Uncle Sam buys a lot of power. Who supplies it may depend upon Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 17.

Today's intense competition to sell power should not overlook one large customer - the federal government. The Department of Defense alone consumed $1.4 billion worth of power in fiscal year 1994. Recently, one utility executive was quoted as saying: "We've got power marketers foaming at the mouth for DOD's business."%n1%n

Yet how does a marketer get the business of a federal agency, office or installation if retail wheeling is not mandated?

While I read with interest and appreciated your story on electric and natural gas convergence ("Electric/Gas Convergence, Meter to Meter," May 1, 1997, p. 26), I must bring to your attention a misinterpretation concerning the proposed merger of Pacific Enterprises and Enova Corp.

In the second paragraph of your story, you said that Enova "is set to acquire Southern California Gas Co.

Bruce Radford's May 15 "Frontlines" (p. 4) commentary on the Sears Tower/QST cogeneration project misses the point. I would like to correct his misconceptions and clarify the issues by looking at them from a marketplace viewpoint rather than a utility-based viewpoint.

First of all, the Sears Tower's savings are more than an "allegation." QST's proposed cogeneration facility for the Sears Tower will reduce the cost of electric power supply to the tower by about $2 million per year compared to what it costs under ComEd's current rates.

In reference to your May 15 article, "Report Finds Problems With Choice Pilot" ("Headlines," p. 16), following is the industrial customers' response to the report.

STATEMENT

On May 7, 1997, a group of large industrial consumers of electricity on the Illinois Power Co. system, referred to as the Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers, filed a response to a recently submitted report by Illinois Power Co., pertaining to the Direct Energy Access (DEAS) report.

Your editorial in the June 1, 1997 issue ("PJM's Brave New World," p. 4) provided a perceptive analysis of the Pennsylvania transmission pricing debate. As you point out, standard economics defines the value of a transmission constraint as the difference between the price of electricity on one side of the constraint and price on the other side. There can be no dispute over this statement; however, this straightforward theory is not always correctly applied.

In the case of electricity, the marginal running cost (or energy price) cannot be used to determine the value of a constraint.

Northeast Utilities has filed suit asking the Federal District Court in Hartford to declare unconstitutional a new state whistleblower law, which became effective May 27.

The utility said that while it agrees with the intent of Public Act No. 97-60, the law violates the constitutional rights of employers. The law would prevent utilities and related businesses from retaliating against an employee that goes public about alleged wrongdoing by a company. Northeast Utilities believes it denies employers a reasonable time to investigate and respond to employee complaints.

A coalition of Michigan electric utility customer groups and other entities has proposed an electric restructuring bill in lieu of the plan adopted by the Michigan Public Service Commission on June 5.

"Six months ago, many from this same group came together to point out that the commission's plan, if implemented, would be too slow, would favor the state's largest utilities and would result in few, if any, real savings for customers," said David Dornbos Sr., chair of Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity.

Nearly a year and a half after passage of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, real competition has yet to emerge in Indiana in local telephone markets, according to a report issued by the Indiana Regulatory Commission.

Nevertheless, the U.R.C. says it anticipates making competitive choices available to local consumers in the coming months.

Orange and Rockland Utilities has expressed "extreme disappointment" with a preliminary decision issued by a judge at the New York Public Service Commission that concerns O&R's proposed electric restructuring settlement. (See, Case 96-E-0900, Opinion No. 96-12.)

On July 2, Administrative Law Judge Stewart C. Boschwitz ruled that unwillingness by O&R to divest its generation company would create potential anti-competitive situations and could hurt ratepayers.

Central Maine Power Co. has sent requests for proposals to all parties expressing an interest in purchasing the utility's generation assets, as provided for by recently enacted state legislation.

Also, Boston Edison Co. has unveiled its proposal for divesting its gas- and oil-fueled generating plants, and has submitted its divestiture plan to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. The plan reflects a settlement among the utility, Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger and the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources.

Interest in Hydro.