Why We Sign Those Secret Deals
Out here in the trenches, Professor William Shepherd's attempts to correlate anti-competitive pricing strategies with market dominance will take a while to sink in, mostly because the politics seem to get in the way of clear thinking. While his article ("Anti-Competitive Impacts of Secret Strategic Pricing in the Electricity Industry," Feb. 15, 1997, p.
John Yurkanin was appointed senior v.p. of marketing and sales for LG&E Natural. Yurkanin joined LG&E in 1996 and served as senior v.p., producer services. Yurkanin will direct LG&E in expanding marketing presence with utilities and other marketers. Also at LG&E, Mark Stanger was appointed v.p., producer services. Stanger will direct service business, including contracting for new sources of gas supply and managing relationships with current suppliers.
Commissioner Hullihen Williams Moore will serve as chairman of the State Corporation Commission for the next year.
Wall Street loves stranded costs. No kidding. For stockbrokers and underwriters accustomed to selling utility issues to widows and orphans, the prospect of asset-backed financing opens a whole new world. I'm talking here about "securitizing" stranded costs.
In a securitization, a trust takes beneficial title to utility assets (tangible or intangible) that have lost their value in the market, and sells "transition bonds" to a new set of investors, funneling the bond sales proceeds back to the utility and to its equity investors. Who pays the coupon? Why, it's the customer of course.
Valuation, optimization and settlement strategies
oth gas and electric utilities face a variety of environmental issues arising from more than 1,500 former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites, which supplied a major source of energy in the United States from the early 1800s to the mid-1900s. Using the standard operating procedures of the day, MGPs created and often disposed of byproducts such as coal and oil tars, tar/water emulsions, sludges, spent oxides (including cyanides), lampblack, ash and clinker.
But not for long (em as power producers and
customers get more creative in matching plants with loads Dynamic scheduling is a "sleeper" issue in the move toward electric competition. Industry players are debating independent system operators. They are focusing on issues of governance and the form of transmission pricing. Consequently, they are ignoring critical issues concerning ancillary services. These services are not receiving the attention they deserve.
New legislation would tackle the most difficult problem (em low load factors for small-volume customers.
We commend the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act, SB 215, passed by the Georgia General Assembly in March. (Governor Zell Miller was expected to sign the bill in April.) The Georgia legislation envisions a new framework for regulating the retail gas market.
N.H. Discovers What Residents Really Want (em And Don't
While electricity consumers are interested in lower bills, they're unlikely to change suppliers even though they could save money.
That's one of the seemingly conflicting results of a survey of 400 people who participated in the New Hampshire electric pilot program. The program, started in late May 1996, targeted 17,000 customers, and still is under way.
The California Public Utilities Commission has rejected a request by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., for a waiver from scheduled rate reductions mandated under a three-year base-rate plan approved in December 1995.
The court said the company has shown no "extraordinary circumstances" to support breaking the three-year rate contract.
The utility had claimed it would incur greater-than-expected maintenance and service expenses in areas such as tree trimming, meter reading and meter repair.
While approving a
three-year settlement on electric rates for Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., the New York Public Service Commission has accepted a highly controversial increase in minimum charges for low-use residential customers.
It also approved a plan to establish an
$11-million, ratepayer-supported fund to promote additional sales to large, alternate-fuel customers, but warned the company that the court would closely monitor relations between the utility and its energy marketing affiliate, Plum Street Energy Marketing.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has approved a proposal by Jersey Central Power and Light Co., an electric utility, to meet its short-to-medium-term power needs by purchasing power from utility-owned generating facilities located in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Under the agreement, the utility will purchase a total of 700 megawatts of power over an eight-year period from Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.