The New York Public Service Commission has asserted authority to mandate direct-access pilot programs to give supply choice to energy consumers, noting that state authority is crucial to filling a regulatory "vacuum," since the Federal Power Act withholds authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to mandate retail wheeling.
The case involved a pilot program developed by Dairylea Cooperative Inc.
Uncle Sam buys a lot of power. Who supplies it may depend upon Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 17.
Today's intense competition to sell power should not overlook one large customer - the federal government. The Department of Defense alone consumed $1.4 billion worth of power in fiscal year 1994. Recently, one utility executive was quoted as saying: "We've got power marketers foaming at the mouth for DOD's business."%n1%n
Yet how does a marketer get the business of a federal agency, office or installation if retail wheeling is not mandated?
Subsidies? Maybe. But how about reciprocity? Should Congress let PMAs, munis and co-ops decline open access?
Until recently, most congressional debate on utility deregulation has focused on the future of investor-owned utilities and independent power producers and marketers. Lobbyists for government-owned or cooperative-owned power companies have tried to downplay their clients or to seek exemptions.
Dominion Resources touts its "impacted" method, but opponents call it a "stalking horse" (em a scheme to avoid full review at FERC.
Is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prepared to accept true marginal-cost pricing for electric transmission?
With all the criticism leveled at the traditional "contract path," one would think that the FERC would consider a new approach to transmission pricing.
In fact, last year in its final Order No.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved three orders that together clarify the Commission's jurisdiction over corporate realignments.
The FERC found on April 30, that while it does not have jurisdiction over mergers of public utility holding companies, it does have jurisdiction over transfers of control (dispositions) of public utility facilities.
Corporations will need FERC approval for a merger simply because they own paper assets that qualify as utility property.
In three companion orders issued April 30, 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tried to stake out new jurisdictional turf. It attempted to expand its jurisdiction under section 203 of the Federal Power Act to cover "convergent" mergers and reorganizations involving electric utility holding companies and power marketers.
In a pair of orders issued the same day, the California Public Utilities Commission has denied requests to modify its plan for electric industry restructuring, as set out in its Final Policy Decision of Dec. 20, 1995 (see 166 PUR4th 1), but has initiated new "public service programs" to continue support for energy efficiency and low-income assistance efforts.
Introduced in the 105th Congress
• H.R. 296, sponsored by John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). Would privatize the federal Power Marketing Administrations, splitting them into regional corporations to market and maintain generation and transmission services. Stock would be sold to recover outstanding federal debt; holding companies could invest in the corporations.
• H.R. 338, sponsored by Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.). Would repeal Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978, but would force utilities to honor QF contracts entered prior to Jan.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission allowed Ensource, a subsidiary of Pacific Enterprises, to cancel its authorization to engage in power marketing activities at market-based rates.
Intervenors protested that Ensource pursued the cancellation as a tactical maneuver to remove the proposed merger between Pacific Enterprises and Enova from FERC review. They claim that the merger applicants ultimately would resume Ensource's operations and make it part of a post-merger joint venture to market electricity, natural gas and energy-related services at market-based rates.
Models can overcome a key oversight (em
that both supply and demand affect competition.
This past December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a policy statement describing important changes in how it will evaluate proposed mergers under the Federal Power Act's public interest standard. These changes should lead to significant improvements (em not only in the evaluation of mergers, but also for other matters that affect market power, %n1%n including industry restructuring and market-based pricing.