Business & Money

Credit-rating linkage harms certain power companies. Ring-fencing is the best answer for regulators.

In recent years, a persistent battle has developed between state public utility commissions (PUCs) and holding companies over the negative financial and operational impacts on regulated utilities of failed diversification investments. Ratepayers expect to compensate companies for the costs of providing utility service-not those costs associated with the unregulated activities of affiliated companies.

Commission Watch

Assimilating the best of the regulated-utility and merchant models.

Vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) have served us well and do not need to be dismantled in the name of competition.

Perspective

Congress should not impose a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS).

Since 1978, the federal government has relied on tax incentives to promote the generation of electric power from renewable resources-"green" power from hydroelectric facilities and windmills, solar panels and photovoltaic cells, facilities that burn biomass, municipal waste and landfill gas, and geothermal and ocean thermal resources.

Frontlines

Did FERC's market power ruling go too far?

Will utility executives and proponents of electric competition mark July 8, 2004, as a dark day? That was the day the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said it would make no changes to the extremely contentious "interim" screen-the one it adopted back in April to measure market power in electric generation.

While NAESB and NERC struggle over the issue, North America steadily drifts toward unreliability.

Time is running out. It's been more than two years since the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Joint Inadvertent Interchange Taskforce (JIITF), on which I served, issued its white paper[1] proposing how to price the unscheduled power (inadvertent interchange)¹ flowing between NERC-certified balancing authorities (BAs).

An analysis of participant funding in natural gas and electricity markets.

Of all the issues in the energy industry, no matter how technically or scientifically complex, none is more important than fairness. Price spikes, contract reformation, market manipulation-all hot-button issues during the last four years-revolve around a core value held by practitioners and regulators alike: Are the prices that exist in the marketplace just and reasonable?

Seams, holes, and historic precedent challenge the Midwest ISO's evolution.

In a single sentence, Bill Smith of the Organization of MISO States (OMS) summarizes prevailing concerns about the new-and-improved Midwest ISO: "When it starts, it has to work."

Commission Watch

Incentive regulation is not a cure-all for the continuing controversy over return on equity.

Regulated utilities are all too familiar with the contentious disputes that surround how the allowed return on equity (ROE) is set in a traditional cost-of-service setting. These disputes, which are reappearing as numerous utility rate-stabilization plans signed as part of deregulation come to an end, are likely to hinge, as always, on the riskiness of utility operating environments.

Perspective

Commission policies need to recognize customer obligations and state commission decisions.

Even the best of intentions can create unintended consequences. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has acted aggressively and appropriately during the past few years to stimulate competitive wholesale electricity markets.

Frontlines

Critics say FERC's filed rate doctrine is wrong for the times.

It's quite remarkable how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been able to pound a square peg into a round hole. With not much more than a wink and a smile, FERC has taken a depression-era law meant for monopolies-the Federal Power Act (FPA)-and has made it serve double duty as a foundation for competitive power markets.