The Northwest Power Planning Council is accepting comments on a revision of its Fourth Northwest Power Plan through Oct. 31. The plan is the latest created by the council since 1983. It reviews industry developments in generation, conservation, gas and electric. It also examines institutions created in response to increasing competition and policy evolution. The draft reflects recommendations of the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System and suggests ways to carry out many of those recommendations. For a copy (Document 97-11), call (800) 222-3355.

Aquila Energy, a subsidiary of UtiliCorp United, has hired David H. Stevenson former marketing v.p. of Duke/Louis Dreyfus, as v.p. power marketing for its mid-continent and western regions.

Charles Falcone, who retired as American Electric Power's system power markets senior v.p., was named project managing director of the New York State Power Pool's Independent System Operator. Falcone served as an official with the U.S. Department of Energy for several years before joining AEP.

Ohio Electric Utility Institute has elected William J. Grealis as board chair and president.

I've been learning about venture capital funds for electric utilities. The lesson has run the gamut: from competition to cannibalization; from portfolios to the laws of thermodynamics; from the next new thing to the renaissance of a 19th-century technology.

Some might ask: Isn't venture capital just like gambling? Not so, say execs from two utilities now getting their feet wet in a venture fund. All the same, this story will take us to Atlantic City casinos before it's done.

As one of the early voices in the "reliability debate," urging all of us not to lose sight of the importance of reliability of electric bulk power supply (see, for example, my article in the Oct. 11, 1990, issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Northeast Blackout of 1965), I applaud the FORTNIGHTLY for sponsoring a forum on "Reliability, Transmission and Competition" in its June 1, 1997 issue (p. 45). By doing so, your magazine has provided an important public service.

Your article in the July 1, 1997 issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY regarding co-ops and competition was very much on target ("Co-ops and Competition: Still a United Front?" p. 16). Our firm spends a significant amount of time providing financial advice to some of the more progressive rural electric cooperatives and have had some association with a few of the organizations mentioned in your article.

We are strongly pro-cooperative. Co-ops continue to provide high-quality electric, gas and other services to significant numbers of Americans, both rural and urban dwellers.

I sincerely appreciate your covering NARUC and its outlook in the July 15, 1997, issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY (p. 26). I believe your summarization of my conversation with your Associate Editor and his depiction of NARUC sends a clear message about the unmatched resources and capabilities our organization enjoys by virtue of its membership.

Overall, the article generally captures the essence of our conversation. Nevertheless, it missed on my characterization of the NARUC staff's intended role with respect to the revitalized Washington Action Program.

Divide the grid by usage (em local vs. regional. Apportion costs accordingly, to energy customers by fixed charge, and power producers by flow and distance.

Traditionally, utilities have received transmission costs through an average, rolled-in access fee, or postage-stamp approach. In a deregulated environment, that approach will lead to distorted pricing.

And not just because of transmission-line congestion.

Much of the current debate over electric transmission pricing has centered on the various competing methods of congestion pricing, such as zonal vs.

Locational marginal pricing, even if "complex," is well worth the benefits.

In two recent issues, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY featured editorials %n1%n on restructuring of the PJM Pool. Those two articles described proposals by the so-called supporting companies, %n2%n seven members of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, to use a "locational marginal pricing" model for congestion pricing for electric transmission and to continue PJM as a "tight" power pool.

All three may apply, especially if regulators go wrong and let ISOs make the business decisions.

Electricity transmission is a real business. With more than $50 billion of net plant, another $3 billion annually in capital expenditures and yearly operating income that could reach $5 billion per year under normal circumstances, the power grid is roughly twice the size of the natural gas pipeline industry. One would never know that from current events, however. Utility management treats transmission as an inconvenient stepchild.

Competition abounds at wholesale, but retail is another story.

Will geography, politics and regional economics stand in the way of real choice for electric consumers at the retail level? Consider this tale of two power players.

One competitor, the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, is proud of itself. In its annual report, IMPA says that open access and competition in the wholesale market allowed it to trim wholesale rates for power it delivered to member distribution companies in 1996. "The results were remarkable," the report reads.