Tampa Electric

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.

Do mergers and "critical mass" really make a difference? The answer, it seems, is yes.

To become more competitive, U.S. electric utilities have embarked on a quest in recent years to improve operational efficiency and factor productivity. The question is: Are utilities making progress? And, which companies have gained a competitive edge? Which have not?

Industry analysts have long argued that given the structure of the markets they serve and their cost-based, rate-setting procedures, electric utilities tend toward monopolistic behavior.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has accepted proposed open-access, point-to-point, and network transmission service tariffs filed by Tampa Electric Co. (TE), effective November 14 (Docket No. ER95-1775-000) and subject to the outcome of its open-access Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (mega-NOPR) proceeding. TE says the tariffs substantially conform to the pro forma tariffs proposed under the mega-NOPR, and were calculated using the methods outlined there.

In a recent article ("The Efficient Utility: Labor, Capital, and Profit," Sept. 1, 1995), Taylor and Thompson attempt to measure the

economic efficiencies of 19 investor-owned utilities.

The authors use a method of efficiency measurement proposed by M.J. Farrell in a pioneering paper published nearly 40 years ago.

Are utilities working at top productive capacity? A novel look at 19 investor-owned electrics in the Sun Belt.

Major restructuring is expected to hit investor-owned utilities (IOUs) over the next decade. Competitive market forces, in place of rate-of-return regulation, will require many companies to evaluate their resource allocations. No longer will singular adjustments in resource use suffice when both capital and labor resources must be realigned.

Everybody's talking about electric utilities dabbling in telecommunications. That's fine. But how about vice versa? Maybe what we've really got is telephone companies (and cable television, too) getting into energy. That's different.

Competition

Power-supply costs and nonproduction operation and maintenance (O&M) costs differ markedly, both between regions and between utilities within regions. In an open market, only companies with a competitive cost structure will be able to compete effectively.

High costs reflect high embedded costs; above-market, long-term coal-supply and power-purchase contracts; and relatively high nonproduction O&M expenses.

We begin the new year with a recap of the major rulings issued last year by state public utility commissions (PUCs).

Electricity took center stage as state commissioners began in earnest to examine rising competition in the power generation market. The seemingly endless number of privately sponsored seminars, conferences, and reports on the issue might suggest that regulators are following rather than leading on policy.