Competition from Order 636 has gas customers rethinking their firm capacity options.
Just when everyone thought we had put Order 636 behind us, up pops perhaps our greatest challenge yet: the turnback (or "decontracting") of firm capacity on interstate natural gas pipelines. This phenomenon, now emerging on a few major pipelines, such as Transwestern, El Paso, and Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, inspires different reactions.
LDC Robustus? Which Would You Rather Be?
Post-Order 636 evolution depends on aggressive regulatory and legislative reform.
"Get out of the gas business. Drop the merchant function. We can't make any money selling gas and we are constantly at risk to having gas costs disallowed. It's a no-win situation.
As this snapshot look at the seven utility mergers announced since January 1995 demonstrates, traditional patterns are no longer being followed. A number of the announced transactions did not fit squarely into either the merger-of-equals model (little or no premium, fairly even equity and board split, CEO succession plan) or the acquisition model (high premium, disparate equity and board split, no CEO succession plan).
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has declined to adopt standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) that concern integrated resource planning and energy efficiency for electric and gas utilities, exempt wholesale generators and affiliated transactions, and investment in foreign utilities.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has directed the state's electric and gas utilities to implement a two-year pilot allowing applicants such as residential real estate developers to design distribution facilities for their projects. (Currently, utilities are responsible for designing distribution plant.) In limiting the experiment to residential projects, the CPUC rejected allegations that the limitation would unfairly deny all ratepayers the immediate benefit of savings associated with the "unbundling of engineering costs" for distribution plant.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) has upheld a 1995 decision permitting Sault Electric Co. to switch to a price-cap rate plan. The plan allows the utility to roll its existing power-supply adjustment clause into base rates to set initial rates; later rate reductions are permitted with only 30 days written notice to the PSC (see, Edison Sault Electric Co., 164 PUR4th 1 (Mich.P.S.C. 1995)).
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved a plan by Utah Power and Light Co., partner in a merger with PacifiCorp, to offer its largest customer, Monsanto, reduced rates as well as an option to arrange for the delivery of third-party power when prices fall below state levels.
Rapid developments in the electric industry, especially in wholesale markets, have prompted the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) to extend its review of a utility's plans to add to its transmission system. Appalachian Power Co., an operating member of the American Electric Power (AEP) system, had asked the SCC for authority to construct a 765-kilovolt transmission line between substations in West Virginia and Virginia.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has overturned major parts of a price-cap regulatory plan for Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc., a telecommunications local exchange carrier (LEC). The court directed the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) to modify an inflation offset and to reexamine its classification of certain LEC service offerings as competitive.
Nearly every major rate case over the past several years focuses some attention on removing subsidies running between rate classes.