Fortnightly Magazine - October 1 1996

Attorney Edward L. Flippen insists it "doesn't take an economist to figure out" what will happen to electricity prices in a restructured industry that provides for open access and retail wheeling ("Radical Restructuring? Not in My State," Perspective, August 1996, p. 11).

Forgoing an economist, Flippen predicts that electricity rates will reach a national equilibrium point substantially higher than rates currently prevailing in Virginia but below rates in California.

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.

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.

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"?