Let's look back over the past few years-what we got right and where we went wrong.
Do you recall how you felt at your last class reunion? Well, that's exactly what an editor feels when asked to reminisce in public about days gone by at the magazine to which he gave his best years.
A renewed capital investment structure is required for long-term investment in power infrastructure.
The bank markets and the long-term fixed income markets, or institutional investors, have long memories, and their pain is still fresh. Over the last few years, they have had to watch their investments in power infrastructure become distressed, bankrupted, or reorganized.
Financial players and load-serving utilities are looking for power asset deals.
Despite talk of wide bid-ask spreads in the past two tumultuous years, some 60 sales of generation assets have been announced. These sales cover more than 22 GW of capacity, valued on a cash-and-debt basis at approximately $11 billion. A wide variety of buyers and sellers have participated in the sales activity, with a pronounced entry by financial players (investment banks and private equity firms) and load-serving entities (LSEs) looking for capacity to serve their load.
FERC's AEP ruling begs the question: Can the feds bypass states that block transmission reform?
In its search for the perfect power market, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) at last has joined the battle that lately has brought state and federal regulators nearly to blows. A recent ruling puts the question squarely on the table:
Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
"Frontlines" from the Nov. 1, 2003, addressed what Richard Stavros called "AEP's Gutsy Gambit." In the process of panning AEP's strategy, Mr. Stavros demonstrates no understanding or appreciation of the state law issues he purports to address in his essay. I am responding because, by unmistakable implication, Kentucky is one of the "certain state regulators" he repeatedly takes to task.
The legal battle of the century is ready to begin.
Tantamount to a declaration of war with state regulators was the order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) late last year, over the objections of Kentucky and Virginia, that AEP must join the PJM grid to meet conditions of its 2000 merger with Central and Southwest Corp.
Will the CFTC move Into FERC's house?
Most of us in the energy industry have long thought that the "transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce" falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The same goes for electric sales at wholesale, if also conducted in interstate commerce. We know that because the law1 and the courts tell us so. And natural gas is much the same.2
Feds seek plug-and-play for distributed generation, but utilities want the power to stay local.
Pity the poor Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). With its market crusade out of favor, and transmission reform suddenly suspect after the Aug. 14 blackout, it could use a new agenda.
It would join an RTO but dictate the terms-a dangerous game that has the industry talking.
It would join an RTO but dictate the terms-a dangerous game that has the industry talking. When I talked a few months ago with AEP President and CEO Linn Draper Jr., he discussed how his company would have joined the PJM RTO in March were it not for the backlash he was getting from certain state regulators.
The road to the current reliability crisis is paved with four decades of bad policy decisions.
The technical causes of the great Northeast blackout of August 2003 are coming into focus. For reasons yet unknown as of press time, transmission lines in northern Ohio were lost to the grid, and within seconds 50 million people in the United States and Canada were without power. Soon we will no doubt know the specific reasons for the blackout, and technical corrections and improvements will be made.