In an age of costly electricity and cheap efficiency, smart utilities will sell less electricity and more efficiency.
Efficiency gains, if not properly managed, can quietly take away most of the present market for electricity. But they also offer alert utilities an unprecedented opportunity to control risk, improve cash flow, secure market share, save operating costs, and become once more a declining-cost industry.
Retail wheeling has been repeatedly condemned by opponents who claim that it would cause rate discrimination between customer classes. They allege that it would unfairly reduce rates for large customers, while raising them for small ones. But discriminatory rate structures already result from the selective discounts that utilities grant their large customers.
We begin the new year with a recap of the major rulings issued last year by state public utility commissions (PUCs).
Electricity took center stage as state commissioners began in earnest to examine rising competition in the power generation market. The seemingly endless number of privately sponsored seminars, conferences, and reports on the issue might suggest that regulators are following rather than leading on policy.
2 percent of California's gross state product. Competitively priced electricity is vital to California's $800-billion-a-year economy, one would think.
Vikram S. Budhraja
Vice President of Planning and Technology
Southern California Edison Co.
The transition to a competitive generation marketplace is underway. Customers want choices, flexibility, and competitive prices. Producers want open nondiscriminatory access to markets. Regulators want a smooth transition to the new system based on competitive efficiency, not cost-avoidance or cost-shifting among customer groups. And policymakers want a system that protects consumers without sacrificing environmental and energy policy objectives.
The debate over the merits of pool-based markets as opposed to reliance on bilateral transactions and the invisible hand of competition began without much care taken to define the details of the bilateral alternative. On closer examination, however, we find the two approaches have much in common, being more like different pews than different churches. A further debate that emphasizes only the few differences would not inform so much as distract from solving the common problems.
TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. has adopted a plan to encourage fair treatment of shareholders in event of a takeover offer. The plan addresses concerns that existing Canadian law does not allow enough time for the board or shareholders to properly consider a takeover bid. Under the plan, shareholder rights can only be exercised when a person announces the intention to acquire 20 percent or more of TransCanada's common shares without complying with the "permitted bid" provisions of the rights plan.
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.
The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) has turned down a request to create a special rate for backup service to qualifying facilities (QFs) with dispatchable contracts. The PSC made the ruling while reviewing a request by Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. for permission to increase its rates for backup services provided to customers with onsite generation, primarily QFs. The utility had withdrawn the proposed rates, but only after the parties to the case claimed that the rate proposal was designed to kill competition, especially from smaller QF projects.
At a November 11 conference, "Canadian-Northeast Energy Trade: New Issues and Challenges," sponsored by the New England-Canada Business Council, Commissioner Donald F. Santa, Jr.