Transition-cost issues for US electricity utilities

Annual Review of Energy and the Environment

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 119-154

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

^a OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Competition; Economics; Electricity; Finances; Regulation

Indexed keywords

MATTHIOLA INCANA;

COMPETITION; COSTS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS;

TRANSITION COSTS;

ELECTRIC POWER UTILIZATION;

EID: 0031366113     PISSN: 10563466     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.119     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Studness CM 1996. The optimal recovery of stranded investment. Public Util. Fortn. 134(3):40-41
2. US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1996. Promoting wholesale competition through open access nondiscriminatory transmission services by public utilities; recovery of stranded costs by public utilities and transmitting utilities. Final Rule. Doc. Nos. RM95-8-000, RM94-7-001, Order 888, Washington, DC, Apr. 24
3. Hackett A, Cohen J, Abbott S. 1996. Moody's Calculates Little Change in Potential Stranded Investments. New York: Moody's Investors Serv.
4. Baxter L, Hirst E. 1995. Estimating Potential Stranded Commitments for US Investor-Owned Electric Utilities. ORNL/CON-406. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
5. Prudential Securities. 1996. A Free Market for Power Would Mean Revenue Losses for All Utilities - But Some Would Suffer More than Others. New York: Prudential Secur.
6. Resource Data International. 1996. Power Markets in the US. Boulder, CO: Resour. Data Int.
7. Orans R. 1996. Rebuttal Testimony for Central Power and Light Company, before Texas Public Util. Comm., Doc. 14965, San Francisco
8. Baxter L, Hirst E, Hadley S. 1997. Transition-Cost Issues for a Restructuring US Electricity Industry. ORNL/CON-440. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
9. Rose K. 1996. An Economic and Legal Perspective on Electric Utility Transition Costs. NRRI 96-15. Columbus, OH: Natl. Regul. Res. Inst.
10. Baumol W, Joskow P, Kahn A. 1994. The Challenge for Federal and State Regulators: Transition from Regulation to Efficient Competition in Electric Power. Washington, DC: Edison Electr. Inst.
11. Rowe J, Graening P. 1996. Property law: It's physical - and logical. Electr. J. 9(7):44-51
12. Kolbe AL, Tye WB. 1996. Compensation for the risk of stranded costs. Energy Policy 24(12):1025-50
13. IPALCO Enterprises. 1995. Restructuring the Electric Utility Industry, the Real Problem and the Real Solution: Customer Choice Through Universal Access. Indianapolis: IPALCO
14. Navarro P. 1996. Electric utilities: the argument for radical deregulation. Harvard Bus. Rev. Jan./Feb:112-25
15. Bradford PA. 1996. Till death do us part or the emperor's new suit: Does a regulatory compact compel strandable investment recovery? PUR Util. Q., 3rd Quart.
16. Council of Economic Advisers. 1996. Promoting Competition in Electricity. Econ. Rep. Pres. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.
17. 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.94-04-03 1, Decis. 95-12-063, Dec. 20, as modified by Decis. 96-01-009, Jan. 10, 1996, San Francisco
18. California Legislature. 1996. Assembly Bill 1890, Chapter 854, Statutes of 1996, Sacramento, CA
19. Pennsylvania General Assembly. 1996. The Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act. Assembly Bill 1509. Harrisburg, PA: Penn. Gen. Assem.
20. Hanger J. 1996. Investigation into Electric Power Competition, Statement of Commissioner John Hanger, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Harrisburg, PA
21. New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. 1996. Restructuring New Hampshire's Electric Utility Industry: A Preliminary Plan. DR 96-150. Concord, NH: Public Util. Comm.
22. Vermont Public Service Board. 1996. The Power to Choose: A Plan to Provide Customer Choice of Electricity Suppliers, Doc. No. 5854, Montpelier, VT, Dec. 30
23. Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. 1996. Electric Industry Restructuring Plan: Model Rules and Legislative Proposal. D.P.U. 96-100. Boston, MA: Dep. Public Util.
24. Texas Public Utility Commission. 1997. Rep. 75th Texas Legislature, Volume III - Potentially Strandable Investment (ECOM) Report: A Detailed Analysis, Austin, Tex.
25. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. 1994. Comments of San Diego Gas & Electric Company on Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation. Submitted to Calif. Public Util. Comm. Doc. R.94-04-03 1, June 8, San Diego, CA
26. Baxter L. 1995. Different Approaches to Estimating Transition Costs in the Electric-Utility Industry. ORNL/CON-423. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
27. Wilson R. 1996. Auctions of Stranded Costs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Bus. School
28. Lesser L, Ainspan M. 1996. Using markets to value stranded costs. Electr. J. 9(8):66-74
29. Deloitte & Touche. 1996. Federal, state and local tax implications of electric utility restructuring. Presented at Natl. Conf. State Legis., Denver
30. Hirst E, Hadley S, Baxter L. 1996. Methods to Estimate Stranded Commitments for a Restructuring US Electricity Industry. ORNL/CON-424. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
31. Hadley S. 1996. ORFIN - An Electric Utility Financial and Production Simulator. ORNL/CON-430. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
32. Hirst E, Hadley S, Baxter L. 1996. Factors that Affect Electric-Utility Stranded Commitments. ORNL/CON-432. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
33. Baxter L, Hadley S, Hirst E. 1996. Strategies to Address Transition Costs in the Electricity Industry. ORNL/CON-431. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
34. Rose K. 1995. Electric Utility Industry Restructuring and Transition Costs: Reconciling Economic Efficiency and Regulatory Consistency. White Pap. 4, Jt. NARUC/EEI Semin. Regul. Transit. Environ., Providence, RI
35. Hempling S, Rose K, Bums R. 1994. The Regulatory Treatment of Embedded Costs Exceeding Market Prices: Transition to a Competitive Electric Generation Market. Columbus, OH: Natl. Regul. Res. Inst.
36. Southern California Edison. 1994. Testimony on the Competition Transition Charge. Submitted to Calif. Public Util. Comm., Doc. R.94-04-03 1, Nov. 18, Rosemead, CA
37. Valle A, Bidwell M. 1995. Restructuring rates creates value and reduces stranded costs. Electr. J. 8(10):19-25