Strategy & Planning

Investors put $50 billion into new generating capacity because they expected that electricity restructuring would lead to the formation of a small number of effective, regional transmission organizations, which would make the location of a generating facility less important in the future. Based on that assumption, developers placed many plants close to a source of fuel, not close to market. For many companies, that has turned out to be a fatal mistake.

The Kentucky PSC Chair takes issue with Richard Stavros' "AEP's Gutsy Gambit," Frontlines, November 2003.

While the media made hay chiding power producers for gouging consumers for electricity generated from gas-fired turbines, California' s system of a single market-clearing price for electricity was "delivering immense windfalls" to utilities who had no need to buy gas at all to run the power plants they still owned (or controlled through affiliates).

An industry advocate touts the recent rise of projects in the pipeline and forsees remarkable growth in wind farms over the next twenty years — more, perhaps, than others would concede.

A local utility exec admits that Maryland has no truly competitive power market, but claims customer choice is still a good thing.

The EIA also wants to collect data — finances, operations, emissions, fuel consumption and costs — from non-utility generators. What’s the public interest here?

The EIA predicts that natural gas consumption will climb more than 60 percent percent over 20 years, driving U.S. production up 50-plus percent over the same period. How does that square with geologic assessments?

Work conducted by Management Consulting Services has consistently found a number of truths about co-op distribution service that counter Douglas Beresford's article on IPOs for rural co-ops.

The analysis shows how one could expect allowed return on equity to change as interest rates change and the resulting financial effect on endusers. The positive side of this thought process is that a continuing low interest rate environment should attenuate the effect of high commodity prices for retail users of electricity.

In addition to increasing total U.S. gas consumption to 34.7 Tcf in 2020, it would take another 11.3 Tcf/year to convert existing coal-fired U.S. steam-electric capacity to gas-fired combined-cycle units operating at the same load factor. Clearly, that is a tall order. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that there are few alternatives other than backing out coal-fired generation that would reduce global carbon emissions to a total of less than 870-990 million metric tons between 1991 and 2100. The logical endpoint will be electrification of most stationary energy uses with high-tech renewable or essentially inexhaustible energy sources, and the use of hydrogen from non-fossil-fuel sources as the dominant transportation fuel.