Director agrees, the Fortnightly doesn't get it.
In your Oct. 1, 1999 editorial regarding green power marketing, you stated that "the FTC would leave consumers in the dark on some environmental claims." (See "We Got Green?" Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 4.) After reading your observations, we here at the FTC are in the dark as to why you believe that retail power marketers should be required to give consumers information that would shed no light on their purchase decisions.
Agency moves ahead despite ruling that Clean Air Act is unconstitutional.
By granting petitions filed by four Northeastern states seeking to reduce ozone pollution in their geographic areas through reductions in nitrogen oxide emission (NOx) from out-of-state sources, along with other initiatives, the Environmental Protection Agency on Dec. 17 began to clean the regulatory air that has grown murky as of late.
Reliant Energy's Don D. Jordan retired from his position as chairman of the board Dec. 31. R. Steve Letbetter, who had served as president and chief executive officer since June, has been named chairman, president and chief executive officer. Jordan served as CEO of Reliant Energy and its predecessor companies for 23 years, one of the longest tenures as a chief executive among major companies in Houston and in the energy business.
Matthew C. Cordaro has been appointed president and CEO of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator.
Some in California say they will pay double - once to the ISO, then again to the IOU.
What if power prices fall but the savings get eaten up by higher transmission rates? Let's say we unbundle the wires, but end up creating just another layer of costs? We pay the independent system operator (ISO) to run the grid, but the investor-owned utility (IOU) still owns the wires. It has its own costs to recover. So now we pay two bills, right?
The issue is troublesome for California's electric utilities and a quagmire for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In a new tariff it filed on Nov.
Power plants can bid on more than one product. That's why most spark-spread studies miss the mark.
Forward energy prices can make it look easy to place a value on a power plant. Yet something is missing. Plants can sell more than one product. One price may be up while another is down. As Einstein said, a theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
That is why it is worth reexamining the methods commonly used to calculate forward price curves and estimate the expected revenues and profits of generating assets.
Why not use the Web to buy and sell transmission rights at prices derived from bids and offers?
You make an offer, I accept. You deliver a product, I deliver money. This simple construct works well in just about any industry you can name. When a willing buyer and seller negotiate a contract, each achieves an outcome he considers best. Moreover, each is obliged to meet the needs of the other - reliably. No central authority sets the price or allocates supply. We depend on markets for reliable production and delivery of other essential goods; why not for electricity?
The supplier that bundles energy and telecom services into a single, low bill will win out, say residential customers. Will it be the electric company?
The increasingly busy lifestyle Americans lead could play into the hands of energy suppliers able to ease that burden, according to the findings of a national survey.
Consulting firm PHB Hagler Bailly found that 45 percent of residential customers would consider their energy company as a supplier of telephone service.
Do state regulators stand to learn more from their electric choice information programs than the customers they aim to reach?
What does it cost to educate an energy consumer about electric choice? Between $1.60 and $2.26, to judge by the public education campaigns in California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
In the first year of their information programs, these states spent a combined $103 million, funded through consumer rates. Though an impressive total budget for three public initiatives, that amount pales in comparison to the ad dollars spent by General Motors.
How the FERC risks a free-for-all in cases for gas facility authorization.
By final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has adopted a new optional process for applicants seeking a pipeline certificate or gas import/export authority under the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate or abandon a jurisdictional facility.[Fn.1] It's known as the Pre-Filing Collaborative Process, or PFCP, but it means trouble.
In seeking to speed up administrative review, the FERC has only invited delay.
State PUCs
T+D Investment Risk. The Maine PUC appeared to take a pro-consumer stance in setting principles it will use to set a revenue requirement for transmission and distribution (T&D) services provided by Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. after the company becomes a wires-only utility on March 1. The PUC downplayed the risk of wires operations, adopting a return on equity of 11 percent and disallowing about $3.5 million of some $71 million in claimed T&D costs.