Today I presided over the monthly lunch of the National Capital Area Chapter (NCAC) of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics, with Craig Glazer, Vice President-Federal Government Policy, PJM Interconnection. Besides announcing future events and talking about the successful NCAC field trip of October 4-5, I got to ask questions and comment as the luncheon moderator and President of NCAC. I include some of those questions and comments below, along with several that where beyond what I felt like imposing on the luncheon attendees.
I liked that Craig mentioned that code words were often used in the industry, though not the ones I sometimes point out. But when one questioner commented about the growth in distributed generation (DG), I pointed out that I look at DG as a code word for non-utility generation. Nominally DG should be any generation on the distribution grid, but is generally used to restrict the ownership options.
Craig identified “Rates significantly above the national average” as one of the issues that drove the restructuring movement. Unlike the children of Lake Woebegone where children are all above average, retail rates can’t be above the national average everywhere. Thus, there are some parts of the country where restructuring was not an issue and the utilities have not been restructured.
Craig used the term “Half Slave/Half Free” to address the case of Virginia, where the State Corporation Commission still regulates retail rates but the generation and transmission systems participate in the competitive PJM market. I noted that the result of restructuring was that the market value of electricity in my home location of Eastern Kentucky went from very low prices to moderately low prices, at least according to one of Craig’s slides. But Craig had already made me feel better about this by telling of his trips to Kentucky to persuade the regulators to let their utilities join PJM. He told them that one result the Kentucky electric companies joining PJM would be higher utilization of Kentucky’s cheap power plants.
These power plants joining PJM could sell the very low cost generation (the pre-restructuring picture) at moderately low prices (the post-restructuring picture), with the differential being used to reduce the prices for Kentucky residents. As I pointed out, this is an example of Craig’s term “Half Slave/Half Free” where he pushed the concept. I also pointed out that a substantial portion of the country has not restructured, which was my initial thought when he mentioned the term. So we went back to the issue that not all parts of the country would benefit from restructuring.
Craig stated that restructuring changed the risk allocation formula. He made the point that there was no Enron rate case. In other situations where utility investments were cratering, there were rate cases, but not with Enron in the restructured world. Further, there was effectively not even a hiccup in the PJM bulk power market on the day that Enron collapsed, even though Enron had been a major player in the PJM bulk power market.
Craig says that capacity prices are too low. I see capacity as being a multi-year issue, requiring a multi-year solution. Pre-restructuring, the utilities handled the variations in the need for capacity, and the value of capacity, through long term rates. They built what they thought was needed and didn’t worry that the bulk power market went up and down, the utilities kept on trucking as vertically integrated entities. Indeed, one of the problems that caused the California debacle of 2000/2001 was that the entire market was forced to pay the spot price of electricity. The Texas market seems to be greatly hedged in that when the bulk power market price went up by a factor of 10, on average, for the entire month of August 2011, the retail price hardly budged.
Craig made an excellent point in regard to the question of who decides what in the electric industry, providing a list of governmental entities. I notice that he did not mention the U.S. Department of Energy (of course he was a substitute speaker who replaced Melanie Kenderdine, assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, because Melanie thought she would not be allowed to speak because of the shutdown of the federal government that ended about 24 hours before the lunch.) He also listed state legislatures but not Congress. But then the other decision makers are the owners of the facilities.
A continuing issue that I have with regulation is tangential to Craig’s “Half Slave/Half Free” term. His PJM operates in parallel with several other entities. I have frequently pointed to the Lake Erie donut , with is the path around Lake Erie that allows electricity to flow from Chicago to New York City along two major paths, north or south of Lake Erie. I have said that when there is unscheduled loop flow, e.g., more going north of Lake Erie than has been scheduled, that there should be payment for that unscheduled flow. The same issue applies to PJM versus TVA, which have lines in parallel. Sometimes one system is paid for the contract path but some of the electricity actually flows on the other system. And just south of TVA is the Southern Company, providing a fourth east/west path for loop flows. I say that a mechanism to pay for loop flows may be one of the ways to get around the transmission cost allocation and siting issues mentioned by Craig.
I note that I did not raise all of these issues during the lunch Question and Answer period, I spoke enough as it was. Craig is certainly welcomed to comment on this blog, as are others.
 See “NCAC-USAEE Overnight Field Trip of 2013 October 4-5,” 2013 Oct 07, http://www.livelyutility.com/blog/?p=233
 See my “Wide Open Load Following,” Presentation on Loop Flow to NERC Control Area Criteria Task Force, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000 February 14/15, on my web site, under publications under other publications.
 See my blog entry “Socializing The Grid: The Reincarnation of Vampire Wheeling,” 2011 Mar 17, http://www.livelyutility.com/blog/?p=83