Illinois Commerce Commission

Five commission chairs from states in all phases of deregulation ponder their changing roles. Will market success make them obsolete?

As most state electric competition plans are implemented within the next few years, regulators face an uncertain future. And they're already reflecting on their role in a changing industry.

Regulatory commissions in both Illinois and California have created panels to discuss the issue and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has held closed-door sessions on the subject.

Illinois regulator Ruth Kretschmer takes a stand against deals that would rub out competitors.

I can't recall seeing a more cogent, convincing andpassionate plea for utility regulators to get off their backsides and actually take a stand on something, as when just the other day, I came across the dissenting opinion issued Sept. 23 by Ruth Kretschmer, of the Illinois Commerce Commission. There she takes her own agency to task for voting (3-2) to approve the proposed mega-merger between the telephone giant SBC Communications Inc.

PUCs turn their attention to what they can still control.

The battleground has shifted. Utilities that last year worried about winning customers in pilot programs for retail choice now face public audits on the reliability of transmission and distribution.

With rate cases in remission, no nukes on order and generation planning left to the market, public utility commissions are turning their attention to what they can still regulate. That means service quality. Nor are PUCs the only ones involved.

Studies and Reports

Natural Gas Retail Choice. Utility affiliates hold large market shares in natural gas customer choice programs, raising questions about the extent of true competition, according to a study released on Dec. 15 by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Participation varies by region, however, according to the report, "Energy Deregulation - Status of Natural Gas Customer Choice Programs."

In Pennsylvania, for example, three out of four programs showed very high shares for utility affiliates. The Equitable Gas Co.

Subsidiaries grapple with codes of conduct. Did regulators overreact?

PG&E Corp. has threatened to appeal - all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be - a $1.68 million California Public Utilities Commission fine, slapped on it for violating affiliate rules.

The fine marked the loudest shot to date in what appears to be part two in the electric and gas restructuring wars:

The Affiliate Rules Wars.

These skirmishes promise to pit independent power marketers and out-of-state utility affiliates against the affiliates of incumbents.

Projects sprout in the United States and overseas, pushing the limits of grid capacity, turbine manufacturers and available sites.

Merchant power plants are emerging en masse to address the growing electricity needs of the United States and other countries, thanks to deregulation and fearless developers. While some plants are built to replace older, less-efficient utility-owned units, others would serve demand growth. Still more are planned as niche-oriented peakers - ready to supply the grid when marginal prices rise high enough. Ancillary services might offer another niche.

States earmark millions to fund solar projects via system benefits charges.

Making solar power a realistic choice for electric consumers is a burgeoning issue for state utility regulators. As part of electric restructuring, regulators are trying to finance the costs of solar installations.

Key to delivering commercial, on-grid solar power to new markets are state efforts, partnered with other government and industry actions. So far, the system benefits charge, or SBC, is the primary short-term incentive to develop solar, wind, biomass and other renewable resources.

No clear consensus has emerged. Should regulators hold to a hard line?

Regulators have wrestled for decades with transactions between vertically integrated monopoly utilities and their corporate affiliates.

Most problems have usually involved a shifting of costs, risk, or profit, as when an electric utility buys coal from a subsidiary. On the telephone side, AT&T's equipment dealings with Western Electric and Bell Labs were always a worry for regulators.

Federal Agencies

NOX EMISSIONS. Generating heavy criticism from industry, on September 24 the Environmental Protection Agency released its long-awaited final rules on nitrogen oxide emissions, outlining a plan to reduce NOx by 28 percent by year 2007 in some 22 states and the District of Columbia, with state implementation plans due by September 1999 and controls in place by 2003, to be carried out through a "cap and trade" program to buy and sell NOx emissions credits.

No one has yet explained why the electric industry needs independent system operators to manage the transmission grid and a private institution to do essentially the same thing.

That question remains unanswered even now that the North American Electric Reliability Council has released its draft legislation showing how it would recreate itself as NAERO, a self-regulating electric reliability organization insulated from antitrust scrutiny by governmental oversight.

"Reliability does not exist in a vacuum," noted P.R.H. Landrieu, v.p.