[BETA] Fortnightly

Do mergers and "critical mass" really make a difference? The answer, it seems, is yes.

To become more competitive, U.S. electric utilities have embarked on a quest in recent years to improve operational efficiency and factor productivity. The question is: Are utilities making progress? And, which companies have gained a competitive edge? Which have not?

Industry analysts have long argued that given the structure of the markets they serve and their cost-based, rate-setting procedures, electric utilities tend toward monopolistic behavior.

Central Maine Power Co. has agreed to allow other providers of wholesale electric power to bid for the right to supply energy to the utility for resale to utility customers who enjoy special discounted rate contracts.

It would carry out its agreement if and when the state of Maine should decide to open its retail electric market to competition.

The utility's promise to allow competitive suppliers to bid the special-rate contract load paved the way for the Maine Public Service Commission to approve new multi-year contracts offered by the utility to two large customers.

El Paso Energy Marketing hired Kathy Eisbrenner as senior v.p. Eisbrenner previously was with LG&E Natural Inc.

Cameron Raether, XENERGY senior consultant, was elected to the board of the Power Association of Northern California. Raether serves as chair on several boards and specializes in market evaluations for large electric and natural gas end users.

Robert G. Edwards was elected v.p. at Columbia Division of SCANA Energy Marketing Inc. Edwards joined SCANA in 1992 as a gas sales representative and has held various marketing positions.

Sound bites from state and federal regulators.

Electric Briefs

Environmental Review. California halts work on report of environmental impacts of electric restructuring and new market structure, finding no need for independent review of commission proposals after state Legislature had sanctioned "a more competitive scheme" last summer when it passed Assembly Bill 1890. R.94-04-031, I.94-04-032, Decision 96-12-075, Dec. 12, 1996 (Cal.P.U.C.).

Electric Restructuring.

To predict the Clinton Administration's next step is foolhardy. And when it comes to the first federal restructuring bill, it's riskier still to rely on drafts that apparently were leaked to gauge reactions of the energy industry and media.

"There have been a gazillion versions of the bill which have been prepared," says a Department of Energy official.

With its membership opened, NEPOOL sets a transmission tariff, but still must develop competitive markets. In 1993, after a series of attempts going back as far as 1971, the New England Power Pool failed to reach agreement among its members for a regional transmission arrangement. But destiny then took over (em with help from the newly enacted Energy Policy Act (em to lead pool members back to the bargaining table. Finally, on Sept. 30, 1996, NEPOOL announced that its executive committee had agreed in principle on restructuring the pool.

Perhaps the only political prediction bound to come true this year is that the words ôelectric restructuringö will reverberate in nearly every stateÆs legislative chamber.

So says Matthew Brown, director of the energy project at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But other factors support BrownÆs prediction. Public Utilities FortnightlyÆs informal survey of most states turned up similar results. Legislators know that the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Congress plan to introduce a federal bill this year.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has OK'd a much-publicized special rate agreement between Central Maine Power Co. and one of its large customers, the Hannaford Brothers Co., which operates supermarkets.

Nevertheless, the PUC declined to order the utility to offer similar rates to Hannaford's competitors in the supermarket business. It advised that it cannot attempt to equalize electric rates among business competitors, or to reduce advantages that large businesses have over smaller businesses.

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has ruled that Central Maine Power Co. acted in a discriminatory manner when it refused to grant a request by a large industrial customer, Yorketowne Paper Mills of Maine, to rate classes to time-of-use subtransmission.

The case was notable since the customer's employees had filed a complaint alleging improper denial of service and seeking reparation for overcharges. See, Yorketowne Paper Mills of Maine, et al. v. Central Maine Power Co., 170 PUR4th 535 (Me.P.U.C.1996).

The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has decided to forgo a formal price-cap plan for Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. (BHE), an electric utility, finding that traditional regulation would better maintain the proper balance of shareholder and ratepayer interests. The PUC had approved a price-cap mechanism for Central Maine Power Co., another of the state's investor-owned electric utilities (see, Re Central Maine Power Co. 159 PUR4th 209 (Me.P.U.C.