How one Va. city squeezed through the cracks

Tennessee Valley Authority Chair Craven Crowell told the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association annual meeting in May: "We need to make sure our customers get the best prices and best service available in the electric power industry." But one customer's attempt to get lower prices has been 10 years in the making (em and TVA won't be selling to them for much longer.

Earlier this year, the Bristol, Va., Utility Board voted to end a tradition of 45 years of wholesale power purchases.

By unbundling usage from access, utilities can maximize contribution to margin and yet still retain load.

With deregulation and industry restructuring, energy utilities face price competition from marketers, brokers, independent producers and even other utilities. To succeed in this environment, utilities will need to develop innovative pricing strategies that better meet customer needs and respond more effectively to competition. The common response by utilities to competition calls for price discounting to retain "at risk"

customers by meeting the competition head-on.

Subsidies? Maybe. But how about reciprocity? Should Congress let PMAs, munis and co-ops decline open access?

Until recently, most congressional debate on utility deregulation has focused on the future of investor-owned utilities and independent power producers and marketers. Lobbyists for government-owned or cooperative-owned power companies have tried to downplay their clients or to seek exemptions.

Downsizing has trimmed the work force, but utilities may have given up those savings by going outside to purchase labor, goods and materials. Electric utilities might be overlooking the obvious (em the rapidly increasing costs of purchased goods and services (em while trying too hard to trim internal costs through downsizing and personnel cuts.

While utilities cut labor costs by less than 1 percent per year from 1992 to 1995, the costs of purchased goods and services rose by an average of more than 4 percent each year (see Chart 1), according to a study of utility economics by A.T.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has authorized PG Energy Inc. to implement several tariff modifications

regarding balancing charges and transportation service requirements.

It permitted the LDC to impose a balancing charge of $0.66/Decatherm per unit of imbalance on transportation customers and aggregators whose actual daily deliveries of gas vary by more than 2.5 percent of requirements. The commission rejected a proposal to reduce the balancing charge to account for the offsetting nature of usage among transportation users as a whole.

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has rejected a request by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. to expand its competitive discount pilot program into the western portion of the city. The program currently targets commercial customers in the eastern side of the city.

While finding that competition does exist "to some degree" on the west side of Cleveland, it does not encompass the entire area targeted by the utility's proposal, the commission said.

In the first major rate proceeding under a new state law bringing competition to the wholesale electric market, the Texas Public Utility Commission has ordered Central Power and Light Co. to accelerate recovery of above-market generating investments and reduce and unbundle its rates.

The commission said the aging of existing electric facilities and the development of new technologies were driving generation costs down.

Citing concerns about gas price volatility, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has ruled that Public Service Electric and Gas Co. should maintain its existing annual fuel cost adjustment mechanism rather than shift to a monthly charge as originally proposed for its local gas distribution customers.

Under a settlement approved by the board, the LDC will have the option to impose the monthly charge on its general-service and large-volume customers.

The merger of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. and the Potomac Electric Power Co. will not harm consumers by restraining competition in the electric market, according to the Maryland Public Service Commission.

The commission approved the merger provided Baltimore Gas and Electric lowers its customers' electric rates by $43.876 million and PEPCO lowers its Maryland customers' rates by $12.101 million. The competitive effect of the merger was still under examination at the federal level.

Dominion Resources touts its "impacted" method, but opponents call it a "stalking horse" (em a scheme to avoid full review at FERC.

Is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prepared to accept true marginal-cost pricing for electric transmission?

With all the criticism leveled at the traditional "contract path," one would think that the FERC would consider a new approach to transmission pricing.

In fact, last year in its final Order No.