When the phone rang it was Tom Mathews, director of mechanical and energy services at Hannaford Bros., the grocery chain that has become better known for shaving utility bills than trimming pork chops.
Mathews made news two years ago when Hannaford had threatened to install generating plants on site at some or all of its 140 or so retail stores, clustered in New England and the north and southeast states. Now he was calling to tell me about his new plan.
A simple formula method shows utilities exactly how much to discount prices. Electric utilities have drawn attention recently (and criticism from some quarters) for granting off-the-tariff discounts to customers deemed at risk for migration to lower-priced competitive alternatives. Typically, utilities have offered discounts to high-load customers in exchange for a long-term purchase commitment providing either more certain earnings, higher expected earnings, or both.
Professor Shepherd sees selective price cutting as anti-competitive, but even a monopolist should be allowed to compete on price.
As the electric industry deregulates, state public utility commissions are asked increasingly to allow the local utility to offer price discounts to large-load customers who might otherwise turn to other sellers. So far, nearly all the PUCs faced with this issue have agreed that such discounts are beneficial: They help retain large-load customers, who help pay the utility's fixed costs.
An insider recounts the twists and turns that led to a new state law and new rights for the state's electric consumers. On Dec. 3, 1996, Gov. Tom Ridge signed into law Pennsylvania's Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (em a historic statute that will introduce competition in the retail market among suppliers of electric generation. The act passed primarily because of strong leadership from the governor and others.
Some states have become well-known for their regulatory or legislative initiatives on electric restructuring and customer choice. Among those drawing the greatest attention are California, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas.
At press time, reports were filtering in of legislation about to be introduced in Montana and North Carolina (em states that might be considered unlikely subjects for competitive initiatives.
With the implementation of the Energy Policy Act and the FERC's Orders 888 and 889, competition has been introduced into wholesale power markets. It is limited in scope, however, as utilities are still able to recover their fixed generation costs and embedded cost of capital from their captive retail markets. This limited competition impedes progress towards the development of a more efficient generation system in the U.S. and provides only modest benefits to retail customers.
Currently, generators compete only in wholesale markets and not in retail power markets.
Robert Blohm and Professor William Hogan recently traded op-ed letters in the Wall Street Journal on the "poolco" and "bilateral" models for wholesale power markets:
Writing first, Blohm (an advisor to Ontario's Macdonald Committee on electric competition) praised bilateral trading (individual buyers and sellers agree on price).
Motivated by numerous consumer complaints regarding substantial, unexpected increases in bills for natural gas service, the New Mexico Public Utility Commission has fined Public Service Company of New Mexico, finding that the utility knowingly understated gas cost data in prior adjustment clause filings to avoid commission review of an ongoing gas price crisis.
The commission suspended the $2.2-million fine, however, in light of its decision to prevent PSNM from collecting more than $1.5 million in purchased gas revenues associated with the understated gas cost projection.
The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has refused to modify an earlier ruling that required telecommunications local-exchange carriers to permit their special-contract customers to reexamine their negotiated rates to look for cost-saving alternatives once competition is established in the local market.
The Ohio Telecommunications Industry Association had asked the commission to reconsider the so-called "fresh look" provisions, issued Nov.
The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has reaffirmed its approved guidelines for the provision of "Conjunctive Electric Service" by utilities in the state, rejecting arguments by consumer advocates that the plan won't do much for residential customers.
The guidelines, first approved on Christmas Eve last year, had required the utilities to permit customers of all types to aggregate their loads to derive greater energy savings than they could achieve individually. See, Re
Conjunctive Electric Service Guidelines, Case No. 96-4006-COI, Dec. 24, 1996, 174 PUR4th 96, (Ohio P.U.C.).