ML050660008
| ML050660008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  (DPR-062, DPR-071, NPF-037, NPF-066) |
| Issue date: | 04/15/2002 |
| From: | Edison Electric Institute |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Hernandez S, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-4049 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML050660008 (3) | |
Text
EC-1 zoo1°
New Mexico*
Based on legislation passed in April 1999, retail elec-tricity choice was to be phased in between January 2001 and January 2002. Utilities could recover no more than SO percent of their transition costs over five years, and a system benefits charge was to fund low-income assistance and renewable energy projects. The law also mandated separation of gen-eration from transmission and distribution facilities, but divestiture of generation was not required.
On March 8, 2001, the governor signed legisla-tion to delay the start of retail access for five years in response to California's energy crisis. Retail choice for schools and residential customers is now set to begin on January 1, 2007, with all retail customers having choice on July 1, 2008.
New York*
Regulators issued an order to permit retail competi-tion under a phased-in approach beginning in 1998.
Dates for starting consumer choice vary according to the restructuring plans of individual companies.
Under the order, companies would recover transi-tion costs on a case-by-case basis through a non-bypasiable charge.
The General Assembly took no action on restructur-ing during its 2001 session, and the study commis-sion authorized to research the issue did not meet during the year. No furtire meetings of this commis-sion have been scheduled, and legislation is not ex-pected to be considered during the 2002 legislative session, which begins in May.
North Dakota A study was begun in 1997 by the Electric Industry Competition Committee to examine the impact of competition on the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy within the state. The committee's work continues, and no recommenda-tions on restructuring or retail competition are ex-pected to be made in 2002.
Ohio*
In July 1999, the state adopted a comprehensive re-structuring law starting retail choice for all consum-ers by January 2001. The law freezes electric rates for five years and cuts residential customers' rates five percent. The law requires use of regional transmis-sioan organizations, provides for transition cost recov-ery, and includes standards of conduct provisions.
Oklahoma*.
In 19.97, the state adopted a restructuring policy that was to provide for customer choice by July 2002, but retail access could not have begun until the state enacted much more detailed legislation on how to implement restructuring. Implementing legislation that was to fill in the details of the 1997 law was defeated in the 2000 legislative session.
In. early June 2001, Governor Frank Keating signed into law SB 440, delaying restructuring and requiring further investigation of the issue. The'new law says retail access cannot begin in Oklahoma until a committee assigned to study electric restructuring' issues a final report. This report must be completed by the end of 2002; While only the start date in the 1997 law was actually, revoked by SB 440, retail access can only begin if a new restructuring enabling law is enacted.
Oregon*
In July 1999, the' state enacted a law giving large nonresidential customers direct access by October 2001, and residential and small commercial custom-ers a "portfolio of rate options." The law included provisions for recovery of transition costs, public benefits programs, and standards of conduct.
Governor John Kitzhaber signed HB 3633 into law, postponing the start of retail access from Octo-ber 1,2001, to March 1, 2002. Under the new law, the'portfolio of rate options, as'well as retail access for large customers, will be delayed until the. new start date.
Pennsylvania*
Legislation was adopted in 1996 that phased in re-tail competition for all customers in 2000. The law provides for transition cost recovery, reduced rates
- Indicates states with final regulatory orders or laws adopting restructuring and retail competition as state policy.
r_-4e_1 -
through refinancing of utility capital, universal ser-vice, energy conservation programs, and separation of rates for generation from transmission and distri-.
bution services. In April 2000, regulators adopted standards of conduct.
Rhode Island*
Rhode Island was the second state in the nation to adopt a restructuring law that deregulated genera-tion, and the first to actually start retail competi-tion, which began in July 1997. The law provided for recovery of transition costs, including full recov-ery of nuclear decommissioning costs and purchased power contracts, public benefits programs, and stan-
- dards of conduct. Another law provided for securitization of purchased power contract buy-outs and buy-downs under certain conditions.
The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a resolution on May 8,2001, calling for a review of the state's 1996 restructuring law because of in-creased prices for electricity in the state. While rates subsequently declined, some customers had experi-enced increases of as much as 30 percent. The legis-lature has taken no further action on the issue. One' moderating factor was the decline in electricity prices in New England as the year progressed.
South Carolina The 2000 session of the legislature studied restruc-turing, but took no action. The legislature did not seriously consider restructuring legislation in the 2001 session, and no action is expected in 2002. The state has electricity rates below national averages.
South Dakota No electric industry restructuring legislation was introduced in the 2001 legislative session, and none is expected in 2002. The state's Public Utilities Com-mission says that 'there is currently little impetus for electric industry restructuring" in the state.
Tennessee In 2001, the governor placed a moratorium on ap-plications for siting new merchant generation facili-ties in the state until new guidelines for their development can be promulgated. The legislature is not expected to consider any type of restructuring legislation in 2002. Tennessee is predominantly served by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal utility that is largely exempt from state regu-lation.
Texas*
In June 1999, Texas enacted a retail competition law that provided for consumer choice for most residents by 2002, recovery of transition costs, new environ-mental requirements for older plants, caps on gen-eration ownership, standards of conduct, competitive metering, renewable energy requirements, and a re-tail pilot program.
While full retail access started as expected in most of the state on January 1, 2002, the Texas Public Utility Commission delayed the start of retail access in several smaller power regions because these areas were not yet ready to begin competition. The pan-handle region in the northern part of the state has been exempted by the legislature from having to pro-vide retail competition to customers.
Utah A legislative task force to investigate restructuring has broadened its focus, shifting away from restruc-turing and competition. The task force is instead considering Utah's future energy needs and the over-all structure of the state's electric industry, including ways to encourage more generating capacity in the state and expand transmission capacity. Industry observers see little momentum to pursue restructur-
' ing in the state at the current time, and do not ex-pect the issue to be brought up in the legislature in 2002.
Vermont In March 1999, a voluntary plan was submitted by Green Mountain Power Corporation and Central Vermont Public Service Corporation to offer cus-tomer choice starting in September 2001. This plan was set aside in December 2001, however, when the Vermont Public Service Board reversed its previous position on retail competition and ruled that retail competition was not in the public interest. No fur-ther efforts towards restructuring or retail competi-tion are expected in 2002.
- Indicates states with final regulatory orders or laws adopting restructuring and retail competition as state policy.