I am shocked that a respected and learned analyst of the utility industry like Charles Studness would espouse a position that stranded-cost recovery is somehow "un-American" ("Stranded-cost Recovery: It's Un-American," Financial News, July 15, 1996, p. 43).
Contrary to the claims of Mr. Studness, recovery of stranded cost is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.
A new law could help New York utilities reduce electric rates
and improve their balance sheets.
Legislation recommended by Gov. Pataki on June 1, 1996, seeks to provide the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) with a new financial tool to address possible stranded costs as the state moves toward a competitive retail electric market.
Charles Studness is not the type of person I would like to loan money to. I say this because if interest rates dropped in the future he would believe he was now entitled to borrow at the lower rates and not pay me what was owed.
In his latest diatribe against stranded-cost recovery ("Stranded-cost Recovery: It's Un-American," Financial News, July 15, 1996, p. 43), Studness tells us that recovery of stranded costs will keep Americans from purchasing electricity at the competitive price.
It certainly will; however, first all debts must be paid.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved a proposal by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) to switch to an automatic adjustment mechanism to determine cost of capital (em a move that could save the utility approximately $100,000 per year in regulatory costs.
Chairman Miller's prediction that consumers and not producers will set future electricity prices is correct, assuming a competitive market. His observation (em that "states that move decisively to a competitive environment and that clear their decks of the debris of electricity companies' stranded costs as quickly as possible will be the winners" (em is equally correct. But estimates of stranded investments range from $20 to $500 billion. Who will pay to clear those "decks"?
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a municipal utility must serve all customers in new areas that it takes over by annexation (em not just a select few.
Moreover, the city must compensate the former supplier of utility services for any dedicated facilities, even if it uses its own municipal facilities to serve the new area. However, the city will owe compensation for lost profits only if the municipality fails to obtain the prior consent of the supplier or to pay for the cost of the associated facilities.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in a report analyzing the July power outage in
14 Western states, notes that New England is "challenged" by the shutdown of 3,000 Mw of nuclear capacity in Connecticut. The mid-Atlantic will be likewise challenged over the coming years by delay in the construction of a 765,000-volt transmission line between West Virginia and Virginia.
UtiliCorp United amended an electric-supply contract with Public Service Co. of Colorado to reduce electric costs for 78,000 electric customers by as much as $1 million a year.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has agreed to hear a complaint by employees of an industrial customer of Central Maine Power Co. (CMP). The employees allege unfavorable pricing actions against their employer, Yorktowne Paper Mills, including denial of service at the requested voltage. The complaint asks for reparations for prior overcharges.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has released for comment its Draft Plan on Electric Industry Restructuring, which would allow all retail customers to choose their generation supplier beginning in January 2000. The draft permits customers to aggregate, and does not require reciprocity based on retail access in other states or Canada.
Investor-owned utilities (IOUs) would have to structurally separate generation by January 2000, and divest all generation assets by January 2006.
The Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has reaffirmed an order issued on May 8 in which it struck down a tariff proposed by Toledo Edison Co. that would have barred resale of service by commercial customers. The PUC rejected allegations by Toledo Edison that the ruling constituted a breach of its duty to regulate electric service to end users. It declined to regulate disputes that it characterized as occurring between landlords and tenants, where the landlord is not operating as a public utility. See, Brooks, et al. v. Toledo Edison Co., Case No.
