PUC could oust PG&E from the project, finding no need for an upgrade.
Nearly a year after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) gave its blessing for...
Rethinking WEPEX: What's Wrong with Least Cost?
Co., General Public Utilities Corp. (working with the supporting companies of the PJM proposal), Duquesne Light Co., Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, National Independent Energy Producers, New York Power Pool, New York Utilities Collaborative, Niagara Mohawk Corp., San Diego Gas & Electric Corp., Trans Power of New Zealand, and Wisconsin Electric Power Co. The views presented here are not necessarily attributable to any of those mentioned. Any remaining errors are solely the responsibility of the author.
1 William W. Hogan, "To Pool or Not To Pool: A Distracting Debate," Public Utilities Fortnightly, Jan. 1, 1995, p. 24.
2 FERC Order, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. and So. Calif. Edison Co., Docket Nos. ec96-19-000, et al., Nov. 26, 1996, p. 36, 77 FERC ¶ 61,204, at p. 61,810.
3 FERC Order, Pacific Gas & Elec Co., San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., and So. Calif. Edison Co., Docket Nos. ec96-19-001, et al., Oct. 30, 1997.
4 Steve Stoft, "California's ISO: Why Not Clear the Market?" The Electricity Journal, Vol. 9, No. 10, Dec. 1996.
5 California Independent System Operator, "Dispatch Protocol," Oct. 31, 1997, p. 24-25. See especially paragraphs (d) and (h), which marks the tip of an iceberg that has not been fully formed.
6 See FERC Order, note 3, supra, especially page 97, under "2. Balanced Schedules and Usage Charge."
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.