To predict the Clinton Administration's next step is foolhardy. And when it comes to the first federal restructuring bill, it's riskier still to rely on drafts that apparently were leaked to gauge reactions of the energy industry and media.
"There have been a gazillion versions of the bill which have been prepared," says a Department of Energy official.
The spectre of retail competition in electricity presents some difficult but solvable technical problems in creating new markets. It could lead to a new world of regulation. At the least, it will expose some currently protected utilities to potential losses that could prove substantial.
This prospect of losses has inspired some high-cost utilities to mount a formidable defense of the status quo, coupled with an aggressive offense to shape the transition.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has again turned down a request by a cogeneration developer (QF) to collect capacity payments for the entire 20-year term of a purchased-power contract with Commonwealth Electric (CE), despite conflicting advice from the state supreme court.
Last year, in remanding a similar DPU ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court had suggested that a contract price violates the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) if it does not include any capacity payments for most of its term.
Stranded-cost recovery plus incentives for renewable energy.A New England utility executive told a U.S.
Stranded-
Cost
Recovery: All FERC'ed Up
By Michael T. Maloney, Robert E.
McCormick, and Chad A. McGowan
The "lost-revenues" approach in Order 888 ignores the fact that cash flow drives
asset valuation . . .
. . . the key to measuring uneconomic investment.
A federal district court in Massachusetts has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint brought by a qualifying cogeneration facility (QF) concerning stranded-cost recovery charges proposed by an electric utility and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU). (For prior ruling approving the charge, see Re Cambridge Electric Light Co., 164 PUR4th 69 (Mass. D.P.U.
Monopoly rents? Not in the short run. The real enemy is a price war, fueled by indifference to stranded costs. And when that happens, antitrust laws won't offer much help.Competition has formally begun in the electric service industry. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued Order 888, giving generators access to wholesale loads throughout the nation.
Charles Studness is not the type of person I would like to loan money to. I say this because if interest rates dropped in the future he would believe he was now entitled to borrow at the lower rates and not pay me what was owed.
In his latest diatribe against stranded-cost recovery ("Stranded-cost Recovery: It's Un-American," Financial News, July 15, 1996, p. 43), Studness tells us that recovery of stranded costs will keep Americans from purchasing electricity at the competitive price.
It certainly will; however, first all debts must be paid.
Schaefer measure wins praise from UtiliCorp, Enron, and others, but EEI wants relief on stranded costs."The Electricity Consumers Power to Choose Act," introduced by Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO), while designed to bring competition to the electric industry, has definitely attracted controversy. The bill has evoked strong reactions from industry players as well as intense lobbying efforts on the part of promoters and detractors. Everyone, it seems, wants to put in their two cents as the bill makes its way across Capitol Hill.
Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives have written to Chair Elizabeth A. Moler asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to address competitive issues arising from the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).