Harkening back to the 2000-01 energy crisis, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judge\u2019s initial decision grants $91 million in refunds to California. The alleged market manipulation early the last decade would affect those who traded in the California Independent System Operator wholesale market at that time. There was \u201canomalous market behavior\u201d that \u201caffected the market clearing price in the California organized electric market\u201d during the summer of 2000, administrative law judge Philip Baten wrote Feb. 15. That behavior included \u201cunusual\u201d trades and withholding capacity, as well as \u201cgaming\u201d the market, he concluded. Some of the trades at issue had fanciful monikers like, \u201chockey stick bids.\u201d That, for instance, called for a small quantity of electricity at a high price while backing it up with a more normal price in order to rejig the market clearing price. The judge found 15,000 \u201cfalse load scheduling\u201d violations, as well as other misbehavior. Some allegations, like \u201ccircular scheduling,\u201d called \u201cdeath star\u201d at the time, were not proven. That allegedly took advantage of electricity being routed in and out of the grid operator system when administrators only had control of what was in their purview. Half of the proposed refunds were for forward transactions in the market. The other half of trades expected to result in refunds were energy exchanges. If approved by the commission, it would bring the total in crisis-era settlements to $8 billion, according to commission spokesperson Craig Cano. The named defendants include Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration, and Powerex. It was initially reported by the California Public Utilities Commission that $1.6 billion in refunds were involved. The proposed decision only accounts for $91 million. It doesn\u2019t address where that money would go, if approved. It could be sent to the state general fund to cover past debts by the Department of Water Resources that bought electricity on behalf of utilities during the crisis, or it could be deposited elsewhere. The discrepancy in numbers between the federal and state regulators mystified generators named in the proposed decision. \u201cThe CPUC\u2019s speculation is reckless,\u201d Gary Ackerman, Western Power Trading Forum executive director, stated. \u201cIt supposes that federal agencies such as [Bonneville] will idly sit by and fork over $400 million to Californians.\u201d The CPUC did not respond to requests for an explanation of its tally. California Public Utilities Commission president Mike Peevey noted the state\u2019s been \u201crelentless\u201d in pursuit of alleged manipulators. So far, the state\u2019s been granted most of the $9 billion then-Governor Gray Davis called for in 2002. The case started with San Diego Gas & Electric in 2000. The utility\u2019s customers were, at that point, unshielded from price volatility. Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison customers were not subject to the same fluctuations. PG&E declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Edison threatened to do the same, but did not after the state Department of Water Resources took over buying electricity on the wholesale market on behalf of investor-owned utilities.