IT

Your article in the July 1, 1997 issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY regarding co-ops and competition was very much on target ("Co-ops and Competition: Still a United Front?" p. 16). Our firm spends a significant amount of time providing financial advice to some of the more progressive rural electric cooperatives and have had some association with a few of the organizations mentioned in your article.

We are strongly pro-cooperative. Co-ops continue to provide high-quality electric, gas and other services to significant numbers of Americans, both rural and urban dwellers.

I sincerely appreciate your covering NARUC and its outlook in the July 15, 1997, issue of PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY (p. 26). I believe your summarization of my conversation with your Associate Editor and his depiction of NARUC sends a clear message about the unmatched resources and capabilities our organization enjoys by virtue of its membership.

Overall, the article generally captures the essence of our conversation. Nevertheless, it missed on my characterization of the NARUC staff's intended role with respect to the revitalized Washington Action Program.

Divide the grid by usage (em local vs. regional. Apportion costs accordingly, to energy customers by fixed charge, and power producers by flow and distance.

Traditionally, utilities have received transmission costs through an average, rolled-in access fee, or postage-stamp approach. In a deregulated environment, that approach will lead to distorted pricing.

And not just because of transmission-line congestion.

Much of the current debate over electric transmission pricing has centered on the various competing methods of congestion pricing, such as zonal vs.

Locational marginal pricing, even if "complex," is well worth the benefits.

In two recent issues, PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY featured editorials %n1%n on restructuring of the PJM Pool. Those two articles described proposals by the so-called supporting companies, %n2%n seven members of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, to use a "locational marginal pricing" model for congestion pricing for electric transmission and to continue PJM as a "tight" power pool.

All three may apply, especially if regulators go wrong and let ISOs make the business decisions.

Electricity transmission is a real business. With more than $50 billion of net plant, another $3 billion annually in capital expenditures and yearly operating income that could reach $5 billion per year under normal circumstances, the power grid is roughly twice the size of the natural gas pipeline industry. One would never know that from current events, however. Utility management treats transmission as an inconvenient stepchild.

As marketers discover, some LDCs keep a strong grip on the residential class.

Michael Meath of Agway Energy Products has a dream. A dream to tap the 4.5 million natural gas customers in New York State, supplying commodity and then, other services.

New York state unbundled gas rates in March 1996, with new tariffs approved later that year. Since then, just 11,000 customers out of 4.5 million (em less than half a percent (em have decided to use aggregated transportation service.

Not all New York utilities have filed customer aggregation programs, however.

The New York Public Service Commission has asserted authority to mandate direct-access pilot programs to give supply choice to energy consumers, noting that state authority is crucial to filling a regulatory "vacuum," since the Federal Power Act withholds authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to mandate retail wheeling.

The case involved a pilot program developed by Dairylea Cooperative Inc.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities has authorized Public Service Electric and Gas Co. to extend its existing economic development programs through July 1999.

The programs include construction and building credits for non-residential consumers who expand into newly leased or purchased vacant building space and increase their electric or gas energy use as a result. The program also includes an electric, off-peak employment service for non-residential customers that increase consumption of off-peak electricity as a result of increased employment levels.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has unveiled a 10-year business plan that includes a 50-percent debt reduction and a 15-percent reduction in the total cost of power by 2007.

"Our goals for 2007 are to reduce the wholesale cost of power from the current 4.11 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.46 cents, slash TVA's debt in half to $13.8 billion and respond to changing customer needs," said TVA CFO David Smith.

The Ten Year Business Outlook recommends a price increase in 1998 (em its first in 10 years (em which should boost TVA's revenues 5.5 percent.

In aiming to make financial statements more meaningful, will FASB instead make them indecipherable?

By mid-summer, a total of 123 companies had cranked out some 574 pages of comments, detailing exactly what they thought of the accounting rules proposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to cover the closure or removal of certain long-lived assets. %n1%n The FASB's"Exposure Draft," issued early last year, had requested comments on eight issues. The respondents answered as requested, but also raised a host of new questions.