Transition costs: Estimation, sensitivities, and recovery

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 19, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 29-46

  Hirst, Eric ^a   Baxter, Lester ^a   Hadley, Stan ^a  

^a OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRIC POWER UTILIZATION; ESTIMATION; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; MARKETING;

TRANSITION COSTS;

ELECTRIC INDUSTRY;

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY; INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING; POWER MARKET; TRANSITION COSTS;

EID: 0031089266     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00004-3     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baxter, L., 1995. Different approaches to estimating transition costs in the electric-utility industry. ORNL/CON-423, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
2. Baxter, L., Hirst, E., 1995. Estimating potential stranded commitments for US investor-owned electric utilities. ORNL/CON-406, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
3. Baxter, L., Hadley, S., Hirst, E., 1996. Strategies to address transition costs in the electricity industry. ORNL/CON-431, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
4. Bilardello, J., Cole, M., 1995. Direct Access Threatens Electric-Utility Revenue. Standard and Poor's, New York.
5. California Public Utilities Commission, 1995. Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation, R.94-04-031, Decision 95-12-063, 20 December, as modified by Decision 96-01-009, 10 January 1996, San Francisco, CA.
6. Commes, A., Stoft, S., Greene, N., Hill, L., 1995. Performance-based rate-making for electric utilities: Review of plans and analysis of economic and resource-planning issues. LBL-37577, UC-120, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
7. FERC, 1996. Promoting wholesale competition through open access non-discriminatory transmission services by public utilities; Recovery of stranded costs by public utilities and transmitting utilities. Final Rule, Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001, Order 888, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
8. Flaim, T., 1994. Methods for dealing with transition costs for the electric utility industry. In: The Electric Industry in Transition. Public Utilities Reports, Inc./New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Arlington, VA, pp. 171-84.
9. Fremont, P.B., Hornstra, R.K., Abbott, S.D., Watson Jr., M.D., 1995. Stranded costs will threaten credit quality of U.S. electrics. Moody's Investors Service, New York.
10. Hadley, S.W., 1996. ORFIN: An electric utility financial and production simulator. ORNL/CON-430, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
11. Hempling, S., Rose, K., Burns, R., 1994. The regulatory treatment of embedded costs exceeding market prices: Transition to a competitive electric generation market. The National Regulatory Research Institute, Columbus, OH.
12. Hirst, E., Hadley, S., Baxter, L., 1996a. Methods to estimate stranded commitments for a restructuring U.S. electricity industry. ORNL/CON-424, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
13. Hirst, E., Hadley, S., Baxter, L., 1996b. Factors that affect electric-utility stranded commitments. ORNL/CON-432, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
14. Jesanis, M.E., 1996. Testimony, before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Docket No. 96-25, Massachusetts Electric Company, Westborough, MA.
15. Kirby, B., Hirst, E., 1996. Ancillary-service costs for 12 U.S. electric utilities. ORNL/CON-427, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
16. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 1994. The impacts of emerging competition in the electric utility industry. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse, NY.
17. Prudential Securities Inc., 1996. A free market for power would mean revenue losses for all utilities - but some would suffer more than others. Prudential Securities Inc., New York.
18. Resource Data International, 1994. Retail power markets in the U.S. Resource Data International, Boulder, CO.
19. Rose, K., 1995. Electric utility industry restructuring and transition costs: Reconciling economic efficiency and regulatory consistency. White Paper No. 4, The Joint NARUC/EEI Seminar on Regulating in a Transitional Environment, Providence, RI.
20. San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 1994. Comments of San Diego Gas and Electric Company on proposed policies governing restructuring electric services industry and reforming regulation. Submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission in Docket No. R.94-04-031, San Diego, CA.
21. South Carolina Public Service Commission, 1996. Order No. 96-15, Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for an increase in the Company's rates and charges. Docket No. 95-1000-E, Columbia.
22. Southern California Edison, 1994. Testimony on the Competition Transition Charge. Submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission, Docket No. R.94-04-031, San Francisco.
23. Studness, C.M., 1996. The optimal recovery of stranded investment. Public Utilities Fortnightly 134(3), 40-41.
24. Valle, A., Bidwell Jr., M., 1995. Restructuring rates creates value and reduces stranded costs. The Electricity Journal 8(10), 19-25.
25. Watt, J., Lapson, E., Bloomberg, B., 1995. Deferred charges revisited. Fitch Investors Service, Inc., New York.
26. Wilson, R., 1996. Auctions of stranded costs. Stanford Business School, Stanford, CA.