State-by-state prospects for electric customer choice.

New Mexico. Public Service Co. of New Mexico asks state PUC to begin collaborative process to draft legislation to allow retail choice of electric suppliers (Case No. 2681). Draft would be proposed to the state's Interim Legislative Committee on integrated Water and Resource Planning, for possible passage in the 1998 legislative session. By mid-June, the utility intends to initiate a plan to allow customer choice by a date certain, defining methods to handle stranded costs and reliability.

Nevada. Nevada Power Co.

New Environmental Technologies Inc. agreed to acquire Keystone Energy Services Inc. The new company will be called Keystone Energy Services. In an alliance with New Energy Ventures Inc., it plans to target the $22.5-billion California electric market. Keystone will re-sell part of the $500 million worth of power New Energy Ventures recently agreed to buy from the Bonneville Power Administration. Keystone will focus on small- to medium-sized electric consumers while its partner will target industrial, commercial and government accounts.

In the electric industry restructuring debate lurks an important issue: If utilities recover some level of stranded costs, how do you design a cost recovery mechanism that minimizes stranded costs? This issue is important because, among other things, it will affect total customer savings.

One way to encourage utilities to mitigate stranded costs is to allow recovery of only a portion of costs. For instance, the California stranded cost recovery mechanism provides utilities with a "fair opportunity" to recover all of their stranded costs.

Authors lost their case. The bright line is preserved.

Unfortunately, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY did not caution its readers that a recent article ("Gas Pipelines and the Hinshaw Amendment: Conflicts Loom as the 'Bright Line' Fades Between Federal and State Jurisdiction," April 1, 1997, p. 36) is actually a thinly disguised brief for claims that a series of tribunals has rejected, including the U.S. Supreme Court. A warning from the editors would have saved valuable time for readers searching for more substantive coverage of the utility industry.

The California Public Utilities Commission elected members to two boards overseeing energy efficiency and low-income programs. The board for energy efficiency programs members are: Acting Chair Sara Steck Myers, CEERT; Dave Gamson, CPUC commissioner advisor; Michael Messenger, California Energy Commission; Peter Miller, Natural Resources Defense Council; Mark Thayer, San Diego State University; Ortensia Lopez, Greenlining Institute; Charles Goldman, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; Michael Shame, UCAN; and Don Schultz, CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates.

"People are starting to talk about ISOs on the gas side." So says Jerry Pfeffer, lay advisor on energy industries for Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom, the New York law firm well known for its work in mergers and acquisitions.

Pfeffer's comment alludes to events now unfolding in Southern California, that fount of fashion, where each round of "deregulation" only doubles the ante in billable hours. This time it's natural gas pipelines. Do they have market power too?

"It Would Not Surprise Me"

Southern California Edison Co. has now alleged that Southern California Gas Co.

Too many rules can make any plant uncompetitive.

Now, more than ever, the commission must weigh

the costs when it looks at health and safety, decommissioning and antitrust impacts. Nuclear assets seem to pop to the surface wherever one looks for causes behind the current upheaval in the U.S. electric utility industry. The nuclear experience (em with its costly prudence reviews so prevalent during the 1980s (em has helped fuel a major shift in attitude.

Senior utility managers have now come to accept fundamental changes in the electric industry.

Do mergers and "critical mass" really make a difference? The answer, it seems, is yes.

To become more competitive, U.S. electric utilities have embarked on a quest in recent years to improve operational efficiency and factor productivity. The question is: Are utilities making progress? And, which companies have gained a competitive edge? Which have not?

Industry analysts have long argued that given the structure of the markets they serve and their cost-based, rate-setting procedures, electric utilities tend toward monopolistic behavior.

Can utilities learn to deliver?

Selling electricity is not like selling a pair of sneakers. Electricity is a product consumers can neither see, feel nor smell. Try it on? Go for a test drive? Not hardly. So how does an electric utility make its product appealing to consumers?

Some say it all comes down to price. A penny saved is a penny earned. But what about tenths of a penny? Do consumers know or even care what they pay for a kilowatt-hour? Just keeping the lights on seems enough for most.

Anticipating the opening of the retail electricity market, MidAmerican Energy Co.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has issued a set of guidelines for the development of "enforceable" tariffs that seek to limit a utility's liability to consumers for damages associated with the provision of utility services.

It directed the state's utilities to make sure that tariffs waiving liability are consistent with six principles:

1) Events covered lie within the commission's expertise and are subject to its ratemaking authority.

2) Limitations on liability may apply in case of interrupted service or property damage only and not personal injury.