The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has approved an alternative price regulation plan (PRP) for New England Telephone Co. (NET), while reducing its rates by 9.56 percent (about $15 million) per year, and ordering a $11.5-million rate refund. (Under state law, NET is not required to accept the price regulation plan.

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) intends to open a proceeding to consider the effect of fuel-adjustment clauses on utility incentives to reduce customer costs, finding that the passing through to customers of generating fuel costs may create a disincentive to supply-side efficiency.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, amending section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, requires states to consider electric utility investment in efficiency improvements at generation, transmission, and distribution facilities by October 24, 1995.

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) has issued a settlement order on using renewable resources to meet the state's future electric needs. The order found that waste-to-energy facilities properly were included in the proceeding, and dismissed speculative rate-impact concerns raised by certain parties.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has modified its policies on incentive mechanisms for utility demand-side management (DSM) efforts, while adopting new shareholder incentives for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Edison Co., and Southern California Gas Co.

The Ontario Energy Board has approved a $6.28-million demand-side management (DSM) plan for Consumers' Gas Co. Ltd., a natural gas distributor. The plan, reviewed as part of a major rate proceeding, won the Board's first approval since it issued integrated resource planning guidelines for gas distributors in 1993. While noting that initial period rate impacts associated with the company's DSM program were not significant, the Board stressed that rate impact testing was an important component of the DSM screening process.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has approved a Utah Power & Light Co. proposal to buy out a QF contract with Firth Cogeneration Partners Ltd., which the PUC found cost-efficient less than eight months ago. The utility said that the grandfathered avoided-cost contract rates were too high, and that lower-cost supplies were available from other sources.

While granting authority for the buyout, the PUC denied approval for accounting treatment and rate recovery of $4.4 million in cancellation fees suggested by the utility.

Much attention has been paid to revolutionary rate-reform plans advanced to meet perceived competition in energy markets. So much, in fact, that the increasing popularity of the special discount rate has gone virtually unnoticed.

Four facilities-based cellular telecommunications companies will pay fines totalling $5.52 million following a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) investigation of compliance with its cellular tower siting regulations. The four firms (em Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., Mountain Cellular, GTE Mobilnet of California, and Bay Area Cellular (em had either failed to file applications for siting approval with the CPUC prior to construction or failed to obtain proper permits for construction from other governmental agencies.

While investigating the "build versus buy" issue, the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) has upheld its existing least-cost planning and competitive-bidding regulations. The PUC rejected proposals to alter its existing integrated resource planning process by adding "market-test" or shared-cost-savings incentive regulation. Proponents said that the proposals were necessary to counteract a tendency by utility management to favor construction to boost rate base.

Competition in electricity is part of a general trend toward deregulation (em from airlines to stock markets (em that characterized economic evolution in much of the western world during the 1980s. The move to liberalize electricity in some countries has been spurred on by the disenchantment of politicians and large customers with the traditional monopolistic arrangements. Monopoly not only prevented customer choice, but was increasingly seen as inefficient and paternalistic.