FERC

PJM would dictate grid expansion, even if not needed for reliability, and then push the cost of the upgrades on those who use them the most.

Chairman Pat Wood and his Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may well have given up on attempts to impose a standard market design (SMD) on the electric utility industry, but that doesn't mean the nation's grid system operators won't try the same thing.

The collapse of wholesale markets has utilities once again making the purchasing decisions, and taking all the risks.

If a common theme is emerging from the various policy directions across the country, it seems to be that responsibility for supply resources is moving away from open markets and back into the hands of load-serving utilities.

The commission tacks a new name onto a familiar concept.

By now it is old news that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on April 28 back-pedaled on standard market design (SMD), even renaming it the "wholesale power market platform." But SMD is far from dead, as some had wished. Instead, it is merely toned down, bowing to political furor and regional differences.

It is hard tyo foresee abandoning the discounted cash flow method relied upon so heavily for the past couple of decades.

In the Feb. 15, 2003, edition of , Jonathan Lesser says that regulators need to rethink the traditional discounted cash flow (DCF) method for finding the cost of capital, or "at the very least, regulators should no longer rely solely on the DCF to set allowed returns."

The market speaks but we don't listen.

Will someone please tell me: Where is the proof that the electric utility industry needs more investment in electric transmission? Is it not possible that we already have enough miles of high-voltage line?

I can scarcely turn around but see a new conference or workshop on how to encourage the electric industry to invest more in transmission infrastructure. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) leads that charge, though as a regulator it ought to stay neutral.