Sears, Roebuck and Co. selected Enova Energy as a partner in a "regional energy alliance." Enova Energy, an Enova Corp. subsidiary, will design and install a technical learning center at Sears' Tucson, AZ department store. The company also will provide energy services at other Sears stores in several western states. The learning center will be one of a nationwide system of energy-efficient stores used as models and for the testing and training of facility operations equipment. All of the store's services will be aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing costs.

Jay P. Lukens, formerly a principal at Energy Market Economics, Inc., was hired by The Economic Resource Group, Inc., as managing director and principal of the company's new Houston office.

Edison Source tapped Aram G. Sogomonian, a former executive at Enron Capital and Trade Resources as its new corporate risk management v.p. Sogomonian was Enron's director of risk analytics and asset price, and also has worked at Unocal.

Larry Grossman, a senior v.p. at Cassidy & Associates, was retained by the Council on Superconductivity for American Competitiveness as executive director.

Prometheus paid dearly when he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man, but his courage paid off. Fire now belongs to the people. So should electricity, says New York state Judge Joseph Harris, of Albany, who ruled last fall that state regulators could force open New York's electric industry, but warned against hidden favoritism:

"Prometheus," wrote Harris, "in breaking the monopoly of the gods and by giving electrical energy to mankind ... [should] not be demeaned by a mere transfer of that monopoly to the lords of industry.

Each assumes a vertical breakup, but watch out for securitization.

It can prove difficult to detect any overt difference of opinion among financial credit rating agencies. That appears to be the case in today's electric utility industry, where Moody's, Duff & Phelps, and Standard & Poor's each predicts that a breakup of the vertically integrated utility is now virtually inevitable. The result, they say, will leave us with an industry made up of disaggregated high-risk power generators, and lower-risk companies engaged in transmission, distribution, and other related services.

Models can overcome a key oversight (em

that both supply and demand affect competition.

This past December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a policy statement describing important changes in how it will evaluate proposed mergers under the Federal Power Act's public interest standard. These changes should lead to significant improvements (em not only in the evaluation of mergers, but also for other matters that affect market power, %n1%n including industry restructuring and market-based pricing.

Applicants can only hope that a prompt review won't be even more difficult

By a unanimous vote, on December 18, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order No. 592, stating how it intends to evaluate utility mergers. The anticipation has ended, yet those hoping for a new approach and a quicker review are bound to be disappointed.

Order 592 is a "Policy Statement." As such, it only announces intentions; it imposes no new obligations and is not subject to judicial review until implemented in a specific case.

In two recent actions concerning natural gas marketers and brokers, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) has proposed new policy to define its authority over marketing by the state's local distribution companies (LDCs) and their affiliates, plus a new rule requiring LDCs to set tariffed guidelines to ensure that marketers and brokers possess the financial and technical fitness necessary "to meet their contractual obligations" in transporting gas through LDC systems.

It stressed that it would not permit unreasonable discrimination in retail offerings (em whether by the LDC

While approving the transfer of certain water utility assets and certificates between two utility companies, the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) has decided against applying a negative acquisition adjustment to rate base in setting rates for the acquiring utility, even though the buyer paid "substantially less" than original cost for the facilities ($545,000 versus $2.845 million).

The PSC ruled that without extraordinary circumstances, its policy requires that a purchase of utility assets at a premium or discount should not affect the rate base calculation.

Despite an acknowledged drop in rates (down 11 percent in real terms over the last ten years) the Vermont Public Service Board has proposed to restructure the state's electric utility industry. The proposal would follow along the same lines envisioned by many other states (em i.e., competition and choice in the generation sector, with regulated monopolies for transmission and distribution services, plus recovery of "legitimate" stranded costs.

Beginning in 1998, retail customers could choose among competitive suppliers.

The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) has approved a comprehensive settlement in a series of closely watched cases in which Consumers Power Co. had proposed to realign electric rates and cost recovery to anticipate retail competition in electricity.

Among other points, the settlement allows Consumers Power to implement a "direct access" tariff to meet anticipated competition for its largest customers.