An analysis of participant funding in natural gas and electricity markets.
Curt Hobert Jr. is executive vice president, external affairs, for Entergy Corp., and former chairman of both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Mississippi Public Service Commission.
Of all the issues in the energy industry, no matter how technically or scientifically complex, none is more important than fairness. Price spikes, contract reformation, market manipulation — all hot-button issues during the last four years — revolve around a core value held by practitioners and regulators alike: Are the prices that exist in the marketplace just and reasonable?
Even as administrative and federal courts take on fairness issues, consumers are finding themselves on the front lines of a different pricing fairness issue—one that threatens to saddle them with huge cost burdens for which they receive no accompanying service benefits: Should the cost of transmission infrastructure improvements be rolled-in with the costs shouldered by utility companies and their native customers, even if those customers receive no benefit from the expenditure?
Shot to the Heart
Fairness, it would seem, requires those who request and receive economic benefits from transmission upgrades also to pay for such upgrades. This concept is commonly known as participant funding, and it strikes right at the heart of Entergy's service territory, which happens to include a large number of low-income customers. These customers can ill-afford to shoulder the burden of between $2 billion and $4 billion that Entergy conservatively estimates would be added to their rates to pay for these upgrades — especially when they will see no change in their service quality.