[BETA] Fortnightly

"Anyone who assumes rural electric cooperatives will not be fully engaged in whatever system we have . . . if they assume the more competitive it becomes, the less we'll be engaged . . . they're very wrong."

(em Glenn English, CEO,

National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association

Ten terms as a U.S. Representative from Oklahoma's Sixth District taught Glenn English how to build consensus.

Mark your calendars for April 29, 1996. That's the date of the "filing of the century," according to Donald Garber, group manager for strategic plans and projects at San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Garber is talking about plans to file a draft operating agreement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed California Power Exchange. The April filing will mark an important step in executing the December 20 order by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

A couple weeks ago, on a beautiful Sunday morning, I picked up my briefcase and wandered down to the Potomac river shoreline to catch up on my summer reading list. There, on the Virginia side, gazing across the river at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and Capitol dome, I gathered strength to tackle a foot-high mound of paper.

Suddenly, the U.K. electric industry holds more than academic interest for U.S. utilities. Up to now, it did not appear that many American utility executives had studied the British privatization. But the ongoing attempt at takeover of the U.K.'s South Western Electricity (SWE) by its American counterpart, The Southern Co., ups the ante considerably. If it comes to pass, Southern's acquisition of SWE will tap directly into the U.K.

Who's Tripping?

It requires a truly acrobatic stretch of the imagination to reach the same conclusions as Pennsylvania Commissioner John Hanger in his article, "Electric Reliability: How PJM Tripped on Gas-Fired Power Plants" (May l, 1995). The truth is that the natural gas system performed efficiently and reliably in January 1994, exactly as planned. The operators of the power plants in question purchased interruptible gas-transportation contracts to keep their fuel costs low.

For a good half a century, electric regulation has meant law, accounting, and economics. But no more. Now it's all about computers, telecommunications, and file-transfer protocols. Forget about CWIP, AFUDC, double leverage, and interest synchronization. They are all irrelevant.

On a purely intellectual level, it is difficult to justify the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). Sixty years after passage, PUHCA has become an anachronism (em a fact well articulated in comments filed in response to the Concept Release on the modernization of the Act issued last November by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).1 More recently, the SEC's Division of Investment Management actually recommended a conditional repeal (see sidebar).

Regulation of the United Kingdom's 12 regional electricity distribution companies (RECs) has sought to promote efficiency through the use of price caps that are supposed to remain in place for five years without regulatory intervention. The benefits of cost reductions between reviews accrue to shareholders no matter how much earnings might rise. The idea was to provide more incentive than if earnings were subject to review whenever they exceed some specified level.

Productivity has increased enormously under this system.

Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P., an independent power producer (IPP), has filed a petition at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) alleging that Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (NMP) has been overcharging for electric transmission. Sithe believes NMP has been calculating transmission losses on an incremental basis; FERC policy requires that transmission losses be calculated on an average basis.