FERC issues a surprising order regarding responsibility for LNG-related retrofit costs.
The answer to the question of who will be responsible for cost-mitigation measures to accommodate the introduction of large quantities of LNG into the U.S. pipeline grid remains up in the air for now, but there are signs pointing in one particular direction: toward ratepayers.
Why predictions from the Energy Information Administration may contain systematic errors.
Natural-gas estimates from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are supposed to be “policy neutral.” Are they? Over the past decade, EIA forecasts for NG differ substantially from actual outcomes—even though overestimations of supply capabilities could lead to underestimating the costs of carbon regulations.
Systems heavyweight broadens its industry footprint.
With utilities anticipating heavy rate increases in the near future, they can ill afford to alienate their customers. At the very least, they need to equip themselves to face an upsurge in customer queries and billing questions, as ratepayers come to grips with the new reality.
What’s the story with AES Ocean Express?
In January 2004, FERC authorized AES Ocean Express LLC (AES) to construct and operate natural-gas pipeline facilities to transport revaporized LNG from an offshore receipt point at the boundary between the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas to onshore delivery points on the east coast of Florida. AES proposed to connect its planned pipeline to the pipeline system of Florida Gas Transmission (FGT). AES and FGT were unable to agree upon the terms and conditions to be included in FGT’s tariff regarding the LNG delivered through AES’ proposed pipeline, leading to AES filing a formal complaint with FERC, wherein it alleged that FGT sought to impose unreasonably restrictive gas quality and interchangeability standards on LNG delivered into the FGT system.
The 2005 Act, designed to streamline projects, may fall short of that goal.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was supposed to streamline the siting process and provide a federal “trump card” for projects delayed at the local level, but it is far from clear whether these goals have been, or will be, achieved.
An expiring 40-year-old contract rocks the Pacific AC Intertie.
PacifiCorp informed FERC, PG&E, and the state of California that it would not renew the contract upon its long-anticipated expiration date of July 31, 2007. Instead, it would take back full ownership of its transmission-line rights and sell the available capacity into the open market under its own tariff at today’s going rate.
Congress is shifting U.S. energy policies toward green alternatives. Is the new direction temporary or permanent?
Fundamental questions about fuel supply, efficiency standards, and environmental performance have splintered Republicans and Democrats into warring factions. As a result, the only proposals legislators can agree upon seem to be watered down half-measures.
NERC’s first critical-infrastructure standard is now enforceable. But cyber rules await approval.
Cyber standards proposed by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. are in limbo this summer, although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission anticipates taking action on them soon. Once approved, however, how will the two organizations work together to enforce compliance?
Consultant Roger Gale concludes that the TXU leveraged buyout does not provide inherent or long-term advantages to the customer.
Just when everyone thought the dust had cleared on the highly contentious leveraged buyout of TXU by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co. (KKR), new challenges have sprung up from the most unexpected place.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities finds incentive programs may be a better way.
New Jersey regulators say they have found a way to achieve conservation objectives while maintaining efficient operations, all without placing additional risk on consumers. How did they do it?