Two cases involving traditional pollutants and climate change are before the court. In addition to questions about the EPA’s regulatory power, both cases raise critical threshold “jurisdictional” questions about the courts’ role in addressing these issues.

David Powell, Southeast Lineman Training Center: I enjoyed reading “Baby Boom Blues”. What amazes me is although there is a great need it seems the only people who see the need are the utility companies themselves.

David Sumner, CEO, ARRL: Even the “cloudy” outlook for BPL reported in your article &ldquoA Hard Look at BPL: Utilities Speak Out” is overly optimistic.

The approaching 100th anniversary of regulation by public utility commissions in the United States calls for some reflection. How much have things changed, and how much have they stayed the same?

Jim Lundrigan, New Haven, Conn.: After reading Gordon van Welie’s article (“New England: A Critical Look at Competition,”) I couldn’t help but think back to California in 2000. Van Welie, who is president and CEO of ISO New England, is trying to feed the citizens of New England the same brand of malarkey that the California ISO fed the California Public Utilities Commission in 2000 when wholesale and retail prices in California were perfectly linked and nearly succeeded in bankrupting the wealthiest state in the country.

John S. Ferguson, Richardson, Texas: The article of Michael J. Majoros Jr. (“Rate-Base Cleansings: Rolling Over Ratepayers,”) attracted my attention, because I perceive it to propose a solution—PUCs’ need to recognize refundable regulatory liabilities—for a problem that does not exist.

Utilities and BPL

Why broadband over power line (BPL) can't stand alone as a high-speed Internet offering.

You could almost feel former FCC Chairman Michael Powell's enthusiasm for broadband over power line (BPL) technology when he called it "the most important third way" to provide broadband to markets across the United States.

Technology Corridor

Are consumer broadband over powerline (BPL) services enough to make the business case for utilities?

After years of development, technology to deliver high-speed data over the existing electric power delivery network has emerged in the marketplace. In some sections of Cincinnati and Manassas, Va., consumers now have an alternative to DSL and cable for broadband Internet access. It's real and it works.

Commission Watch

PJM/Midwest Market:

Should transmission owners get paid extra for distance and voltage?

While the Midwest now appears set on competitive bidding for the electricity commodity, taking from PJM such tried-and-true elements as locational marginal pricing (LMP), financial transmission rights (FTRs), and a day-ahead market with a security-constrained dispatch, the region remains split over the pricing of transmission.

Perspective

Barriers to Entry:

While NAESB and NERC struggle over the issue, North America steadily drifts toward unreliability.

Time is running out. It's been more than two years since the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Joint Inadvertent Interchange Taskforce (JIITF), on which I served, issued its white paper[1] proposing how to price the unscheduled power (inadvertent interchange)¹ flowing between NERC-certified balancing authorities (BAs).

Revisiting performance-based rates with endogenous market designs.

More than 20 years ago in the pages of this publication, economist William Baumol outlined a method by which the regulation of public utility monopolies could be streamlined while simultaneously providing incentives for efficiency and productivity growth.¹ Baumol proposed a productivity incentive clause that adjusts rates automatically according to the formula,