The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has reaffirmed an earlier ruling permitting telecommunications utilities subject to price-cap regulation to use accrual accounting for post-retirement benefits other than pensions (PBOPs) under SFAS 106. It also warned that it may change its existing policy, which allows recovery of the costs of the accounting change as an exogenous cost under the price-cap form of regulation. The CPUC explained that "strong arguments can be made" that PBOP costs are within the utilities' control and simply normal costs of doing business.

The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) will require Energy Michigan (em a nonprofit corporation whose members promote expanded use of cogeneration, IPPs, and waste-to-energy projects (em to provide Consumers Power Co. with information concerning the extent of existing and proposed self-generation projects that pose a competitive threat. The PSC directed Energy Michigan to answer interrogatories served by Consumers after Energy Michigan intervened in a proceeding concerning a new "competitive tariff" proposed by the utility.

Citing an excessive commitment to increasingly expensive purchased-power contracts, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has reduced allowed rate of return on equity by 75 basis points. In setting rates for Central Vermont Public Service Corp., the PSB explained that ratepayers should not bear all of the costs associated with 1) excessive power commitments; 2) a failure to fully explore return sales opportunities; and 3) inefficient energy-efficiency programs.

The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has approved an alternative price regulation plan (PRP) for New England Telephone Co. (NET), while reducing its rates by 9.56 percent (about $15 million) per year, and ordering a $11.5-million rate refund. (Under state law, NET is not required to accept the price regulation plan.

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) intends to open a proceeding to consider the effect of fuel-adjustment clauses on utility incentives to reduce customer costs, finding that the passing through to customers of generating fuel costs may create a disincentive to supply-side efficiency.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, amending section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, requires states to consider electric utility investment in efficiency improvements at generation, transmission, and distribution facilities by October 24, 1995.

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) has issued a settlement order on using renewable resources to meet the state's future electric needs. The order found that waste-to-energy facilities properly were included in the proceeding, and dismissed speculative rate-impact concerns raised by certain parties.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has modified its policies on incentive mechanisms for utility demand-side management (DSM) efforts, while adopting new shareholder incentives for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Edison Co., and Southern California Gas Co.

The Ontario Energy Board has approved a $6.28-million demand-side management (DSM) plan for Consumers' Gas Co. Ltd., a natural gas distributor. The plan, reviewed as part of a major rate proceeding, won the Board's first approval since it issued integrated resource planning guidelines for gas distributors in 1993. While noting that initial period rate impacts associated with the company's DSM program were not significant, the Board stressed that rate impact testing was an important component of the DSM screening process.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved a Utah Power & Light Co. proposal to buy out a QF contract with Firth Cogeneration Partners Ltd., which the PUC found cost-efficient less than eight months ago. The utility said that the grandfathered avoided-cost contract rates were too high, and that lower-cost supplies were available from other sources.

While granting authority for the buyout, the PUC denied approval for accounting treatment and rate recovery of $4.4 million in cancellation fees suggested by the utility.

Much attention has been paid to revolutionary rate-reform plans advanced to meet perceived competition in energy markets. So much, in fact, that the increasing popularity of the special discount rate has gone virtually unnoticed.