Are Competitive Solicitations Actually Competitive?

Deck: 

Bidding, transparency, and foregone conclusions in Big Sky Country.

Fortnightly Magazine - November 2013
This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.

As Bruce Radford points out in his August 2013 article, “FERC vs. Idaho,” many state commissions’ compliance with PURPA is predicated on the notion that competitive solicitations are open to QF bidders, and that these reverse auction processes are a better way to ascertain avoided cost than an administratively established standard rate. This is true, but it comes with a significant caveat. In order for PURPA’s objective of market access to really mean anything, it shouldn’t be enough for a state merely to invoke the words “competitive solicitation”; rather, that solicitation process must be credible, transparent, and even-handed to all comers.

DC PSC RFP Technical Consultant for Formal Case (FC) No. 1156

This has sometimes not been the case in the Western United States, including in my own state of Montana, which is home to the most recent PURPA battle.

This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.