LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document
LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional
Copyright 2000
Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
April 13, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 10574 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF GARY ZIMMERMAN EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MICHIGAN
MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION AND GENERAL MANAGER MICHIGAN PUBLIC POWER AGENCY
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT - PENDING ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING PROPOSALS
BODY:
Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Gary
Zimmerman; I am the Executive Vice President of the Michigan Municipal
Electric Association (MMEA), an organization representing 37 municipal
electric communities across the state, from Baraga to Zeeland. Our members currently
serve approximately 700,000
electric customers in Michigan. In addition, the Detroit Public Lighting Department, an
MMEA member for many years, provides the street lighting services to one
million people in Detroit. I also serve as General Manager of the Michigan
Public Power Agency, a joint action agency and political subdivision of the
state created in 1978 to serve wholesale electricity to more than a dozen
Michigan towns and cities.
I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the American Public Power
Association (APPA). APPA is the national service organization representing the
interests of over 2,000 municipal and other state and local government-owned
utilities throughout the U.S. APPA member utilities include state public power
agencies, and serve many of the nation's largest cities, but the majority of
our members are located in small and medium-sized communities in 49 states, all
but Hawaii. In fact, 75 percent of our members are located in cities with
populations of 10,000 people or less. APPA members serve about 14 percent of
all kilowatt-hour sales to ultimate consumers in the country.Mr. Chairman, I am
here today to discuss public power's views regarding federal electricity
industry restructuring legislation, and to provide our thoughts
on the eight bills the committee is considering, including your own
legislation, S. 2098, the
Electric Power Market Competition and Reliability Act. Other bills include: the
Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act (S. 516); the
Transition to Competition in the
Electric Industry Act (S. 282); the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act (S.
1047); the
Electric Consumer Choice Act (S. 1284); the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999 (S.
1273); the Clean Energy Act of 1999 (S. 1369); and S. 2071, the
Electric Reliability 2000 Act.
As the committee proceeds with its consideration of restructuring legislation
for electricity competition, we urge you to ensure that federal policies
preserve the rights of states and local governments to make their own decisions
based on their knowledge of their own electricity needs. We believe the aim of
federal legislation is two- fold: to facilitate
state decisions to implement retail competition by addressing issues that are
necessary for retail competition to work, but which cannot be completely
resolved by a single state or even a group of states, and to resolve the
problems found in the interstate wholesale market, which are fundamentally
within the jurisdiction of Congress.
Public power has a long history of support for increased competition in the
electricity industry. We were a primary force behind the transmission access
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that were the culmination of 25
years of our advocacy, and have been working closely with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and others to foster the conditions needed for
effective competition in wholesale electricity markets.
Our leadership in the drive toward competition is no coincidence. Public power
has existed in a competitive environment from the very beginning of the
electric industry. In public
power communities throughout the country, the very future of the
electric utility is always a ballot box issue that can be put to the test by local
voters in the next election. Even in non-public power communities the future of
electricity service is a critical factor in planning for economic growth and
stability. Witness the current municipalization initiatives underway in large
cities like Buffalo, NY and Portland, OR, and smaller communities such as the
Villages of Hamburg and Sloan in upstate New York. These citizens understand
the importance of low- cost, reliable
electric service, and are willing to investigate the possibilities of owning and
operating an
electric utility themselves.There are other communities interested in pursuing
aggregation arrangements. In early March the citizens of Parma, OH voted
overwhelmingly to have the city act as an aggregator of electricity customers
when retail competition
begins in the state next year. A number of other communities, including several
in Michigan and Massachusetts, are also interested in aggregating load for
their residents. For example, residents of Barnstable County, MA, faced with
paying some of the highest
electric rates in the country, are beginning to realize the benefits of aggregation.
(See attached report,
"Promoting Competitive Electricity Markets Through Community Purchasing: The
Role of Municipal Aggregator.")
Because wholesale
electric markets are interstate in nature, it is up to Congress to put in place an
industry structure in which competition can succeed. A competitive wholesale
market is a necessary condition for competitive retail
electric markets and, in fact, wholesale competition is likely to provide greater
benefits to more consumers than retail.
APPA Supports Effective Wholesale Competition-and Competition Supports
a Role for Public Power
Throughout its history, APPA has promoted competition and opposed its opposite,
the exercise of market power. Simply put, market power and competition are two
sides of the same coin. A market participant that has the ability to increase
production (i.e., generation) prices for a significant period of time above the
level that could be sustained in a truly competitive market is exercising
horizontal market power. Vertical market power is exercised when a market
participant uses its control of delivery systems (i.e., transmission) in order
to block competitors from alternative suppliers.
Dating back to at least the 1960s, APPA has advanced proposals to open up the
nation's transmission system to facilitate competition in the wholesale
electricity market. For example, APPA was the leading force in convincing
Congress to amend the Atomic Energy Act to require the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to determine whether granting a construction permit or
operating license for nuclear power facilities would create or maintain a
situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. If it would, the NRC was
required to impose conditions on the licensee to remedy such situations.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and through our work on the Energy Policy Act,
APPA promoted expanded FERC authority to require transmitting utilities to
provide transmission access on just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory
conditions. More recently, APPA has adopted a number of resolutions identifying
market power problems that should be addressed in the context of comprehensive
federal
electric utility restructuring legislation.
These include clarified FERC authority with respect to the creation of regional
transmission organizations, more rigorous review of utility mergers and the
effects they would have on competition, clarification of FERC's ability to act
as an umpire in remedying anti-
competitive behavior in wholesale markets, and conditions to protect consumers
in the event of repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
But just as we have been adamant in pursuing strong federal positions in the
interstate wholesale market, we have been equally insistent in our efforts to
preserve local control and decision making on matters related to retail
competition. Public power stands for local control and local regulation. For
decades, local elected officials have been making decisions that affect public
utility systems in their communities. This diversity has brought numerous
benefits to the entire industry, and federal legislation should not attempt to
homogenize the industry. Diversity among suppliers and other sectors of the
industry should be encouraged as it offers consumers more choices and options,
not less. Thus, these elements should be preserved by any federal restructuring
legislation.
The benefits of public power have
recently been extolled in a new report by Dr. Eugene Coyle, an economist who
challenges the assumptions that retail competition will benefit all consumers.
Dr. Coyle's report,
"Price Discrimination, Electronic Redlining, and Price Fixing in Deregulated
Electric Power," sponsored by APPA, points out the dangers of blithely accepting cliches about
"the market," and undertakes a more rigorous analysis of electricity economics (see
attached). Coyle submits that unless Congress acts appropriately, residential
rates inevitably will go up. Large customers will have options--fuel switching,
self-generating units, and even relocation alternatives. They also have
economic clout, and can usually lock in a new contract under a much lower price.
Residential and small business customers, on the other hand, especially
low-income ratepayers, have few options, and
"will be charged higher prices," beyond what cost differences would justify, writes Coyle. Price discrimination
is as inevitable in retail
electric sales as it is in online ticket sales.
With 24 states, representing 60 percent of the total U.S. population, having
already taken steps to deregulate retail
electric service, Coyle's challenge to examine the underlying assumption that all
consumers will benefit may have come too late (although it deserves careful
consideration by policymakers in those states that have not yet acted). But the
challenge is certainly timely when it comes to congressional action on
restructuring.
Whether one accepts or rejects Coyle's assessment that retail competition will
not benefit small consumers, one thing seems absolutely dear--deregulation at the retail level cannot succeed unless
it is built on a solid foundation of a competitive wholesale
electric market. If the wholesale market is dysfunctional, as is currently the case, it
is simply unreasonable to expect consumers to benefit from retail competition.
Why Federal Restructuring Legislation is Needed
APPA is not alone in this thinking. A large group of electricity stakeholders,
representing a diverse cross-section of the industry, has recently developed a
series of principles that should serve as the foundation for federal
legislation (see attached list of principles and stakeholders). The group
consists of pro-competition investor- owned utilities, consumer organizations,
new market entrants, and other market participants, including both large
suppliers and users of electricity. These principles are geared toward solving
the problems in the interstate wholesale market, and include clarifying FERC's
authority in several areas, supporting minimum functions and characteristics of
regional transmission organizations (RTOs), mitigating the abuse of market
power, and removing federal obstacles to competition found in the
tax code. It is a serious effort that has proved how diverse stakeholders can find
consensus on important policy matters affecting the industry. APPA is pleased
to be part of the group, and is hopeful Congress will endorse the principles as
it develops federal legislation.
APPA supports enactment of restructuring legislation because new federal
policies are necessary to address growing problems within the industry. These
problems are impeding both wholesale and retail competition, thus denying
consumers the benefits of competition whether or not they are in states that
have established retail competition.
It is clear that state legislatures across the country are moving swiftly to
advance state restructuring measures. However, without the removal of federal
barriers and the establishment of an effectively functioning interstate
marketplace upon which to build, the
consumer benefits promised by these state plans cannot be realized.
The proper role of federal legislation is not to intrude upon or usurp state
authority, but to lay the groundwork upon which the states' objective of
competitive electricity markets can be achieved. Unfortunately, as evidenced by
the House subcommittee markup of H.R. 2944, the concept of states' rights can
be taken to an extreme that ignores states' limitations and abandons the
federal role over interstate commerce matters to the detriment of consumers.
Only Congress is positioned to effectively address the problems that exist in
the interstate market. Federal legislation must strike the appropriate balance
between federal, state, and local authority.
Ultimately, there is only one reason for federal legislation-to promote
competition for the benefit of all electricity consumers. This single
overriding objective must be to restructure the industry in a way that has
a high probability of benefiting all classes of customers, with no degradation
of reliability of service. The abuse of existing market power, aggravated by
the accumulation of ever- increasing control over transmission and generation
in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of players, is the biggest single
obstacle to the realization of this objective and the creation of robust
competition in the
electric utility industry. Some states have taken steps toward addressing market power
within their borders. While such actions are very important, there is still a
clear federal role in fostering competition that extends far beyond what
individual states can accomplish.
Unfortunately, Congress has not had a very promising beginning in this regard.
Last year's action in the House led to subcommittee adoption of H.R. 2944, the
Electricity Competition and Reliability Act. In APPA's view, the bill neither
promotes true competition nor ensures
reliability. Rather than addressing the serious impediments that currently
frustrate wholesale competition--such as anticompetitive control of
transmission, or the elimination of competitors through mergers and
consolidation-H.R. 2944 marches off in the opposite direction.
Some industry stakeholders, including APPA, were highly critical of H.R. 2944
immediately following its adoption by the House subcommittee. Other major
players are now registering their own concerns. For example, FERC Chairman
James Hoecker said in late December,
"H.R. 2944 represents an unfortunate retreat from the goal of a competitive,
efficient and transparent wholesale power market." Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has also cited many problems with the
legislation, including the absence of FERC authority to require participation
in regional transmission organizations, the failure to address the issue of
horizontal market power, and the need for FERC to ensure that proposed mergers
do
not inhibit the trend toward competitive markets. Even officials from the New
York Mercantile Exchange have stated that the bill
"threatens the very viability of the interstate market ... (and) falls short of
its stated intention to clarify federal and state jurisdiction and instead
undermines FERC Order 888 ....
"APPA hopes the bill can be improved, and if not, believes it should be
abandoned.
Vigorously competitive regional wholesale markets will benefit all end users of
electricity and are an essential foundation for competitive retail markets
authorized by the states. Failure to achieve this goal will lead to deregulated
monopolies, with little real choice, higher prices and poorer service for
consumers. However, if this goal can be accomplished, the result will be
reduced reliance on regulation, greater reliance on competition, and a new role
for FERC that is more in line with the role of the Securities and
Exchange Commission in monitoring and safeguarding securities markets, than the
individual company and industry rate regulation role currently performed.
But Congress must move on the wholesale front; the states cannot do it alone.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 represented a good start, but problems still
exist at the wholesale level, and all recognize, even FERC, that more needs to
be done to realize the promise of competition held out by that Act. Put simply,
problems found in the interstate wholesale market are fundamentally within the
jurisdiction of Congress, and interstate commerce issues remain under FERC
jurisdiction.Clearly, the ability of states to adequately address market power
issues is limited.
For example, several problems--including conflict of interest issues--continue
with a myriad of state commissioners and state legislatures. In addition,
some problems are regional, and not simply related to state boundaries.
Michigan, for instance, is unfortunately an excellent example of how market
power continues, and why the state legislature cannot solve the problem on its
own. As representatives of Michigan's public power communities, we understand
that any development of effective competition within the state's electricity
industry will hinge on the ability of the state to address market power.
Effective competition will not come about over night, since the state's two
largest
electric utilities exercise market power through their 90 percent control of Michigan's
lower peninsula generation resources, a like percentage of the transmission
system, and they key dispatch and scheduling operations. Similar circumstances
also exist in Michigan's upper peninsula. These two large investor-owned
utilities should not be able to exercise control over these
facilities to favor their own generation resources, placing power generators,
competing power suppliers, and bulk power purchasers, including municipal
utilities, at a competitive disadvantage.
The key ingredients for effective competition in Michigan's electricity
market--indeed, in every electricity market throughout the country--include the
existence of many sellers and buyers, freedom of entry and exit for
competitors, and unrestricted and nondiscriminatory access to transmission. But
Michigan cannot do it alone, and we welcome the legislative assistance and
intervention of Congress.
Congressional action is also needed to resolve potential reliability problems
and other issues specifically under federal jurisdiction. Only Congress can
address reliability at the wholesale or interstate level, and reliability
should not be handled by stand-alone legislation. Too many critical issues--for
example, transmission grid management, development of RTOs, and
even barriers found in the federal
tax code--raise reliability concerns. Today, most observers agree that the
traditional voluntary approach to reliability will not work in a new,
competitive era, and the old system of cooperation and mutual assistance,
especially when it comes to enforcement issues, needs updating.
Recent developments in the electricity industry In the last few months, several
significant developments have occurred in the electricity industry. APPA has
taken a keen interest in these events, and urges Congress to heed the words and
advice of various industry stakeholders.On December 15, 1999, FERC unanimously
issued its final rule on the development and formation of RTOs, Order No. 2000.
This order builds on both the successes and limitations of FERC Orders 888 and
889, and represents a seminal development in the
electricity industry.
Order 2000 explicitly states that the commission has the authority to order
utilities to join an RTO. In its press release, FERC said the
"commission clarified that adoption of a voluntary approach to RTO formation
does not preclude the exercise of any of its Federal Power Act authorities to
remedy undue discrimination or the exercise of market power, including the
remedy of requiring RTO participation where supported on the record." FERC Chairman Hoecker hailed the order as a
"critical step toward broad market reforms in bulk power markets." APPA agrees. Commissioner William Massey added that Order 2000 says FERC can
make RTO participation a condition for approval of a merger or of authority to
charge market-based rates for wholesale power.
Significant changes from the proposed rule also were made to the commission's
criteria for
independence, including increasing the cap on active ownership of an RTO by a
market participant from one percent to five percent, and adding a sunset
provision for active ownership. If anyone doubted the commission's intent, FERC
ruled on the proposed Alliance RTO the very same day, putting to test their new
Order 2000.
In that related ruling delivered on December 15, FERC gave conditional approval
to the proposed Alliance RTO, but essentially found the proposal did not meet
the criteria outlined in Order 2000, specifically in such key areas as
independence and geographic scope. In a statement regarding the order, FERC
said the Alliance RTO plan raised many questions for the commission, including
"the governance structure, the financial conflicts of interest of alliance's
officers and directors, the proposed rate structure and
potential barriers to east-west power transactions." In what amounted to FERC's first test of Order 2000, the Alliance RTO clearly
failed.
More recently, Chairman Hoecker suggested that FERC's voluntary RTO policy
might not be enough, and echoed APPA's contention that RTOs should be
considered when attempting to mitigate market power and review mergers. In
recent comments at the annual conference of the National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates, Chairman Hoecker made a strong pitch for RTOs,
saying they could not only help to mitigate market power, but also improve
reliability. He also said that FERC may have to step in if utilities don't join
RTOs voluntarily, as planned; while FERC remains
"flexible" on RTOs, he said, FERC
"may have to lapse into something that's more activist."
That sense of activism was very apparent when FERC ruled recently
on the AEP-CSW merger proposal. On March 15, FERC approved the merger of
American
Electric Power Co. and Central and South West Corp., but with conditions intended to
mitigatethe merged company's market power. With one commissioner dissenting,
FERC attached several conditions to its approval, including a firm deadline for
the two companies to transfer operational control of their transmission
facilities to an RTO approved by FERC.
This recent ruling should not be overlooked. The AEP-CSW merger would create a
new holding company that generates 38,000 megawatts, serving nearly five
million customers throughout 11 states. FERC's conclusion that the merger posed
vertical market power problems through the companies' control of generation and
thousands of miles of transmission lines is an important finding for future
consideration of mergers. APPA also notes the
commissioners underscored the importance of open, unbiased transmission access
with its interim conditions requiring an independent party to calculate the
companies' available transmission capacity and to monitor operation of their
transmission system.
Another important development for the industry was the release last month of
DOE's report,
"Horizontal Market Power in Restructured Electricity Markets," which details examples of potential market power abuses and puts a price tag
on these problems. The
"exploitation of market power can significantly erode the consumer benefits that
would be expected from the transition" to a new electricity environment, the report declares. A Stanford University
study cited by DOE calculated that wholesale prices in California during the
summers of 1998 and 1999 were more than $800 million above competitive levels.
In releasing the report, Energy Secretary Richardson said the report
"clearly demonstrates that, to assure that
consumers realize the full benefits of electricity competition, federal and
state electricity restructuring legislation must provide the necessary tools to
address market power." While the study concentrated on specific problems in the United Kingdom and
California, market power problems are widespread and not limited to a few
congested areas, according to the study. The report raises serious concerns
about market power and provides strong evidence that some utilities are using
their near- monopoly control over generation to raise electricity prices far
above what would be charged in a truly competitive marketplace.
Other significant developments include the aforementioned study by economist
Dr. Coyle, who takes on the retail competition establishment.
"Competition can bring benefits to consumers," Coyle writes. But textbook competition simply can't exist in some
industries because they behave differently. Such industries share the common
characteristics of selling a product that is an undifferentiated commodity
(like airline seats or electrons), and/or the production of the commodity
requires large fixed investment.
"Electric power has both characteristics. Because of the product and cost
characteristics of
electric power, severe price discrimination is certain to occur in deregulated
electric power, and small business and residential customers will be the targets." According to Coyle,
"rather than textbook competition driving prices down to ever-lower costs and
providing low-cost electricity to all, what will unfold is price
discrimination, redlining of customers, and, ultimately, producer cooperation
and/or collusion to frustrate competition."
One of Coyle's recommendations is that public power and public aggregation ("community choice") is a means of bringing the benefits of
deregulation to consumers, while mitigating adverse effects of price discrimination. At the
retail level, publicly owned
utilities can provide protections against price discrimination.
Equally important, a competitive wholesale market--free from the distortions of
market power--is critically important for the many public power utilities that
purchase wholesale power and that are dependent on transmission access at fair,
open, and non-discriminatory terms.
Finally, APPA is pleased to be part of a new pro-competition stakeholders group
that has developed core restructuring principles over the last couple of
months. These principles support effective wholesale competition. A consensus
is beginning to develop regarding the issues that must be addressed in
restructuring legislation, and how they should be addressed. We hope these
principles will guide Congress as it develops federal restructuring
legislation. (A list of the principles and those endorsing them is attached.)
APPA goals for federal restructuring legislation
Congress' goal in restructuring the
electric utility
industry should be to vigorously foster competitive interstate electricity
markets supported by robust and reliable regional grids that are controlled,
operated and planned on a competitively neutral basis. These markets should
recognize the value to the public of maintaining a diverse industry consisting
of private, public, and cooperative participants, offering an important element
of choice. Accomplishment of this goal is essential to replacing FERC's
traditional and historical role of rate regulation with the discipline of
effective competition.
Some states have taken steps toward addressing market power within their
borders.
For example, Texas has adopted restructuring legislation that takes an
important step toward addressing generation market power by mandating that a
power generation company cannot own and control more than 20 percent of the
installed generation capacity within a qualifying power region. However, the
ability of the states to address
adequately market power is limited since power markets are regional, often
crossing state borders, and state commissions and legislatures generally lack
jurisdiction over out of-state market participants. While such state actions
are significant, there is still a clear federal role in fostering competition
that extends far beyond what individual states can accomplish.
Federal legislation must address this critical issue by instituting new
structural protections against market power abuses. At a minimum, these
structural protections should include: effective wholesale competition by
providing sufficient federal authority and oversight to ensure
nondiscriminatory access to transmission facilities; the development of truly
independent RTOs, participation, and
"neutral management" of the nation's transmission facilities, including size and scope criteria;
enhanced FERC merger review authority; protections against generation market
power; and repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) only in the
context of comprehensive restructuring legislation, and then only in
combination with provisions to protect consumers' interests.
Transmission and RTOs
In many cases, Congress can foster the development of competitive interstate
markets by simply reinforcing FERC's role in several areas. For example, in
Order 2000 dealing with RTO matters, FERC concluded that it had a number of
"tools" that it might use with respect to RTOs. It declined to require private power
companies to join RTOs, but clearly stated that it had such authority when
dealing with a number of issues, including the tool of its ability to remedy
undue discrimination. In fact, the
"tools" provided to FERC to deal with RTO formation, approval and participation may
already exist under the Federal Power Act.
At a minimum, APPA urges Congress to preserve FERC's existing authority in any
federal restructuring legislation, including the authority asserted in Order
2000.
Comparable, non-discriminatory transmission access, service and pricing must be
available to all participants in wholesale markets. FERC should have the
authority to require open access transmission service at rates, terms, and
conditions that are fully comparable to the service a transmission owner
provides itself for all its own uses. Where FERC finds that a transmission
owner has engaged in undue discrimination in the provision of transmission
services, or has abused its control over transmission, FERC should be clearly
authorized to require the transmission owner to surrender control of its
transmission to an independent RTO that meets FERC RTO criteria.
In addition to this power to mandate participation in certain cases, FERC
must be authorized to establish the parameters and conditions for RTO approval
to ensure independence, proper size and scope of operations, and conditions for
fair treatment of different market participants. The latter point includes
recognition of the unique legal and
tax code issues, including acknowledgement of bond covenants, faced by public
power systems. Therefore, Congress should not limit FERC's discretion in
determining the appropriate characteristics for what is required for RTOs.
Instead, it should charge FERC with the responsibility of establishing the
necessary framework for vigorously competitive regional electricity
markets.While explicitly preserving any authority FERC has under existing law
to order
"jurisdictional" utilities to join an RTO, Congress should expressly confirm the authority
already asserted by FERC in Order 2000. This authority includes the right to
order RTO participation by a
jurisdictional
"public utility" to remedy undue discrimination or anti-competitive effects where supported by
the record in particular cases, and as a condition for mergers or market based
rates. For example, RTO participation by jurisdictional utilities should be a
necessary condition in determining that proposed mergers of vertically
integrated utilities are consistent with a showing, not a presumption, of
public interest. Congress should also confirm FERC's authority that served as
the foundation for Order 888.
FERC jurisdiction over public power transmitting utilities, however, should be
limited for several reasons. Not all participants in the electricity market are
the same. There are key differences between investor-owned utilities, public
power systems, rural
electric cooperatives, and independent power producers that warrant distinctions in
regulation. The committee should recognize these differences and allow public
power and cooperative
transmitting utilities to retain control of the rate-setting function while
ensuring that their transmission rates are comparable, not unduly
discriminatory, or preferential. Allowing FERC to remand the rates back to
these
"non-jurisdictional" utilities that have not met these standards allows the federal entity to be
the ultimate arbiter of comparability, while still retaining local control over
significant related matters, such as adhering to bond covenants.
Nationally, public power systems own and operate approximately nine percent of
the transmission network at voltage levels of 139kv and higher. These
facilities are spread out over about 100 distinct public power utilities, and
are typically not considered key elements in the backbone transmission grid,
but generally serve as components of local distribution systems. Federal
purview over these transmission systems should be limited, and in this regard
APPA supports the approach taken in the
House bill, H.R. 2944.
The House language includes an exemption from FERC jurisdiction for public
power and rural
electric cooperative owners of
"limited and discrete" transmission facilities that are not part of the nation's bulk
electric grid. Subjecting numerous small systems that may own short high-voltage lines
(e.g., radial lines) that are not part of the bulk power system to FERC
jurisdiction makes no sense. Utility costs would rise unnecessarily.
Coordinating these determinations with regional reliability organization
recommendations and allowing other stakeholders to challenge the
self-certification for an exemption as authorized in H.R. 2944 provides
adequate safeguards to a system that properly tries to balance increased
regulation with the desired outcome.
Mergers
Mergers eliminate potential competitors from the market, and frequently mergers
are pursued not to get ready for competition, but to
throw up protections against it. According to a recent report by the Energy
Information Administration, since 1992 investor-owned utilities have been
involved in 26 mergers, with an additional 16 pending approval. In 3 years,
from 1994-97, nine
electric mergers were proposed. But just since 1997, 44 mergers have been proposed or
completed (see attached APPA paper,
"What Might Electricity
Deregulation Bring?").
One clear effect of this activity has been an intense concentration of the
entire industry. Less than 10 years ago, the ten largest IOUs owned 36 percent
of the generation capacity in the country, while the 20 largest companies owned
56 percent.
But today the 10 largest IOUs own 51 percent of all generation capacity, while
the 20 largest own a significantly increased
73 percent:
To address the threat to competition posed by the ever-accelerating flood of
mergers and acquisitions, FERC's merger authority needs to be clarified,
abbreviated where appropriate, but also strengthened as necessary.
Uncontroversial mergers (for example, those passing through a screen designed
to sort out ones that pose little threat to competition) should obtain swift
approval. Timing of merger reviews by FERC should be established under a
two-tiered process, with speedy disposition of those with little competitive
consequence, and more extensive review for the remainder.
In addition, the time required for FERC to protect the public interest from
adverse consequences of mergers cannot and must not be established by Congress.
Congress may set goals, but it should not impose inflexible deadlines which, if
not met, result in the automatic approval of proposed mergers. Such deadlines
shortchange the needs of the
public only to satisfy the impatient demands of private corporations.
Congress can act in this area in other ways. To ensure that all mergers that
could adversely affect electricity markets are considered by FERC and to
prevent evasion, FERC's merger authority needs to be clarified and expanded to
encompass generation only mergers and acquisitions, convergence (gas and
telecom) mergers, and holding company mergers. In addition, FERC should be
required to examine mergers based on their effect on wholesale competition and,
where authorized by state law or regulation, retail competition, approving
those where FERC can make a positive finding that the merger is consistent with
the goal of achieving effective and sustainable competition, and will produce
net savings and benefits to consumers, over and above those that could be
achieved by other means than merger. Conversely, FERC should have the authority
to condition or reject those mergers that would not produce these results.
Public Utility Holding Company Act
The Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) established passive restraints
on the structure of the
electric utility (and natural gas) industry in order to mitigate the accumulation and
exercise of market power, preclude practices abusive to consumers and
competitors, and facilitate effective regulation. APPA believes that outright
repeal of PUHCA would result in a frenzy of new mergers, and retard if not halt
the development of competitive markets.
Still, PUHCA has limitations. It was enacted in a period when regulated,
vertically integrated
electric utility monopolies were considered to be in the public interest. Today,
federal policies favor wholesale competition, and many state statutes are
designed to promote retail competition. However, modifications to PUHCA should
occur only to the extent that they promote these evolving federal and state
policies. Freedom from restraints of the Holding Company Act should be
conditional, and
FERC should determine when these conditions have been met.
These conditions should include: a requirement that a holding company's
affiliate companies turn over ownership or control of transmission facilities
to an independent RTO; a rule that a holding company, to be free of PUHCA
restraints, must control no more than 20 percent of the generation in a
relevant market; protections against affiliate cross-subsidization, information
sharing, and potential abuses of less than arms-length transactions between
affiliates; and full and complete access to holding company books and records
by regulators.
Reliability
In the traditional monopoly model, reliability has been protected by mutual
back-up arrangements among utilities, plus a regional reliability council
structure. However, this system of cooperation and mutual assistance lacks both
clearly enforceable rules and sanctions, as well as competitively neutral
entities to determine and
enforce the rules on a non-discriminatory basis. This voluntary approach to
reliability will not work in an increasingly competitive market. Reliability
rules and their enforcement can have significant competitive impacts, and it is
essential that reliability be maintained and enhanced in the transition to
competitive markets.
Power outages could present us with the next
"energy crisis," according to recent remarks by FERC Chairman Hoecker. To avoid last summer's
tragic problems, asserts the Chairman, Congress must act quickly on legislation
that strengthens reliability oversight to keep pace with restructuring. For
example, Chairman Hoecker cited reports declaring that the Midwest could fall
700 MW short of generation this summer. In addition, recent statements from the
Electric Power Research Institute claim
"the potential for large-scale outages and disruption is considered higher than
at anytime
since the great Northeast blackout, 35 years ago.
"APPA supports the North American
Electric Reliability Council's (NERC's) consensus legislative language on reliability,
which will create a self-regulating reliability organization that would be
overseen by FERC. The mission of this new organization would be to ensure that
reliability rules are applied equally to all electricity providers. APPA urges
Congress to incorporate this language in any restructuring legislation. While
there is some discussion about the possibility of advancing a stand-alone
reliability bill this year, APPA is generally opposed to that notion at this
time. APPA is concerned that such a bill would not include the requisite number
of policy provisions, including RTO participation, that would be necessary to
ensure the industry's reliability. APPA is further concerned that such a
measure would never survive the
"stand-alone" test, and instead would be overwhelmed by numerous, superfluous
additions to the bill.
Reconcile existing federal
tax laws with changes in federal and state energy policy Twenty-four states have
now adopted restructuring proposals that create serious conflicts for public
power communities seeking to comply with new energy laws, but are facing
unworkable private use
tax restrictions found in the federal
tax code. In most cases, implementation of state restructuring plans-even FERC
policies designed to provide open transmission access for competitive wholesale
markets--will jeopardize the financial standing of public power communities and
millions of bondholders across the U.S. Specifically, if municipal utilities
enter the competitive arena and violate private use restrictions, their
outstanding
tax-exempt bonds could become retroactively taxable to the date of issuance.
APPA supports a solution spearheaded by Senators
Slade Gorton and Bob Kerrey-the Bond Fairness and Protection Act (S. 386)--that
would preserve local decision making about how to manage
tax-exempt bonding authority. It would allow each public power system to
"elect" to obtain relief from private use limits, but forego the right to issue
municipal
tax-exempt bonds for new generation facilities in the future. A slightly different
proposal is contained in the Administration's restructuring plan, offered as S.
1048. While APPA commends the Department of Energy for including this critical
provision, APPA prefers S. 386 for its election provision that acknowledges and
preserves local control and accountability.
If enacted, S. 386 will accomplish two objectives: clarify existing
tax laws and regulations regarding the private use rules so that they will work in
a new competitive marketplace, and provide encouragement for public power
utilities to open their transmission or distribution systems, thereby providing
choice to more consumers. This bill has gained strong bipartisan support in the
Senate, where it currently has 33 co-sponsors. Companion House legislation
(H.R. 721) has 126 bipartisan co-sponsors.
Congressional action in this area is urgently needed-existing wholesale markets
cannot function effectively, and state restructuring plans cannot be fully
implemented, without public power's full participation. The private use
restrictions not only hamstring the ability of public power utilities to ensure
that their communities receive the benefits that effective competition can
provide, but several public power systems' experience shows that private use
restrictions also negatively impact the underlying market.
Promote community aggregation
Federal legislation should provide
for customer aggregation to assure that small business and residential
consumers can derive maximum benefits from a competitive market. APPA believes
the jury is still out on whether residential and small business consumers will
benefit financially from restructuring, or whether it will even be of interest
to many marketers. Aggregation provides these customers with an important tool
that can help strengthen their position in an emerging competitive marketplace.
One of the possible bright spots in the House bill was inclusion of aggregation
language, a provision that promotes the right to be represented in the market
as a group by local governments. Unfortunately, the House bill erred when it
adopted a provision requiring that customers explicitly opt-in to aggregation
plans of municipalities, instead of authorizing aggregation plans that allow
individuals to opt-out. The opt-in requirement makes
aggregation much more unlikely because it increases the difficulty and costs of
the aggregation process and may inhibit the development of competitive
aggregation options. Private power companies consistently advocate the opt-in
requirement when they have been unable to prevent state legislatures from
endorsing stronger aggregation approaches. The weakening of this provision puts
many consumers, especially residential consumers, at risk since aggregation is
the one tool that residential and small business customers could use to their
advantage. APPA urges the Senate to adopt similar proposals.
Preserve cost-based rates for PMA and TVA customers
The fundamental objectives and public benefits, including cost-based rates,
provided through the federal power program and the Tennessee Valley Authority
should be preserved. The four PMAs-- Southeastern, Southwestern, Western, and
Bonneville-market the power produced at federal multipurpose projects. Power is
then sold at cost-based rates to repay the federal government's initial capital investment in the
power facilities, and to cover interest as well as operation and maintenance.
These PMAs are operated in the public interest to help ensure low electricity
rates, to expand market diversity, and to lower risks associated with market
consolidation.
APPA does not represent directly the interests of the PMAs or of TVA. However,
APPA does represent the interests of more than 600 municipal
electric utilities in 33 states that receive PMA power, and the more than one hundred
local distributors that receive TVA power. Municipal utilities and rural
electric cooperatives are the only competition the investor-owned utilities have
historically faced at the retail level. These consumer-owned utilities are
vital to maintaining the diversity of sellers necessary to develop and sustain
a competitive
electric marketplace.
We must keep in sight the fundamental goal of increased competition
in the electricity industry, which is to bring about lower prices for all
consumers. A move toward marketbased rates not only exacerbates market power
problems in the industry, but such action would result in a federally-mandated
price hike for millions of electricity customers at the same time that the
states and Congress are seeking to make electricity more affordable for all
Americans. The ultimate objective of competition is lower prices-and
market-based rates, however such rates are determined, compromises the very
policy objective that is the underpinning of state and federal restructuring
efforts.
APPA believes the present system works very well. If major changes such as
marketbased rates or the elimination of preference power to nonprofit
electric systems are imposed on the PMAs, then it will be more difficult for us to
develop a competitive market, and it will be less likely that
all consumers will benefit from restructuring.
APPA's review of pending restructuring legislation
S. 2098 - The
Electric Power Market Competition Act
In APPA's view, S. 2098's positive attributes are more for what the legislation
does not contain than for what is actually included. There is no federal
mandate on the states, for example, no controversial
tax language, or PMA-related provisions. Moreover, there is seemingly room for
inclusion of provisions to address the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
Bonneville Power Administration based on still-developing regional consensus.
However, a closer examination of the measure, especially after the bill's
simple reiteration of existing state authority, reveals that on several
critical issues specifically under federal jurisdiction, S. 2098 falls far
short of a positive effort. For example, the bill relies heavily
on state authority and is reluctant to even affirm the authorities set out by
FERC in Order 2000. Hence, APPA is concerned that the legislation fails to
address adequately the market power problems that currently exist in the
interstate wholesale market, and those that are likely to arise in a new,
deregulated environment. Admittedly, S. 2098 was originally proposed before
FERC issued Order 2000, but at a minimum the bill ought to reflect the
authority FERC has under the new order. Instead, the bill seemingly takes a
step back from Order 2000, and does not reflect current FERC thinking on
several issues.
The bill does reveal some willingness to give FERC additional authority;
however, that is only with regard to FERC jurisdiction over publicly owned
transmission facilities. For example, the measure would give FERC new authority
over
"determining, fixing, and otherwise regulating the rates, terms and conditions
for the transmission of energy" by public power utilities, rural
electric cooperatives, the U.S. Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee
Valley Authority. The extent of authority in this provision is an unnecessary
encroachment on local control, though some limited extension of authority over
these facilities to ensure open access and comparable treatment would be
appropriate so long as rates continue to be set by the current local authority.
As discussed earlier, public power represents diversity in the electricity
marketplace, and key differences among all three sectors of the industry ought
to be acknowledged. For example, APPA supports provisions allowing public power
transmitting utility systems the ability to retain control over rate-setting
functions ensuring their transmission rates are comparable, not unduly
discriminatory, or preferential.
Allowing FERC to remand the rate back to the public utility allows local
control that still adheres to local bond covenants.
The bill also prospectively repeals the mandatory purchase requirements of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and repeals the Public Utility Holding
Company Act twelve months after enactment. APPA believes PUHCA should not be
repealed on a stand-alone basis; repeal should occur in comprehensive
legislation, and only if accompanied by alternative consumer protection
provisions. Outright repeal of PUHCA will enable existing monopolies to
increase their market power through mergers and widespread diversification
while escaping effective regulatory oversight. While S. 2098 is arguably a
comprehensive restructuring bill, it fails to include market power and consumer
protection provisions that are essential to structure and oversee the wholesale
market as it exists
today and is it will exist once PUHCA is repealed.
In addition, S. 2098 is quiet on mergers and acquisitions. Legislation is
needed to address rapid consolidation of the electricity industry, which is
already characterized by a highly concentrated monopoly structure.
Concentration in the marketplace only increases the difficulty of creating new
competitive markets, and FERC's merger review authority should allow for
approval of only those mergers that do not pose a threat to the development of
competition. FERC should be given explicit authority to review holding
company-to-holding company mergers. Further, mergers should be approved only on
a finding of positive benefits for consumers and competition.
Regarding reliability, S. 2098 adopts consensus language that was developed by
the North American
Electric Reliability Council, which would become NAERO - the North American
Electric Organization. APPA supports such language. However, the
bill includes several state savings clauses that have been advanced by the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, essentially enabling
state commissions to veto reliability decisions made by NAERO, which would
weaken the original provisions. While APPA supports the new NAERO language, we
do not support a stand alone reliability bill at this time.
S. 2098 does not include a
tax title and does not address public power's private use problem. However, we
appreciate the Chairman's acknowledgement in his statement introducing S. 2098
that this problem needs to be addressed. We also appreciate the Chairman's
advice to all publicly and privately owned utilities that we try to resolve our
differences rather than tossing this difficult and controversial issue to
Congress for a resolution that may not be acceptable to any of the parties.
S. 1047 -- The Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act
The Administration's comprehensive restructuring
proposal goes a long way toward addressing the key APPA objectives for
restructuring legislation. However, since it was introduced over a year ago, a
few provisions are out of date, including the bill's flexible mandate.
Clearly, a mandate is not needed given the substantial progress that has been
made by the states in this area. In addition, the bill does not reflect the
findings on RTOs in FERC Order 2000.
With regard to market power, the Administration has included in its bill some
important provisions designed to prevent market power abuses. In particular, S.
1047 expands FERC's merger review authority to account for potential impacts of
proposed mergers on the status of competition in wholesale and retail
electricity markets. This provision is desirable to ensure that existing levels
of market power in the
industry do not inhibit the development of truly competitive markets.
On PUHCA, S. 1047 would provide slightly over a year for implementation of
structural market power protections prior to repeal of the Act. APPA agrees
that structural market power protections must be deployed in advance of PUHCA
repeal in order to protect consumers from market power abuses, and to ensure
that competitive markets are given a meaningful chance to develop. We also
support strong provisions to require state and federal access to books and
records of holding companies to ensure that consumers are protected against the
effects of cross-subsidization and abusive interaffiliate transactions.
We have briefly discussed the
tax-related portion of the Administration's bill, which has been introduced as S.
1048. To reiterate, it is our view that the Bond Fairness and Protection Act
(S. 386) mentioned above offers a preferable approach to addressing the private-use
tax issues that inhibit the ability of municipal utilities to fully participate in
a restructured electricity industry. While the Administration's proposal is
commendable in that it eliminates the private use restrictions on facilities
financed with
tax-exempt debt and protects bondholders, it has several significant shortcomings.
It prohibits all units of local government from using
tax-exempt debt to finance new generation facilities. In contrast, S. 386 allows
these public power systems with a private userproblem to resolve that problem
through the elimination of the private use restraints. But the quid pro quo is
for those systems to give up their right to issue new
tax-exempt debt for generation. In our view, this is a much more equitable
solution to the problem.
First, it provides no element of choice for public
power. Second, we find little justification for eliminating
tax-exempt financing for transmission facilities. It is unlikely that transmission
services will be affected by competitive pressures in the foreseeable future.
The benefits of bond-financed transmission facilities accrue to all electricity
market participants: states and localities, investor-owned utilities, power
marketers and, most important, consumers.
In other areas, the Administration recognizes the need to provide specific
treatment of issues related to the Bonneville Power Administration, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and the other federal power programs. We believe
that any proposals in this regard must honor the traditional objectives and
responsibilities of the power marketing administrations as they play an
important role in maintaining market diversity and help further the goals of
competition by ensuring affordable
electric rates for millions of consumers. We are also pleased that the
bill allows for aggregation of electricity consumers to ensure they have the
means to achieve the lowest possible electricity rates. In addition, we support
the Administration's general inclusion of the industry consensus reliability
language as developed through the NAERO process.
Finally, APPA would encourage the committee to consider any air quality issues
stemming from the restructuring debate in the context of the Clean Air Act
rather than as a part of a comprehensive federal restructuring bill. Moreover,
we do not support the imposition of any fuel mandate such as the renewable
portfolio standard as proposed in S. 1047. However, if such a mandate is to be
imposed, we urge you to include hydropower within the eligible mix. We do
believe that federal restructuring legislation can promote clean energy and
energy efficiency and result in a cleaner environment. This is one of several
principles we and other industry stakeholders have endorsed. Those could be
done, for example,
through the creation or continuation of programs that promote distributed
generation and renewable resources.
S. 1273 - The Federal Power Act Amendments
This bill emphasizes preventing the occurrence of market power abuses by
granting FERC strong authority to order both the formation of RTOs and mandate
participation in RTOs by transmitting utilities. Such federal authority over
investor-owned utilities is necessary to ensure the development of broad and
truly neutral transmission organizations to provide the foundation for
effective competition. APPA would urge that this authority be modified to apply
only to publicly owned transmitting systems when FERC finds that such a system
has engaged in discriminatory or anti-competitive behavior that places
competitors at a disadvantage and only when the problem cannot be resolved by
the filing of open access transmissions tariffs.
While APPA clearly supports the development of RTOs as part of the foundation
of
effective wholesale competition, we do not support the bill's proposed full
expansion of FERC authority over public power's transmission facilities as
discussed above. APPA continues to believe that regulatory treatment throughout
the industry needs to respect the diversity found in the public power
community, and stresses the need to retain local control as a fundamental tenet
for the future of the entire industry.
S. 2071 - The
Electric Reliability 2000 Act
APPA commends Senator Gorton for his efforts to move forward with his
reliability proposal. While we do not favor a stand-alone reliability bill at
this time, we understand and appreciate the importance of reliability
throughout the industry, and encourage the committee to adopt the Gorton plan,
including the so-called consensus language on reliability, in a broad-based
comprehensive package.
We believe the bill is a good starting
point, and agree with the assessment that the proposal does not include several
other critical factors in reliability, including full and open access to
transmission systems, effective conservation programs, and the ability to site
generation plants closer to the loads they serve. APPA looks forward to working
with the committee on this critical issue.
S. 516 -- The
Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act APPA appreciates
that Senator Thomas, in introducing the
Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999, preserved
the ability of state legislatures to decide the future of retail
electric competition in their respective states, rather than adhering to a federal
mandate. However, we believe that the bill does not provide the elements
necessary for establishing effective wholesale competition as previously
outlined.
For example, the legislation does not contain provisions designed to prevent
market power abuses, thereby facilitating a
transition to effective competition. The bill also would repeal PUHCA without
providing much-needed consumer protections in its place. Finally, APPA is
concerned that S. 516 does not include provisions to address the private use
restrictions that are inhibiting effective functioning of wholesale electricity
markets and preventing public power communities from enjoying the benefits of
increased competition. Admittedly,
tax issues do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee; nevertheless, the bill calls for a study of
tax subsidies that would appear to give undeserved merit to the assertion that
public power systems receive unfair
tax advantages.
S. 1284 - The
Electric Consumer Choice Act
As units of state and local governments, APPA members are concerned about the
limitations this restructuring proposal would place on state and local
authority. The bill's mandate for competition, already passed at this
point, will prevent states from setting their own timelines based on the
particular needs of the consumers they represent. APPA is also concerned that
the plan would result in preemption of existing state laws related to utility
regulation and oversight.
Further, the bill seeks to repeal both PUHCA and PURPA outright, which APPA
opposes unless both are addressed in the context of a broader restructuring
package that contains market power and consumer protection provisions.
S. 282 -- The Transition to Competition in the
Electric Industry Act APPA supports the goal of S. 282 to prospectively repeal the
mandatory purchase requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
(PURPA), as long as changes to PURPA are undertaken only as part of
comprehensive industry restructuring legislation. It is important that S. 282
is not enacted singularly, but is tied to legislation that can preserve the
underlying goals of PURPA
through new mechanisms that are more appropriately implemented in a competitive
environment.
S. 1369 - The Clean Energy Act of 1999
While we commend the efforts of Senator Jeffords to concentrate on the
environmental aspects of restructuring, APPA continues to oppose federal
mandates, including renewable portfolio standards and fuel use mandates of any
kind. However, our members continue to take great pride in promoting the use of
renewable energy sources whenever possible, and continue to support and promote
several environmental initiatives. APPA is concerned, however, that the Clean
Air Act not become part of the overall debate over restructuring, but rather
remain a separate discussion.
Conclusion
The real-time nature of the
electric utility industry, with its virtual lack of storage, the essential nature of
electricity that requires many consumers to purchase it almost irrespective of
the price, and the complexity of transmission
constraints, render
electric markets prone to manipulation and abuse by those who can dominate the market
through the ownership or control of strategic assets. FERC must be provided the
tools it needs to fix problems as they arise (or in some cases prevent them
from arising), if we are to achieve effective and sustainable competition.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today regarding
public power's restructuring objectives and views on pending industry
restructuring proposals.APPA looks forward to working closely with you to enact
legislation that can achieve our shared goal of bringing more affordable
electricity rates to all electricity consumers.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 14, 2000