
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services; People of the State of California,
ex rel.; Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, et al. v. Powerex Corp. (f/k/a British Columbia Power
Exchange Corp.), et al. Docket No. EL00-95 et al., EL00-98-000, et al., EL02-71-000, et al., EL01-10000, et al., EL09-56-000. Prepared Direct Testimony of Dr. Peter Fox-Penner and Gerald A. Taylor on
Behalf of the California Parties, which analyzes seller behavior in markets operated by the California
Independent System Operator, the California Power Exchange and in bilateral markets in which CERS
procured power on behalf of the IOUs, in order to draw conclusions concerning gaming and market
manipulation and the existence of undue market power between May 1, 2000 to June 20, 2001; May 22,
2009.
People of the State of California, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of
California v. Powerex Corp. (f/k/a British Columbia Power Exchange Corp.), Sempra Energy Trading,
LLC (f/k/a Sempra Energy Trading Corp.), Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, TransAlta Energy
Marketing (US), Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, MIECO, Inc., Shell Energy North
America (U.S.), L.P. (successor by merger to Coral Power, LLC), Merrill Lynch Capital Services,
TransCanada Energy Ltd. (f/k/a TransCanada Power Corp.), Commerce Energy Corp., (f/k/a/
Commonwealth Energy Corp.), Nevada Power Company, Tucson Electric Power Company, American
Electric Power Service Corp., Comision Federal de Electricidad, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Sierra
Pacific Industries, Avista Corp. (f/k/a Washington Water Power Company), Avista Energy, Inc., and
Sempra Energy Solutions LLC, Docket No. EL09-56-000; Prepared Direct Testimony of Gerald Taylor on
Behalf of The Attorney General of the State of California, involving emergency purchases the State
authorized the California Energy Resources Scheduling division of the California Department of Water
Resources (“CERS”) to make when the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs) could not purchase the
power needed to serve their customers. Direct: May 22, 2009
Public Service Company of New Mexico, Docket No. EL03-200-000; Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and
Enron Energy Services Inc., Docket No. EL03-180-000; Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and Enron Energy
Services Inc., Docket No.EL03-154-000; El Paso Electric Company, Enron Power Marketing, Inc., and
Enron Capital and Trade Resources Corporation, Docket No. EL02-113-000; Portland General Electric
Company, Docket No. EL02-114-007; Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Docket No. EL02-115-008
(Consolidated); San Diego Gas & Electric Company, v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into
Markets Operated by the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Power
Exchange, Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, EL00-95-045, EL00-95-075. Investigation of Practices of the
California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. Docket Nos., EL00-98-000,
EL00-98-042, EL00-98-063, Fact Finding Investigation Into the Possible Manipulation of Electric and
Natural Gas Prices. Declaration of Gerald A. Taylor on Behalf of the California Parties, October 4, 2004
Prepared Direct and Supplemental Testimony of Gerald Taylor on Behalf of the California Parties,
Docket No. EL03-180-000, to comment upon the filing of Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Enron Energy
Services, Inc. and Public Service Co. of New Mexico in response to the Commission’s Order to Show
8
GERALD A. TAYLOR
Cause Concerning the Use of Partnerships, Alliances or Other Arrangements to engage in Gaming
and/or Anomalous Market Behavior. Direct February 27, 2004, Supplemental January 31, 2005.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. EL03-160000, EL03-195-000, September 26, 2003; City of Redding, California, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Docket Nos. EL03-49-000, EL03-183-000; Coral Power, L.L.C., Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Docket Nos. EL03-151-000, EL03-186-000. Direct Testimony of Gerald A. Taylor,
regarding the inappropriateness of proposed settlements of allegations of manipulation and misconduct
in California electric power markets, September 26, 2003 and December 4, 2003
San Diego Gas and Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the
California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, Dockets Nos. E00-95-045,
EL0098-042. Prepared Testimony of Gerald A. Taylor on behalf of the California Parties (a group of
purchases and governmental entities including the California Attorney General) regarding the cost of
natural gas fuel for electric generation in the western markets. Direct, May 17, 2003.
In re Industrial Silicon Antitrust Litigation, Western District of Pennsylvania. Litigation support for
defendant Globe Metallurgical Company including testimony critiquing damage estimates offered by
plaintiffs expert witnesses. Class action jury trial resulted in verdict for defendant, 1998.
9