Expressing concern about price volatility in the natural gas market, New Jersey, Virginia and Michigan regulators have directed local gas distribution companies to try fixed-price contracts and other hedging instruments. This would allay risk in wholesale gas supply portfolios and protect residential ratepayers from price swings common in the winter heating season, regulators said.

The growing popularity of fixed-price and other financial instruments to hedge against price spikes follows two winters of volatility noticed by regulators nationwide.

New Jersey.

Further opening the local telephone market to competition in the state, the Michigan Public Service Commission has established guidelines for pricing unbundled network elements and set a wholesale rate for bundled local service.

The local exchange carrier, Ameritech Michigan, complained that the combined price of all unbundled services could fall lower than than the bundled wholesale rate.

The commission adopted a total-service, long-run, incremental cost study to calculate the new rate offerings.

The New Mexico Public Utility Commission has authorized Public Service Company of New Mexico to launch a major new program to help small-volume end users take advantage of alternate gas supply sources.

The action follows an investigation by the commission of an offer by the utility to exit the gas merchant function.

Under the new program, small customers can purchase gas from a list of qualified marketers beginning with the first billing cycle for December 1997.

Competition draws Christians, conspiracy theorists.

SO, WHO WANTS TO COMPETE AGAINST THE LOCAL UTILITIES? In most of the country, potential competitors tend to fall into three categories: (1) traditional utilities from within or nearby the affected state that wants to expand into foreign service territories; (2) unregulated subsidiaries of traditional utilities; or (3) power marketers and/or aggregators. In California, however, it's more of a mixed bag.

A talk with two LDCs. First, PSE&G appears content to cede sales to marketers, Second, NW Natural intends not to give in just yet.

This much is clear: Energy utilities are headed for an unbundled future.

As states from both sides of the country implement residential and commercial natural gas unbundling, require residential choice pilot programs and grapple with electric industry restructuring, competition shows no signs of slowing. To boot, some members of Congress seem eager to give competition a national push.

When the fanfare dies down, winners face the same challenge as with any new start-up but may enjoy more options than incumbent licensees.

The Federal Communications Commission's auctions of spectrum should concern two types of energy utilities: those who participate in the auctions and those who don't.

Initially, these auctions were viewed as a spectacular new regulatory tool (em able to raise billions of dollars for the public, without troubling the overburdened taxpayer. As of late, however, a dark side has emerged. Bidders have cried fraud.

(And why power plant buyers may follow suit.)

"WINNERS' CURSE" IS IMPORTANT TO THE UTILITY ASSET AUCTIONS. Winners' Curse is the tendency for the "rookies" and the wide-eyed visionaries to overbid in auctions with uncertain valuations.

The spectrum auctions at the Federal Communications Commission reveal the Winners' Curse even in the more "successful" rounds, despite the agency's elaborate precautions.

FCC's 14 spectrum auctions booked almost $23 billion in license fees (em almost $10 billion in broadband personal communications services (PCS).

THE FERC TAKES SUGGESTIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THE GAS INDUSTRY.

Earlier this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opened a discussion of issues facing the natural gas industry. Its aim? To set "regulatory goals and priorities" for the era following from Order 636, issued in 1992. %n1%n

To gather input, the FERC scheduled a two-day public conference. It asked for comments on a myriad of topics, ranging from cost-of-service rates to hourly gas pricing and services.

Throughout the 1990s, investor-owned utilities have redefined the way they do business to position themselves for competition better. The downside of these efforts is higher rates for small customers and employee layoffs.

Today, IOUs are more focused on improved efficiency. IOUs are concentrating on keeping large customers, investing less in their utility systems and retiring debt.

Though IOUs continue to dominate electric generation nationwide (74 percent), electric output has increased by only 8.1 percent since 1990.

Let me tell a story. A consultant I know works as the lead negotiator for a Native American tribe that sells fuel to electric generating plants. On occasion he visits the reservation to discuss business plans with the tribe, exploring various scenarios for utility restructuring.

Recently, this consultant said he found himself in the ceremonial council lodge, instructing tribal leaders on decision trees and discounted cash flows. When he finished, the younger members conferred briefly in their native language.