Your article in the July 1, 1997 issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY regarding co-ops and competition was very much on target ("Co-ops and Competition: Still a United Front?" p. 16). Our firm spends a significant amount of time providing financial advice to some of the more progressive rural electric cooperatives and have had some association with a few of the organizations mentioned in your article.

We are strongly pro-cooperative. Co-ops continue to provide high-quality electric, gas and other services to significant numbers of Americans, both rural and urban dwellers.

I sincerely appreciate your covering NARUC and its outlook in the July 15, 1997, issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY (p. 26). I believe your summarization of my conversation with your Associate Editor and his depiction of NARUC sends a clear message about the unmatched resources and capabilities our organization enjoys by virtue of its membership.

Overall, the article generally captures the essence of our conversation. Nevertheless, it missed on my characterization of the NARUC staff's intended role with respect to the revitalized Washington Action Program.

Divide the grid by usage (em local vs. regional. Apportion costs accordingly, to energy customers by fixed charge, and power producers by flow and distance.

Traditionally, utilities have received transmission costs through an average, rolled-in access fee, or postage-stamp approach. In a deregulated environment, that approach will lead to distorted pricing.

And not just because of transmission-line congestion.

Much of the current debate over electric transmission pricing has centered on the various competing methods of congestion pricing, such as zonal vs.

Locational marginal pricing, even if "complex," is well worth the benefits.

In two recent issues, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY featured editorials %n1%n on restructuring of the PJM Pool. Those two articles described proposals by the so-called supporting companies, %n2%n seven members of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, to use a "locational marginal pricing" model for congestion pricing for electric transmission and to continue PJM as a "tight" power pool.

All three may apply, especially if regulators go wrong and let ISOs make the business decisions.

Electricity transmission is a real business. With more than $50 billion of net plant, another $3 billion annually in capital expenditures and yearly operating income that could reach $5 billion per year under normal circumstances, the power grid is roughly twice the size of the natural gas pipeline industry. One would never know that from current events, however. Utility management treats transmission as an inconvenient stepchild.

Competition abounds at wholesale, but retail is another story.

Will geography, politics and regional economics stand in the way of real choice for electric consumers at the retail level? Consider this tale of two power players.

One competitor, the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, is proud of itself. In its annual report, IMPA says that open access and competition in the wholesale market allowed it to trim wholesale rates for power it delivered to member distribution companies in 1996. "The results were remarkable," the report reads.

As marketers discover, some LDCs keep a strong grip on the residential class.

Michael Meath of Agway Energy Products has a dream. A dream to tap the 4.5 million natural gas customers in New York State, supplying commodity and then, other services.

New York state unbundled gas rates in March 1996, with new tariffs approved later that year. Since then, just 11,000 customers out of 4.5 million (em less than half a percent (em have decided to use aggregated transportation service.

Not all New York utilities have filed customer aggregation programs, however.

Follow the arrows as California's direct access workshops map out who will have access to electric customer data.

In its latest order implementing direct access for electric customers, the California Public Utilities Commission told Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric to conduct workshops to recommend rules on the release of customer information in a deregulated electric industry.

The PUC offered guidelines.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has rejected a request by Intermountain Gas Co. to cut demand-side management and conservation requirements from its integrated resource planning guidelines, despite company claims that reforms were needed to align the planning process with current business practices.

Meanwhile, the Florida Public Service Commission has authorized Florida Power and Light Co. to terminate an existing research and development program for a new gas-driven technology.

Idaho.

Responding to directives from its Legislature, the Maine Public Utilities Commission has directed local-exchange telephone carriers to lower their per-minute, common-line charge by 20 percent, but without changing the access charge rate structure.

At the same time, it rejected a proposal by New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. to adjust the local carrier's recently approved price-cap plan to reflect a predicted erosion in revenues. The PUC found no evidence that a cut in access rates would depress local carrier revenues.