Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

even a two-handed economist can see that.The June 11 Power Broker decision from the D.C. Circuit, involving Florida Power and Light Co. (FP&L) and certain wholesale customers (see sidebar), reminds one that a dish of corned beef and cabbage tastes better when you don't leave out the cabbage.

On the surface, the case indicts the idea of average-cost pricing: "All hands recognize that the

problem originates in the use of average costs . . .

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has rejected a request by NorAm Gas Transmission Co. for confidential treatment of its negotiated rates, saying that it would no longer accept for processing any rate sheets marked "confidential" or "privileged" (Docket Nos. RP96-200-002 and RP96-200-003). But Commissioner James J. Hoecker did note that rate disclosure could result in competitive harm, something the FERC should investigate in the future. t

Lori A. Burkhart is an associate legal editor of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has set for hearing the proposed merger of Public Service Co. of Colorado (PSCC) with Southwestern Public Service Co. (SPS), directing that an initial decision be issued by January 31, 1997 (Docket No. EC96-2-000).

Harkening back to the pre-Order 636 era, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued two orders approving firm-to-the-wellhead rates for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. (Docket Nos. RP92-137-016 and RP93-136-000) and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. (Docket Nos. RP91-203-000 and RP92-132-000).

In initial decisions, one administrative law judge had approved firm-to-the-wellhead rates in the Tennessee case; another had deemed them anticompetitive in the Transco case.

Dominion Resources, Inc. (DRI) has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to declare its proposed "impacted megawatt mile (IMM)" tariff a just and reasonable method of pricing transmission service.

The IMM tariff would base electric transmission prices on the actual flows that result from each transmission service, taking account of the size and distance of power flows on all affected lines, the direction of the flows, line loadings, and the costs of relieving any congestion.

Schaefer measure wins praise from UtiliCorp, Enron, and others, but EEI wants relief on stranded costs."The Electricity Consumers Power to Choose Act," introduced by Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO), while designed to bring competition to the electric industry, has definitely attracted controversy. The bill has evoked strong reactions from industry players as well as intense lobbying efforts on the part of promoters and detractors. Everyone, it seems, wants to put in their two cents as the bill makes its way across Capitol Hill.

Six weeks ago I wrote a column ("$70,000 an Hour," July 15, 1996, p. 4) about nuclear waste, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the billions of dollars paid in by electric utilities that lie stranded in the federal nuclear waste fund.

On July 23 a federal appeals court ruled that DOE must establish a repository and begin accepting high-level nuclear waste for storage, beginning January 31, 1998. (See, Indiana-Michigan Power Co. v. DOE, D.C. Cir.

Labor got on well with monopoly.

But now, if experience is any guide,

expect a stiff fight for benefits, jobs, and wages.

At this very moment, utility chief executive officers (CEOs) are planning for the future.

Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives have written to Chair Elizabeth A. Moler asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to address competitive issues arising from the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has refused to rehear or modify a June 15, 1995, rate order (Opinion 397) that denied Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, L.P. any income-tax allowance related to "curative allocations" under section 704(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that increase the general partner's taxable income beyond his or her proportion of company ownership.

The ruling (Opinion 397-A) affirms Lakehead's entitlement to a tax allowance based on the income attributable to corporate partners, but imposes a limit.