Weekly Update Courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #3973: Finding that they would present a good opportunity to evaluate “advanced demand response scenarios,” the Colorado Public Service Commission has approved three rate options for residential customers taking part in the Smart Grid City demonstration project, sponsored by Xcel subsidiary Public Service Co. of Colorado’s (PSCC).

The project, located near Boulder, is designed to examine large-scale applications of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and other smart technologies. Involving the installation of 24,000 smart meters, Smart Grid City is expected to measure customer acceptance of and adaptation to new in-home, two-way communication devices that allow customers to better track their consumption habits vis-à-vis real-time costs of their usage.

According to PSCC, the pilot smart grid project will be more effective if the AMI offerings are paired with various rate options. To that end, it proposed three specific new rate tariffs: a time-of-use (TOU) rate, a critical peak pricing (CPP) rate, and a peak time rebate (PTR) rate. The TOU schedule is a basic rate that reflects the different costs of service depending on the time of day consumption occurs. The CPP schedule expands on TOU rates by designating certain days and periods as critical and subject to higher prices, usually because of weather-related conditions that strain resources. The PTR offering takes rates one step further by making participants eligible for a rebate if they are able to keep usage below a certain baseline threshold during critical peak times. The commission approved the utility’s plan to seek 2,000 volunteers to test the three rate options. Participants would be allowed to select which of the three options they want to try on a first-come, first-served basis. In agreeing to the TOU, CPP, and PTR proposals, however, the commission emphasized that its action should not be interpreted as a predisposition to approval on a permanent basis. The commission remarked that it is simply too soon to rule on whether the three rate options represent optimal rate design measures.-Subscribe to URN for the full story.

Posted: June 18th, 2010 under Uncategorized, dynamic pricing, efficiency, regulation, smart grid.
Comments: none

Vermont PSB continues alternative regulation plan

Weekly Update Courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #3969: Endorsing the price cap form of regulation for an electric utility, the Vermont Public Service Board has determined that the utility had been able to strengthen its financial position as a result of its alternative regulation plan (ARP).

The board found that the utility, Green Mountain Power Corp., had instituted an ARP that was in the best interests of its ratepayers and that the ARP, as compared to traditional cost-of-service rate making, allows the utility to respond more quickly and effectively to changes in operating costs. Nevertheless, the board agreed that some updating was needed. To that end, the board authorized both the retention of the salient features of the utility’s existing ARP and the addition of certain new provisions. One of the terms kept from the current plan is an annual adjustment to the utility’s rate of return on equity (ROE) based on yields from 10-year Treasury notes. However, the new plan offers a revised performance-based adjustment for ROE, under which Green Mountain Power’s efficiency and productivity will be measured against a benchmark group of utilities. The updated ARP also includes an inflation-adjusted capping mechanism for non-power costs, whereas the existing plan relied on a fixed dollar ceiling for such costs.

The board deemed the ARP changes appropriate given the collective experience of electric utilities operating under ARPs in the state. In the board’s view, the modified plan will facilitate more accurate capture of the impacts of inflation over time.

Observing the continued volatility in both energy and financial markets, the board ruled that such inflation adjustments marked a significant improvement in the utility’s ARP. For the full story, Subscribe to URN.

Posted: June 9th, 2010 under Uncategorized, efficiency, finance, green energy, regulation, renewables.
Comments: none

PSC says state’s consumers bear unfair burden

Weekly Update Courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #3969: Pointing to long-standing problems with cost allocations among the various operating companies of the Entergy Corp., the Arkansas Public Service Commission has again exhorted Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) to spin itself off from its parent company and become a stand-alone entity.

The commission had first raised the prospect of such a move in February 2010, when it initiated an investigation into EAI’s possible withdrawal from the Entergy operating system. The commission indicated that it would like to see EAI serve as an individual utility and join either the Midwest ISO or the Southwest Power Pool. Although EAI’s president had offered assurances at a recent PSC hearing that EAI was seriously examining the option of restructuring as a stand-alone company, the commission noted that reports in the press and public statements from EAI appeared to show otherwise.

The commission expressed concern that maintaining the status quo places Arkansas ratepayers at a disadvantage because a disproportionate amount of common costs from Entergy’s systemwide operations are assigned to EAI. Citing figures showing that Arkansas ratepayers have subsidized Entergy customers in other states by more than $4.5 billion in the last 20 years, the commission asserted that a spin-off of EAI as a stand-alone entity would be the best way to assure that such improper cost allocations do not continue. For the full story, Subscribe to URN.

Posted: June 9th, 2010 under M&A, Uncategorized, finance, regulation, transmission regulation.
Comments: 1

S.C. Supreme Court denies appeal of PSC decision

Weekly Update Courtesy of Utility Regulatory News #3969: Finding that the state legislature had designated the South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) as the proper agency to administer and enforce the state’s Base Load Review Act (BLRA), and discovering nothing arbitrary or capricious in the commission’s interpretation of that law with respect to an electric utility’s application for authority to construct a new nuclear generating unit, the South Carolina Supreme Court has affirmed the PSC’s conclusion that the nuclear power project could go forward.

The commission’s decision allowing South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. to proceed with a nuclear joint venture with the state-run South Carolina Public Service Authority had been challenged by an environmental group, Friends of the Earth, who alleged that because the proposed nuclear plan represented the first time the PSC had invoked the terms of the BLRA, its decision thereunder should be subject to “heightened scrutiny” by the court. The group also argued that the particular nuclear technology being proposed was beyond the utility’s means and that the utility had failed to fully analyze alternatives, such as enhanced demand-side management programs and power purchased from renewable resources.

After reviewing the record as a whole, however, the court said that there was ample evidence that the utility had adequately considered other alternatives to the nuclear option and also had looked at competing technologies. Accordingly, the court ruled that the appellant had made no showing that the commission’s BLRA analysis had been mistaken or an abuse of discretion. Given the PSC’s expertise in such matters, and the legislature’s clear signal that the commission was to be the lead agency in effectuating the act, the court declared the commission’s decision approving the nuclear project to be “presumptively correct,” and it declined to substitute its judgment for that of the commission’s. For the full story, Subscribe to URN.

Posted: June 9th, 2010 under Uncategorized, green energy, nuclear renaissance, regulation.
Comments: none