QF

Touted as a panacea for stranded costs, securitization would forever shield rates from market scrutiny.

We consumers display an amazing talent to squander the fruits of our labor on the whim of the moment. Examples might include bungee jumping, vanity license plates or pet rocks. Or just about anything you might find in a magazine stuffed in the back of an airline seat.

Now make way for electric utility restructuring, where the latest fashion calls for securitization of uneconomic costs.

When the phone rang it was Tom Mathews, director of mechanical and energy services at Hannaford Bros., the grocery chain that has become better known for shaving utility bills than trimming pork chops.

Mathews made news two years ago when Hannaford had threatened to install generating plants on site at some or all of its 140 or so retail stores, clustered in New England and the north and southeast states. Now he was calling to tell me about his new plan.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has authorized Idaho Power Co. to stop paying a "capacity adder" to qualifying cogeneration facilities in addition to its own monthly variable energy cost as payment for nonfirm energy.

The adder, 3 mills per kilowatt-hour, originally was devised by the commission to compensate the QFs for the aggregate-system-capacity benefits provided by the QF suppliers. Nevertheless, due to lack of participation in the QF rate-schedule offering, little was provided to the utility in terms of reduction of capacity needs.

Introduced in the 105th Congress

• H.R. 296, sponsored by John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). Would privatize the federal Power Marketing Administrations, splitting them into regional corporations to market and maintain generation and transmission services. Stock would be sold to recover outstanding federal debt; holding companies could invest in the corporations.

• H.R. 338, sponsored by Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.). Would repeal Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978, but would force utilities to honor QF contracts entered prior to Jan.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled that the Iowa Utilities Board's decision to implement an Iowa statute, which obligates electric utilities to purchase power from qualified facilities at rates in excess of the purchasing utilities' avoided costs, is preempted by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (Docket No.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission has permitted the state's major investor-owned electric utilities to suspend their

existing avoided-cost rate offers for long-term power purchases from qualifying cogeneration facilities, pending regulatory review.

The commission said it would also review a proposal by North Carolina Power Co. to reduce the eligibility threshold for the avoided-cost rates from the current capacity level of 5,000 kilowatts, to only 100 kW.

Consumers Would Overpay.

Perhaps the only political prediction bound to come true this year is that the words ôelectric restructuringö will reverberate in nearly every stateÆs legislative chamber.

So says Matthew Brown, director of the energy project at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But other factors support BrownÆs prediction. Public Utilities FortnightlyÆs informal survey of most states turned up similar results. Legislators know that the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Congress plan to introduce a federal bill this year.

Sound bites from state and federal regulators.

Natural Gas Briefs

Gas Marketing Affiliates. Indiana finds no jurisdiction to regulate Proliance Energy, LLC, a brokering and energy services affiliate of Indiana Gas Co., Inc. and Citizens Gas and Coke Utility, but says it will regulate the utilities in their transactions with Proliance. Case No. 40437, Sept. 27, 1996 (Ind.U.R.C.).

Gas Regulatory Reform. Ohio proposes alternative regulatory procedures for natural gas local distribution companies. Case No. 96-700-GA-ORD, Sept. 26, 1996 (Ohio P.U.C.).

Employee Incentives.

How a sample electric company could reduce risk of loss by upgrading performance to industry benchmarks. Competition in electric generation will expose utility costs that exceed those of alternative suppliers. Roughly speaking, these above-market ("transition") costs should track the difference between the new market price and the embedded cost set by traditional cost-of-service regulation.

The problem has attracted no shortage of proposals.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has modified the method electric utilities must use to conduct avoided-cost negotiations with qualifying cogeneration facilities (QFs). A new interim standard for large QF projects (greater than 1 megawatt) calculates avoided costs based not on displaced purchases from a single, hypothetical power plant, but on information in the utility's resource plan.