Retail competition

EVERYONE'S GOT AN OPINION ABOUT MARKETING affiliates. In the natural gas industry, a fierce debate has emerged, as rules are proposed to govern the relationship between utility and affiliate.

Affiliate transactions are already among the most regulated activities in the gas industry. According to the 1995-96 Compilation of Utility Regulatory Policy produced by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, every state, except Nebraska, has jurisdiction over affiliate transactions involving a private- or investor-owned gas utility.

First it deregulated generation.

Then distribution (no more exclusive franchise).

Only now is New Zealand turning

to the wholesale market.

A decade ago New Zealand's economy was suffering from prolonged stagnation. The country relied too much on the public sector.

Intense though it has been, the debate over stranded electric investment has addressed only half of the issue. What the utilities will do with the money is as important as whether they should recover anything at all.

Retail competition will accelerate the decline of utility-owned generation; utilities will rely less on their own production and more on purchased power to serve their remaining customers.

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.

Retail competition will render a substantial fraction of existing electric utility plant worthless. Some estimates are so large that the question of compensation for these so-called "stranded investments" overshadows debate on the value of retail competition. Advocates of compensation frequently appeal to a "regulatory compact." They claim that this compact justifies compensation for utilities on grounds of fairness. The case for fairness, however, is badly flawed. Moreover, compensation may adversely affect the efficiency of markets in which competition is emerging.