Technological advances in electric generation and telecommunications make utility competition both possible and inevitable. These economic forces will eventually break down the regulatory structure of the electric industry. However, public policy should play a crucial role in molding and nurturing competition.In recent months, regulators in a majority of the states have opened proceedings to study electric competition.
Fortnightly Magazine - November 1 1995
A broad coalition of 30 utilities, environmental groups, and consumer organizations delivered a letter on September 18 to members of the Northwest U.S.
Companies: BRAZ (Brazos Electric Cooperative); COA (City of Austin); CPL (Central Power & Light); CPS (Central Public Service); GSU (Gulf States Utilities); HLP (Houston Lighting & Power); LCRA (Lower Colorado River Authority); SPS (Southwestern Public Service); SWEP (Southwestern Electric Power); TNP (Texas New Mexico Power); TU (Texas Utilities Electric); WTU (West Texas Utilities).Assumptions: Statewide economic dispatch, where all utilities receive the market-clearing marginal energy cost for their generation (similar to studies that Moody's Investors Service has
Suppose you want to reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide to lessen the chance
of global warming. Should you (a) prohibit coal burning in electric power plants, (b) encourage coal use for power generation, or (c) force electric generators to pay an "externality" surcharge to reflect the cost of CO2 emissions?Here's another one. You are an independent power producer.
The Natural Gas Competitiveness Act of 1995 has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. Authored by Reps. Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and John Bryant (D-TX), the bill would give independent producers an opportunity to avoid antitrust laws and join together in cooperatives to market their natural gas directly to the end user.
"Forty percent of the natural gas produced in the United States is by small, private companies with fewer than 10-15 employees," said Denise Bode, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Dan W. Reicher was named acting assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Reicher has served as deputy chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary since 1993 and was a member of the Clinton-Gore transition team. Reicher replaces Jack Riggs, who left to take a senior position at the Aspen Institute.PECO Energy Co. selected William H. Smith III as v.p. and group executive of its new Telecommunications Group. Stepping into his seat as nuclear support v.p. is Drew Fetters.
intangible benefits gained by the unregulated subsidiaries. The case involved complaints regarding merchandise and appliance services provided by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BG&E).
What's in a Name?
Charles Studness's article "CPUC Chooses Reregulation over Deregulation" (Financial News, July 15, 1995) reminds me of Humpty Dumpty's scornful remark in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass: "When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean (em nothing more nor less."
When Studness discusses "deregulation," it is clearly what he chooses it to mean (em not what the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposes in its May 24 majority decision on deregulating the electric utility industry.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) has issued an interim policy statement in its ongoing inquiry into regulatory tools to encourage the development of new resources by regulated monopoly utilities.
Is Too! Is Not!
In the August 1995 Mailbag, Mr. Michael Yokell claims our May 15, 1995, article ("It Ain't in There: The Cost of Capital Does Not Compensate for Stranded-cost Risk") "is simply wrong" and "nonsensical on its face" because we fail to distinguish between the cost of capital before and after the stranded-cost issue arose.
In fact, it is Mr.