Two more states at opposite ends of the country have acted substantively on electric utility restructuring (em one moving full speed ahead toward unbundling of wholesale "merchant" services, the other seeking to slow down the transition to retail wheeling.
The Nevada Public Service Commission (PSC) has released draft sections of a report on electric industry restructuring that was scheduled to go to the state legislature in June.
Madison Gas and Electric Co. (MGE) has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) not to approve the proposed merger of Wisconsin Energy Corp. (WE) and Northern States Power Co. (NSP) to form "Primergy." MGE claims that the merger would not only subject Wisconsin's electric consumers to higher prices, but severely impair competition.
According to Mark Williamson, MGE senior vice president of energy services, the Primergy merger would create market concentration in generation and transmission, resulting in market power abuses and anticompetitive conduct.
Two utility merger lawyers at LeBouef, Lamb, Green & MacRae predict that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will continue to receive many merger applications, though some will differ from the classic merger between neighboring utilities. Douglas W. Hawes and Samuel Behrends IV have filed comments in the FERC's merger rulemaking proceeding, recommending that the FERC implement "fast track" proceedings for the next generation of mergers.
On May 13, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol M. Browner referred the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) open-access rule, Order 888, to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In effect, Browner has asked the Clinton Administration to intervene in the restructuring process.
Browner feels that under certain circumstances the open-access rule could lead to future increases in air pollution. She believes these impacts can be minimized through a combination of actions by EPA and states under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
As FERC moves forward, most state legislators have remained content to sit back and wait for others to act. Part of this reticence stems from politics—the difficulty of changing course, invading someone else's turf, or tackling a new subject outside one's area of expertise. Legislators view problems differently than do regulators.
Lawmakers see different imperatives than regulators or industry execs, such as protecting the tax base for the local community.
Gas restructuring didn't end with Order 636, it just outran the regulators. Now the rules come from the downstream dealmakers.
Gas restructuring didn't end with Order 636, it just outran the regulators. Now the rules come from the downstream dealmakers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling that permits Yankee Atomic Electric Co. to recover all costs associated with an abandoned nuclear plant.
In 1992, the utility decided to shut down its nuclear facility in Rowe, MA, after investigating safety concerns raised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
natural gas pipelines (Docket No. RM96-1-000). The rule would adopt the 140 standards recently filed by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB).
The proposal calls for a standard Internet connection between pipelines and customers, to eliminate the disparity in procedures and interfaces that have caused confusion to date.
"This is not an intent to strip away consumer protection," Sen. Alfonse M.
D'Amato (R-NY) told
a Senate panel about S. 1317, a bipartisan bill to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA).
D'Amato, chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, received nods from federal and state regulators at the June 6 hearing, although each voiced reservations. Three utility chiefs spoke in favor of the legislation.
Consumer advocates took the opposite tack.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued its rehearing order for Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. Partnership (GLGT), upholding its July 26, 1995, order allowing GLGT to roll in the costs of expanding its natural gas pipeline facilities (Docket Nos. RP91-143-030 et al.).
The July 26 order was issued on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, reversing a 1991 order allowing incremental pricing. The case arose when GLGT spent over $700 million to expand its pipeline system.