Electric Competition Moves On

The recent months have brought a flurry of activity in a number of states:

ARIZONA: The Arizona Corporation Commission approved rules opening Arizona's electric industry to competition over a four-year period starting in 1999. The rules allow retail customers to retain standard electric service, or to choose competitive services.

Beginning Jan. 1, 1999, utilities must make available 20 percent of its peak 1995 demand to all customers, including small business and residential.

Flow-based pricing ends

subsidies inherent in grid-wide,

postage-stamp rates.

I

n Order 888, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission suggested 11 principles for forming an independent system operator, or ISO. In its third principle, the FERC offered this guidance on transmission pricing:

An ISO should provide open access to the transmission system and all services under its control at non-pancaked rates pursuant to a single, unbundled, grid-wide tariff that applies to all eligible users in a non-discriminatory manner.

With its membership opened, NEPOOL sets a transmission tariff, but still must develop competitive markets. In 1993, after a series of attempts going back as far as 1971, the New England Power Pool failed to reach agreement among its members for a regional transmission arrangement. But destiny then took over (em with help from the newly enacted Energy Policy Act (em to lead pool members back to the bargaining table. Finally, on Sept. 30, 1996, NEPOOL announced that its executive committee had agreed in principle on restructuring the pool.

Perhaps the only political prediction bound to come true this year is that the words ôelectric restructuringö will reverberate in nearly every stateÆs legislative chamber.

So says Matthew Brown, director of the energy project at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But other factors support BrownÆs prediction. Public Utilities FortnightlyÆs informal survey of most states turned up similar results. Legislators know that the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Congress plan to introduce a federal bill this year.

Flexible prices make markets hum,

but discounts discriminate when monopolies rule.

Many expect that the electricity industry is moving inexorably toward a much-publicized "new competitive era." Companies, regulatory officials and experts all regard the momentum as powerful.

So far, the changes are just beginning, and there is a long way to go to reach fully effective competition. %n1%n Yet even at this early stage, the merger and pricing strategies adopted by the established electric firms may be threatening the prospects for competition.

Top utility executives are winning pay hikes these days, but only at the cost of risky stock options that put a premium on company performance.

"Higher overall pay levels, and especially the increased use of long-term incentive plans, point to the trend in the utility industry toward heightened risk-and-reward pay strategies," according to Executive Compensation in the Utility Industry, a recently released report compiled by William M. Mercer Inc.

The use of at-risk pay incentives becomes even more pronounced as the size of the utility increases.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has ruled that electricity futures contracts or other types of "derivatives" or risk management instruments (e.g., options, forward contracts, swaps, etc.) do not fall subject to certain state regulations that exact fees and require PUC approval for security issues by utilities.

It distinguished the two categories: risk management instruments aim to shelter utilities from losses, while security issues usually provide a source of funding. Utilities, it said, need not file a confidential copy of its risk management plan with the commission.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has upheld a state commission order that allowed Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

Finding no adverse consequences, but warning that the record was not yet complete, the Arkansas Public Service Commission has granted preliminary approval of a plan for the merger of Houston Industries, Inc., the holding company for Houston Lighting and Power Co., and NorAm Energy Corp., which provides natural gas distribution service in several states via three operating divisions, Arkla, Entex, and Minnegasco.

PSC Approval will remain conditional pending the outcome of related merger proceedings in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Minnesota, as well as before the Federal Energy Regulato

The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) has criticized a request by Shenandoah Gas Co. to require its residential and commercial customers to pay the lion's share of a newly approved rate increase, citing the utility's cost studies as "flawed" and its cost allocations as having compounded the error.

The company had argued that its cost studies showed that interruptible customers were already generating a 45 percent rate of return, while rates for its firm customers produced a negative return on the investment necessary to serve them.