For the past several decades, utility regulation at the state level dealt with secure local markets and truly captive customers. A regulatory compact flourished that offered reasonable prices to customers, while guaranteeing the monopolist the opportunity to earn a fair rate of return on prudently incurred investments.
In the alphabet soup of regulatory acronyms, performance-based ratemaking (PBR) may help shape events well into the next century. At present, PBR is being implemented, or considered by, public utility commissions (PUCs) in over 20 states. By 2000, PBR is likely to reach most of the 50 states as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The pressures of a global economy have raised the stakes.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) will allow MFS Intelenet of Michigan to compete with Ameritech Michigan in the Detroit and Ann Arbor area exchanges. The PSC said state telecommunications law supports competition and that the applicant was qualified to enter the business. It rejected claims that the certificate should be denied due to concerns over possible cross-subsidization between the applicant and its holding company, MFS Communications Co. According to the PSC, consumers were well protected from such abuses under existing regulations.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) has rejected allegations that flexibly priced tariffs for electric service are unlawfully discriminatory under state law. The ruling opens the way for Consumers Power Co. to impose a new Special Competitive Services (SACS) tariff. The new SACS rate would allow Consumers to negotiate onpeak billing demand and energy charges within a range of rates for customers with a less expensive alternative energy source.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) has warned Consumers Power Co., an electric utility, that the utility may only take more power from its affiliated Midland Cogeneration Venture (a qualifying cogeneration facility) through a competitively bid capacity solicitation.
The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) has approved a request by the state's natural gas local distribution companies (LDCs) to extend a statewide natural gas vehicle (NGV) program first approved in 1992.
A Texas Court of Appeals in Austin has turned back an appeal by El Paso Electric Co. (EPE) challenging a state commission ruling that disallowed rate recovery of the utility's investment in the Palo Verde Unit 3 nuclear generating plant as excess capacity. It rejected the utility's claim that use of the plant for base-load and offsystem wholesales warranted cost recovery.
The Palo Verde disallowance had come in a 1992 commission rate order.
Does competition justify higher salaries for utility executives? Some regulators have suggested the opposite. Others argue that ratepayers must benefit directly from any incentives offered to utility managers.
The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) recently forced stockholders to pay a share of executive compensation costs for two utilities (em Green Mountain Power Co. and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (em that exhibited higher-than-average executive compensation, and capped compensation for rate cases.
One need only reflect upon the primary sponsors of current efforts to repeal section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to begin to understand the folly of these efforts for the nation. The sponsors do not represent electricity ratepayers, who are claimed to be overpaying billions of dollars as a result of PURPA.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has upheld its February 22 ruling that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) violated federal law by not considering all electric power sources in determining the avoided costs of electric utilities (Docket Nos. EL95-16-001 and EL95-19-001). A unanimous FERC had found the CPUC's Biennial Resource Plan Update auction in violation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).