Law & Lawyers

Gas LDC Loses Pipeline Bid

The North Carolina Utilities Commission (UC)has granted authority to Frontier Utilities of North Carolina, Inc., to construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and distribution system to provide service to four counties in the state.

Perspective

Does it make good business sense to offer a service that brings in considerable revenue but virtually no profit?

In the past, special circumstances explained why local distribution companies (LDCs) sold natural gas to customers without earning a profit. But circumstances have changed.

PUC Again Refuses to Arbitrate Labor Dispute

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has once again turned back an attempt by the Communications Workers of America to invoke state utility regulation to solve labor complaints against Pacific Bell.The union had complained that PacBell's use of lower-paid technicians to perform duties allegedly reserved for higher-paid contract classifications violated the state's public utility code.

Gas Wary of Electric IRP/DSM

The American Gas Association (A.G.A.) has issued A Strategic Guide to IRP and DSM for Natural Gas Companies, prepared by Hampton Strategies, Inc. Because the evolution of IRP and DSM initiatives for electric and gas companies will be greatly affected by increased competition, the report contends, natural gas companies need to be familiar with issues and practices surrounding DSM cost recovery and profitability incentives.

Montana and Iowa Reject EPAct Section 115

The Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) has decided not to adopt federal standards for natural gas integrated resource planning (IRP) and demand-side management (DSM) contained in section 115 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), concluding that current information did not support establishing formal standards in those areas. The PSC explained that the expected costs of future commission involvement in the matter outweigh the benefits that might reasonably be expected at this time. Re Section 115, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Order No. 5861, Docket No. 94.9.42, Aug.

Collision or Coexistence: The FERC, the CPUC, and Electric Restructuring

Will the Crown accept the olive branch offered by its colony, or will conflict ensue? That was the question posed on July 13 by Thomas Page, CEO of San Diego Gas and Electric Co., at the "Western States Workshop on California Restructuring," the first industrywide meeting to discuss the policy proposals issued six weeks before by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).The Crown sent its emissaries.

Nuke Economics Improving

A recent Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) report, Sharpening the Competitive Edge, finds that, by focusing on improved economic performance and undertaking a range of individual and industry initiatives, utilities reduced nuclear plant operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses by 8 percent between 1994 and 1995.

Off Peak

"Througout much of the

history of generation, technology

devolved at a very slow pace after

the construction of the first generation

of large central generation stations. With

the development of nuclear energy in the

1940s and 1950s, the government promoted an

alternative energy source that was expected to

provide a cheap source of power as well as

provide a source of plutonium for nuclear

weapons development.

Aggregating Municipal Loads: The Future is Today

The debate today in many state capitals is whether electric restructuring will help or hurt the residential and small commercial customer.

Proponents of wholesale and retail wheeling foresee a positive result. They claim that residential and small commercial electric consumers stand to gain as much from competition in electric generation as do large industrial customers with high load factors.

FERC Asked to Reconsider Avoided-cost Order

Metropolitan Edison Co. (ME) and Pennsylvania Electric Co. (PE), subsidiaries of General Public Utilities Corp. (GPU), have asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for rehearing on parts of its July 6 order, which the two companies had challenged under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act in Pennsylvania (Docket No. EL95-41-000).

Specifically, the utilities had challenged the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's (PUC's) method of using a coal plant proxy to calculate a default level of avoided costs.