A wave of coal-fired plant retirements presages a possible crisis in the New England market. As load-serving utilities in ISO New England become increasingly dependent on natural gas-fired capacity and large-scale renewable generators, the region might be forced to rely on expensive cost-of-service reliability contracts to keep the lights on. Stakeholders are considering alternative approaches to encouraging power plant development, including special rate incentives previously reserved for transmission projects. Paul J. Hibbard, former Massachusetts DPU chairman and now vice president with the Analysis Group, analyzes how resource constraints are blurring the lines between competitive markets and integrated resource planning in New England.

Commission Watch

Retail Choice

New York utilities cry "bait and switch," but it's not that simple.

Here's the deal. If you take electric service from Orange & Rockland Utilities (O&R), the Catskills affiliate of Manhattan's Consolidated Edison (Con Ed), you can get on the phone, switch to a competitive retail supplier, and score an instant 7 percent discount off the filed utility rate for the energy commodity. It's that simple.

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.

 

RTO cost/benefit studies are difficult to reconcile.

The premise behind the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) push for regional transmission organizations (RTOs)-that they will provide positive economic benefits to society- increasingly is being challenged.

By Marija Ilic and Leonard Hyman

 

Why a standard design in each ISO is no guarantee of regional coordination.

How do you complete an efficient transaction that requires the cooperation of two or more markets when each is operated independently of the other?

Subsidiaries grapple with codes of conduct. Did regulators overreact?

PG&E Corp. has threatened to appeal - all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be - a $1.68 million California Public Utilities Commission fine, slapped on it for violating affiliate rules.

The fine marked the loudest shot to date in what appears to be part two in the electric and gas restructuring wars:

The Affiliate Rules Wars.

These skirmishes promise to pit independent power marketers and out-of-state utility affiliates against the affiliates of incumbents.

I am writing to express my concern over the Feb. 1 publication of the article, "Why Applicants Should Use Computer Simulation Models to Comply With FERC's New Merger Policy" (p. 22). The authors, Mark W. Frankena and John R. Morris, have used the editorial pages of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY to deliver a highly commercial message promoting their preferred computer model at the expense of several other software packages, which they specifically name.

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.