El Paso Energy Marketing hired Kathy Eisbrenner as senior v.p. Eisbrenner previously was with LG&E Natural Inc.

Cameron Raether, XENERGY senior consultant, was elected to the board of the Power Association of Northern California. Raether serves as chair on several boards and specializes in market evaluations for large electric and natural gas end users.

Robert G. Edwards was elected v.p. at Columbia Division of SCANA Energy Marketing Inc. Edwards joined SCANA in 1992 as a gas sales representative and has held various marketing positions.

Regarding the Hanser, Wharton and Fox-Penner article on real-time pricing ("Real-Time Pricing (em Restructuring's Big Bang," PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, March 1, 1997, p. 22), the authors state that RTP programs will defer capacity needs and reduce peak loads. I doubt it. People don't mind paying high prices per kWh for a few hours each year. On the other hand, there is nothing like an old-fashion ratchet to get people to reduce their peak demand.

I am writing to express my concern over the Feb. 1 publication of the article, "Why Applicants Should Use Computer Simulation Models to Comply With FERC's New Merger Policy" (p. 22). The authors, Mark W. Frankena and John R. Morris, have used the editorial pages of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY to deliver a highly commercial message promoting their preferred computer model at the expense of several other software packages, which they specifically name.

When the phone rang it was Tom Mathews, director of mechanical and energy services at Hannaford Bros., the grocery chain that has become better known for shaving utility bills than trimming pork chops.

Mathews made news two years ago when Hannaford had threatened to install generating plants on site at some or all of its 140 or so retail stores, clustered in New England and the north and southeast states. Now he was calling to tell me about his new plan.

A simple formula method shows utilities exactly how much to discount prices. Electric utilities have drawn attention recently (and criticism from some quarters) for granting off-the-tariff discounts to customers deemed at risk for migration to lower-priced competitive alternatives. Typically, utilities have offered discounts to high-load customers in exchange for a long-term purchase commitment providing either more certain earnings, higher expected earnings, or both.

Professor Shepherd sees selective price cutting as anti-competitive, but even a monopolist should be allowed to compete on price.

As the electric industry deregulates, state public utility commissions are asked increasingly to allow the local utility to offer price discounts to large-load customers who might otherwise turn to other sellers. So far, nearly all the PUCs faced with this issue have agreed that such discounts are beneficial: They help retain large-load customers, who help pay the utility's fixed costs.

An insider recounts the twists and turns that led to a new state law and new rights for the state's electric consumers. On Dec. 3, 1996, Gov. Tom Ridge signed into law Pennsylvania's Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (em a historic statute that will introduce competition in the retail market among suppliers of electric generation. The act passed primarily because of strong leadership from the governor and others.

Some states have become well-known for their regulatory or legislative initiatives on electric restructuring and customer choice. Among those drawing the greatest attention are California, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas.

At press time, reports were filtering in of legislation about to be introduced in Montana and North Carolina (em states that might be considered unlikely subjects for competitive initiatives.

With the implementation of the Energy Policy Act and the FERC's Orders 888 and 889, competition has been introduced into wholesale power markets. It is limited in scope, however, as utilities are still able to recover their fixed generation costs and embedded cost of capital from their captive retail markets. This limited competition impedes progress towards the development of a more efficient generation system in the U.S. and provides only modest benefits to retail customers.

Currently, generators compete only in wholesale markets and not in retail power markets.

Robert Blohm and Professor William Hogan recently traded op-ed letters in the Wall Street Journal on the "poolco" and "bilateral" models for wholesale power markets:

Writing first, Blohm (an advisor to Ontario's Macdonald Committee on electric competition) praised bilateral trading (individual buyers and sellers agree on price).