It’s time to end the uncertainty about carbon costs.
Michael T. Burr, Editor-in-Chief
This summer marked a pivotal moment for the energy industry. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a.k.a., the Waxman-Markey bill, which among other things would require the U.S. economy to cut its greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions 83 percent by 2050.
When prices for emissions allowances collapsed in Europe’s carbon market a year after trading began, critics said the collapse proved a regulatory product couldn’t be traded internationally. Sure, they said, the U.S. acid-rain market worked, but it was never an international market—and it couldn’t be, given the propensity for governments to protect their own economies.
(August 2009) Duke Energy named Lynn J. Good group executive and CFO, replacing David L. Hauser, who left Duke to become chairman and CEO of FairPoint Communications. Pepco Holdings named Anthony J. Kamerick as senior v.p. and CFO. And others...
(August 2009) When I hear the new buzz word term dynamic pricing I think of politicians who may be socialist or liberal, but who call themselves “progressive.” Now, what thoughtful person would not vote for a progressive. Do you want to vote for someone who isn’t progressive? That would make you some kind of Luddite. The same holds true for the people now running around the country calling for “dynamic pricing” i.e., charging $5/kWh for up to 100 hours per year, and calling any other form of pricing “dumb rates.”
Ratable treatment of removal costs through depreciation should be favored.
John S. Ferguson
Removal cost is the expenditure involved with physical removal or safe abandonment of an asset, and is not a trivial matter, because it is not unusual for such expenditures for long-lived property to exceed the related depreciable investment amounts. Various treatments of removal costs have various effects on utility ratepayers. Of all the approaches the industry uses, ratable treatment through depreciation minimizes the costs borne by ratepayers.
How much efficiency do ratepayers need—and utilities want?
Bruce W. Radford
When the applause dies down, the smart grid may turn out to be its own worst enemy. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) explained this irony in comments it filed in May, after the FERC asked the industry for policy ideas on the smart grid.
Intelligent infrastructure requires an intelligent policy framework.
Mark A. Gabriel
A new grid efficiency framework will bring a new understanding between regulators and utilities that allows the industry to advance in cutting carbon emissions and improving system efficiencies, while maintaining reliability.
Public Utilities Reports 11410 Isaac Newton Sq., Suite 220, Reston, VA 20190 Voice: (703) 847-7720 | Toll Free: (800) 368-5001 FAX: (703) 847-0683
Dear Reader: Welcome to our new website! We’ve spent the past several months rebuilding Fortnightly.com from the ground up, and we’re now in the process of putting it through its paces. We’ll announce our Grand Opening shortly, but in the meantime we hope you’ll excuse our mess, while we bring Public Utilities Fortnightly magazine to an all-new online platform. Your feedback is welcome!