Allegheny Power System Inc. will merge with DQE Inc., parent company of Duquesne Light Co., to form Allegheny Energy, which will save both companies about $1 billion over the next 10 years.

The new company will have a total market capitalization of $10.6 billion: $6.2 billion in equity and $4.4 billion in net debt and preferred stock.

"Allegheny Power is a winter-peaking operation: Its low-cost, efficient operations and suburban and rural customer mix fit well with our summer-peaking operation and urban customer base," said David Marshall, President and CEO of DQE.

Jay L. Witkin replaces Jerome Feit, who retired, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's solicitor. Also at the FERC, Judith Ann Dowd will serve as an administrative law judge. Dowd joins the FERC from the National Labor Relations Board.

PacifiCorp hired John Carr as assistant v.p., global industrial sales. Carr joins PacifiCorp from Direct Services Industries, where he served as an executive director.

Melissa L. Reese was hired by CMS Marketing, Services and Trading as a natural gas trader. CMS Marketing is the energy marketing unit for CMS Energy Corp.

More than a decade ago, working at the energy laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the late Fred Schweppe devised a novel scheme for pricing electric transmission. His solution? Do nothing. Simply ignore transmission.

Can NERC Juggle All Three En Route to Open Access?

At the year's start, the North American Electric Reliability Council decided to leave its "peer pressure" policy behind and require mandatory compliance with its reliability standards. As NERC grapples with its new policy, Public Utilities Fortnightly asked eight industry representatives how they might ensure reliability in a restructured electric industry.

It had taken time for NERC to arrive at this point, but itÆs official: Mandatory sanctions and business incentives will soon be used to enforce compliance.

A recent conversation:

"When was the demise of the regulatory bargain? What you say is true, but at some point you had to know the bargain was over."

(em A state utility commissioner

"Beats me, it doesn't seem to be over yet. The electric industry still has a duty to serve all customers, and it must charge below-market rate confiscatory for many of our services because of the regulatory bargain.

Touted as a panacea for stranded costs, securitization would forever shield rates from market scrutiny.

We consumers display an amazing talent to squander the fruits of our labor on the whim of the moment. Examples might include bungee jumping, vanity license plates or pet rocks. Or just about anything you might find in a magazine stuffed in the back of an airline seat.

Now make way for electric utility restructuring, where the latest fashion calls for securitization of uneconomic costs.

Ask this question: Are Investors today earning what they thought they would, back when they last had faith in regulation?

As their customers discover more competitive prices, many utilities remain saddled with the costs of uneconomic plant and power purchase contracts approved under regulation. They seek compensation for these costs, but the amount deserves a close examination.

Some utilities seek remuneration that exceeds the market value of their common stock. Such a settlement seems overly generous for investors, who will continue to own their shares after the payoff.

And why policy on

stranded costs defies

a traditional legal or

economic analysis.

There are sound economic reasons why policymakers should allow electric utilities to recover stranded costs through a competitively neutral network access charge, or some similar fee. First, differences in the quality of utility management appear to have contributed little to differences in electricity rates among states.

Many regulators say that new technology makes it cheaper and easier to build and operate electric generating plants.

A U.S. federal district judge in Pennsylvania will allow a jury to hear antitrust complaints lodged by heating oil dealers challenging certain promotional activities by Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., but it will exclude from jury deliberations any consideration of whether PP&L had established a "monopoly" in the home heating market.

During the period the utility had allegedly engaged in the promotional activities, its share of the entire home heating market had never exceeded 31 percent, the court said.