Models can overcome a key oversight (em

that both supply and demand affect competition.

This past December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a policy statement describing important changes in how it will evaluate proposed mergers under the Federal Power Act's public interest standard. These changes should lead to significant improvements (em not only in the evaluation of mergers, but also for other matters that affect market power, %n1%n including industry restructuring and market-based pricing.

Some shareholders do find bottom-line value

in a "marriage of convenience."

With six merger and acquisition (M&A) deals announced between May 1995 and January 1996, and three more so far this year, the long-predicted consolidation of the electric utility industry is taking hold. At least 23 utilities, with business-combination transactions pending, are part of the frenetic domestic M&A activity that has swept the industry.

The battle to control profit margin really boils down to a battle for the customer premises, where the serious money resides.The gas and electric industries in the United States control about $900 billion in assets (production, logistical, merchant). They employ these assets to serve about 150 million customers (counted separately for gas and electric), but they manage to offer only two rudimentary products (em molecules and electrons (em and at only two levels of service: firm (supposedly) and interruptible (obviously).

substantial niche market

of commercial

and industrial customers that are favorably disposed to green electricity.Seven utilities across the country have launched "green pricing" programs for residential electric customers. At these utilities, up to 3 percent of residential customers pay rate premiums to underwrite the construction and use of renewable electric generation.

Or can utilities use them offensively?The electric power industry stands poised to move to a fully competitive market. Business realities already imply a broadening of customer choice.

The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (em a group of 36 state regulatory agencies, Attorneys General, and utilities from 20 states (em has renewed calls for storage and disposal facilities since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) accepted 20 metric tons of radioactive waste from 41 countries. The waste derives from nuclear fuel originally provided by the United States to foreign power plants. The bulk, 19 tons, goes to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory receives the remainder. U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab: about $1 billion.

That's how fast the money pours in to the nation's Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund, one mill at a time. And the money is attracting attention, especially during this election year, with Congress running out of time before its planned August recess.

"Today has been extremely rich in terms of rumors," said Mike McCarthy, administrator of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, when I talked with him on June 28.

"The leadership in the House and Senate have met. People seem to be adjusting their schedules.

LDC Robustus? Which Would You Rather Be?

Post-Order 636 evolution depends on aggressive regulatory and legislative reform.

"Get out of the gas business. Drop the merchant function. We can't make any money selling gas and we are constantly at risk to having gas costs disallowed. It's a no-win situation.

The Senate subcommittee funding the Department of Energy (DOE) may use a carrot-and-stick approach this year to push DOE into finding a quicker solution to the long- and short-term nuclear waste crisis. The debate to get the waste stored safely underground promises an appropriations war that could rival the federal budget skirmish.

Current law authorizes only a permanent repository, not interim storage. Utilities, however, claim they're running out of room to cache their waste.