Federal prosecutors appear to be getting only marginally better results -- they have indicted employees from just two power companies, and it is unclear how many more, if any, they will bring.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who once said he wanted to see former Enron CEO Ken Lay in prison with a cell mate named "Spike," still hopes California can recoup billions in refunds, but those efforts are being frustrated by an obscure legal doctrine originally designed to police 19th century railroad trusts.

In a 90-page report released Tuesday, Lockyer's office outlined its frustrations with laws and regulations that it says are making it difficult to prosecute or get refunds out of the crisis.

"From the state's perspective, the likelihood of indictments is not particularly high," said Ken Alex, who heads Lockyer's energy task force.

"We are frustrated we have not recovered some of the billions of dollars that Californians were overcharged," Alex added.

The report comes a week after the U.S. Department of Justice brought federal charges against Reliant Energy and four current and former employees. Those, along with a series of federal indictments against three former employees of Enron, are the only criminal prosecutions to come directly out of the crisis.

Those federal prosecutions were fueled by such unusual circumstances that it is unclear whether other companies accused of overcharging will also be held to answer.

The Enron case arose after internal company memos surfaced that described a range of questionable trading strategies. And the Reliant case hinges on the government's theory that the company not only manipulated prices, but it did so to improve a trading position it held in the market, which prosecutors say violates laws against market manipulation.

The report from Lockyer's office in large part amounts to an expression of frustration at a system of laws and regulations that has, so far, prevented California from getting full refunds or prosecuting companies that state officials contend broke antitrust law and laws that govern wholesale energy rates.

Although officials in Lockyer's office said they were pursuing lawsuits and hope to reverse some legal defeats on appeal, the report recommends dozens of changes so that law enforcement officials can better police energy companies in a deregulated system.

"All I can see this as is whining about why they keep on losing," said Gary Ackerman, director of the Western Power Trading Forum, an industry group in Menlo Park.

Ackerman noted the setbacks Lockyer has suffered in court and at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

"We're obeying the laws, and he keeps on losing," Ackerman said.

Topping the list of recommendations in the report is a suggestion to set aside the "filed rate doctrine" in deregulated energy markets.

That doctrine was first established to prevent railroad monopolies from charging different rates to different classes of customers. The same method was later used to regulate wholesale energy markets, according to Lockyer's office.

Federal courts and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have ruled that the doctrine shields energy companies from having to pay refunds for overcharges between the start of the crisis in May 2000 and October of that year-- an amount state officials figure is about $3 billion.

Under the filed rate doctrine, refunds can be ordered only for overcharges that occur at least 60 days after a complaint is first filed -- and the first complaint in the energy crisis was filed by San Diego Gas & Electric in August 2000. That means that none of the alleged overcharges between August and October merit refunds.

FERC spokesman Bryan Lee said that by calling for changes to the filed rate doctrine, Lockyer is acknowledging that federal regulators are correct in limiting the time period for which California can collect refunds.

"We are doing everything we can under our authority to address the unjust and unreasonable prices that occurred during the California crisis," Lee said.

The attorney general has appealed those issues to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could issue an order in the coming months, Alex said.

"We believe (FERC's interpretation of the filed rate doctrine) is enormously unfair, not only unfair but illegal," Alex said. "But if we're wrong on this, it is a huge incentive for companies to charge rates that are unjust and unreasonable. They have no reason to think those unreasonable prices will be disgorged."

California state officials contend the state was overcharged by $9 billion between May 2000 and June 2001. But FERC's rulings have limited the amount of potential refunds to $3 billion.

The refund time period was limited by the filed rate doctrine, and another $3 billion in potential refunds is not being considered at FERC because those alleged overcharges were the result of transactions between energy companies and the state Department of Water Resources, which took over energy purchases in January 2001 after the state's utilities collapsed.

FERC says it cannot order refunds for those kinds of "bilateral" transactions.