Does it make good business sense to offer a service that brings in considerable revenue but virtually no profit?
In the past, special circumstances explained why local distribution companies (LDCs) sold natural gas to customers without earning a profit. But circumstances have changed.
Does it make good business sense to offer a service that brings in considerable revenue but virtually no profit?
In the past, special circumstances explained why local distribution companies (LDCs) sold natural gas to customers without earning a profit. But circumstances have changed.
A couple weeks ago, on a beautiful Sunday morning, I picked up my briefcase and wandered down to the Potomac river shoreline to catch up on my summer reading list. There, on the Virginia side, gazing across the river at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and Capitol dome, I gathered strength to tackle a foot-high mound of paper.
In the wake of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 636, gas marketing entrepreneurs gained unprecedented opportunities to compete for noncore, industrial loads. That market has matured.
The profound changes now occurring in the electric industry will most directly affect those who are engaged in the enterprises of generation, transmission, and distribution of power. But challenges and opportunities confront gas companies as well. Certainly, the electric industry will continue to influence markets for gas: both in bulk fuel supply and in retail energy.
Traditional utility regulation has been unable to prevent the electric rates of some utilities from rising far above those of neighboring companies. Two factors are responsible for this failure. First, regulators lack the means to keep seemingly reasonable but unnecessary costs from creeping into rates. Second, ratemaking considers a utility's costs in isolation and does not use peer benchmarks to true up rates.
Political pressure helped limit rate increases for nuclear plants during the 1980s.
The Southwest Regional Transmission Association (SWRTA) has filed amended bylaws with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), incorporating two FERC conditions: 1) comparable transmission service, and 2) a single regional transmission plan. To achieve comparability, each transmitting member subject to FERC jurisdiction under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act will file comparable transmission service tariffs with the FERC.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a companion order to its open-access Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. ER93-540-003). The new order offers guidelines for presiding judges and participants in pending open-access cases that concern public utilities' offers of nondiscriminatory services.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has allowed an Oregon state court jurisdiction over a contract dispute between Portland General Electric Co. (PGE) and Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) (Docket No. EL94-92-000).In 1987, the FERC accepted a contract for PGE to sell SCE long-term system power and for a mutual exchange of capacity and energy. In 1994, SCE filed a complaint in Oregon state court, alleging that PGE had defaulted on the contract by closing the Trojan nuclear plant. SCE argued that its continued performance under the contract was excused.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has agreed to set a hearing on the reasonableness of American Electric Power Co.'s (AEP) nonfirm, offpeak hourly rate for electric transmission service (Docket No. EL95-4-000).Commonwealth Edison Co. (CE) has alleged that Indiana Michigan Power Co., an AEP operating company, overcharges for hourly, nonfirm transmission services provided during offpeak hours.