IT has become strategic. And important. So important that utility companies are seeking outside expertise to help them leverage technology to conduct business more efficiently, help grow revenues, and hone their edge in the new competitive world. Time has become an unaffordable luxury.
Fortnightly Magazine - November 1 1995
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has set for hearing a request by Koch Gateway Pipeline Co. (KGP) to charge market-based rates for firm and interruptible natural gas transportation services (Docket No. RP95-362-000). First, however, the FERC must conclude Docket No. RM95-6-000, which will delineate the circumstances under which it may approve market-based rates.
While approving a proposed rate discount program for new electric heating customers, the Maine Public Service Commission (PSC) has ruled that the program must meet "permanent load" requirements designed to protect ratepayers. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. had filed proposals to market power to new electric heating customers at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, as a temporary addition to its load requirements, with a price floor based on short-run marginal costs.
The decision to outsource, however, now goes beyond cost-cutting considerations. Companies are just as likely to turn to outsourcing when they want to concentrate on new business opportunities or dramatically change their overall structure.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plans to investigate the membership requirements set by the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP), especially as they pertain to power marketers (Docket Nos. ER94-1529-001 and 002, and EL95-77-000).
The FERC found last December that certain MAPP membership criteria are framed in terms of traditional utility attributes (em e.g., ownership of generation and transmission facilities, interconnected operation, system load and related reserve obligations (em that entities such as power marketers do not possess.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has authorized Northern Minnesota Utilities, a natural gas local distribution company (LDC), to insulate shareholders from the effects of losing a large firm sales customer by reallocating associated demand costs among remaining firm customer classes. It allowed the LDC to pass the increased costs through its purchased adjustment clause, finding that the utility was now alerted to the problem and had taken action to protect itself and its ratepayers from stranded costs caused by customers switching to interruptible transport service.
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.
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.