Despite development challenges, LNG capacity is destined to play a bigger role in the U.S. energy mix.
When MidAmerican Energy announced its plans to build a pipeline to bring stranded Alaskan natural gas into the lower-48 states, the U.S. energy industry stood up and took notice. If successful, the project will bring the largest infusion of gas that this country has seen in many years-and not a moment too soon.
Fortnightly Magazine - April 2004
Greater reliance on gas-fired power implies serious economic, technological, and national security risks.
Over the past two decades, the United States has, by default, come to rely on an "In Gas We Trust" energy policy. Natural gas increasingly has been seen as the preferred fuel for all applications, nowhere more than in the electric generation sector. However, the greatly increased use of natural gas forecast for the electricity sector may not be economically or technically feasible, and it does not represent optimal or desired energy policy.
An analysis of the timing, location, and mix of new capacity additions that may be needed in the future.
It is universally accepted that there is excess generating capacity in most, if not all, regions in the country. Looking forward, several obvious, and interesting, questions arise: (1) When will new capacity be needed? (2) Where will it be needed? and (3) What types of plants will be needed? As any good economist would say, it all depends.
A renewed capital investment structure is required for long-term investment in power infrastructure.
The bank markets and the long-term fixed income markets, or institutional investors, have long memories, and their pain is still fresh. Over the last few years, they have had to watch their investments in power infrastructure become distressed, bankrupted, or reorganized.
A coordinated approach helps control costs.
Historically, transmission and distribution assets have been quiet utility stepchildren- generally ignored by both regulators and senior utility management while, their generating asset relations remained in the limelight. But as restructuring of the electric industry evolved in the 1990s, a looming competitive environment created strong pressures within utilities to reduce spending.
Electricity rates may be heading skyward sooner than we think.
Are state regulators in danger of bringing about the thing they most fear-higher electricity rates? Critics charge that some regulators seem to be opening up the cookie jar, letting utilities have as they please with no supervision.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, stepped into the role of chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, succeeding Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., who is leaving Congress.
Duke Energy named David Hauser as its permanent CFO. He had been acting CFO since November. He succeeds Robert Brace, who resigned.
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
Cato's Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor analyzed the electricity crisis in the February 2004 issue of the ("Rethinking Restructuring," p. 12) and concluded that the solution to a bad situation is vertical integration and mandatory real-time pricing. In my opinion they have got it half right.
New England's experience may redefine the term.
During the 1990s, capacity margins in the United States declined almost one third, falling from 21 percent in 1991 to less than 15 percent in 2001. In some regions, margins shrunk to less than 10 percent. Concerns grew over electricity reliability and possible upward pressures on electricity prices. However, as new gas-fired power plants began to come on line in the late 1990s, the developing electricity generation capacity surplus began to raise concerns.
A face-to-face interview with FERC Chairman Pat Wood III.
Bold. Fearless. Relentless. These are the words now being used by both critics and supporters to describe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Pat Wood III.
FERC's recent policy initiatives and directives mark a strong shift from what was last year regarded as a more reluctant commission.