نگهداری با دسترسی به خرده فروشی؟ تحولات در بازسازی آمریکا و تامین تجهیزات منابع برای خدمات خرده فروشی تنظیم شده

The dividing line between states that have pursued retail restructuring and states that are staying with traditional regulation has become more pronounced and possibly solidified. States that embraced retail access continue to do so and are reaching important milestones in meeting customers’ continuing needs. Meanwhile, states with a traditional utility industry structure have ceased looking toward retail access and are finding ways to combine retail regulation with wholesale competition. In retail access states, a clear trend has emerged: Large customers are quite active in selecting service from unregulated suppliers, while residential and other small customers demonstrate a pronounced tendency to remain on the regulated retail service provided by the distribution utility. A common challenge facing retail access states is the end of the so-called “transition period,” during which retail customers who did not select service from an unregulated supplier could obtain regulated service from the distribution utility as the “provider of last resort” (POLR). During this period, regulated service was generally offered at capped rates with resources provided through buy-back contracts with the distribution utilities’ generation affiliates or new generation owners. As this transition period comes to an end, policymakers and utilities have to address the continued need for regulated retail service and the procurement of generation supplies to provide that service. The way that this procurement process is structured has important implications for customer rates, utility cost recovery, the liquidity of wholesale markets, and the creation of a level playing field for unregulated retail access providers.

A common challenge facing retail access states is the end of the so-called “transition period,” during which retail customers who did not select service from an unregulated supplier could obtain regulated service from the distribution utility as the “provider of last resort” (POLR). During this period, regulated service was generally offered at capped rates with resources provided through buy-back contracts with the distribution utilities’ generation affiliates or new generation owners. As this transition period comes to an end, policymakers and utilities have to address the continued need for regulated retail service and the procurement of generation supplies to provide that service. The way that this procurement process is structured has important implications for customer rates, utility cost recovery, the liquidity of wholesale markets, and the creation of a level playing field for unregulated retail access providers.

The end of restructuring-related “transition periods” marks a critical milestone for regulators and utilities in retail access states as price caps and restructuring-related supply contracts expire. Since the majority of customers, in particular residential and small commercial, remain on the regulated service provided by their distribution utility, there is an implicit “demand” for the continued provision of that service. No state policymakers at this milestone have as yet chosen to force small customers to switch to unregulated suppliers. Continuation of regulated generation service raises two important policy questions: (1) How should regulated retail service be provided after transition-period price caps expire; and (2) How should distribution utilities procure resources to meet their continued regulated service obligations? Of the states that have already addressed these issues, the majority concluded that rates for regulated service should be reasonably reflective of market prices and that resources for the utilities’ continued regulated service obligations should be procured through transparent, competitive processes that are open to all suppliers. The selected procurement processes have fallen into two general approaches, which we labeled the “standard offer approach” and the “portfolio management approach.” The experience to date shows that many of these states have chosen to implement the standard offer approach under which shares of the distribution companies’ regulated, full-requirements supply obligation are bid out. The advantages that policymakers appear to see in this approach are that it is a relatively simple, highly transparent, competitive procurement option that allows for a more streamlined, less contentious regulatory process and that allocates risks to bidders that can manage them most efficiently. Also, while contracts are highly standardized, policymakers can and do offer differing degrees of rate stability to different classes of customers through fixed-priced contracts of varying durations. The states that have selected some form of portfolio management approach often use it to integrate new wholesale contracts with utilities’ existing long-term contracts or remaining cost-of-service regulated generation. The perceived advantages of the portfolio management approach include its roots in integrated resource planning and greater flexibility in the type of wholesale products that can be integrated into the supply portfolio. These include longer-term and unit-specific contracts, and even new utility-owned generation. Of the 21 states with retail access, we have identified nine that have already addressed post-transition procurement for regulated service through the standard offer model, and six that have pursued variations of the portfolio management approach. 1 For simplicity of exposition, the District of Columbia will be included in the “states” in this article. 2 California is included here, with about 13 percent of the total load being competitively supplied, although further retail switching was suspended in September 2001. A new policy that would reintroduce retail access for large customers is now being discussed. 3 These rate reductions were not necessarily inconsistent with market prices since the competitive price of generation service was expected to be low enough so that unregulated suppliers could compete with regulated service rates. However, wholesale market price have been higher than expected, making it difficult for alternative retail suppliers to provide guaranteed savings while maintaining a level playing field. 4 Note, however, while the more common approach, this kind of a transition was not used by all retail access states. For example, Maine did not include negotiated, capped rates for regulated service, did not sign any buy-back agreements with restructured generation assets, but went directly to procuring resources at market-based rates. In Texas, even in the beginning, large customers were not offered any regulated service option, only a default service (i.e., provider of last resort service) for periods when service obtained from unregulated retail suppliers was unavailable (e.g., due to supplier default). 5 See Ohio PUC, order dated Dec. 17, 2003, In the Matter of the Commission's Promulgation of Rules for the Conduct of a Competitive Bidding Process for Electric Distribution Utilities Pursuant to Section 4928.14, Revised Code, Case No. 01-2164-EL-ORD. Since the PUC issued this order, several Ohio utilities (e.g., DP&L, CG&E, AEP, and First Energy) separately filed alternative proposals that would extend rate caps through 2008. 6 Auction Could Give Toledo, Ohio-Area Residents Another Utility, Toledo Blade, Aug. 24, 2004. 7 See MD PSC, Order Nos. 78400 (dated Apr. 29, 2003) and 78710 (dated Sept. 30, 2003), In the Matter of the Commission's Inquiry into the Competitive Selection of Electric Supplier/Standard Offer Service, Case No. 8908. 8 See DC PSC, Order Adopting Wholesale Standard Offer Service Process in Case No. 1017, issued Mar. 1, 2004. 9 MD PSC, MD PSC Announces Successful Completion of Bidding for Electric Standard Offer Service (press release), Apr., 2, 2004: http://www.psc.state.md.us. 10 See New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Certifies Results of the Basic Generation Service Auction (press release), Feb. 11, 2004. The NJ procurement processes were pre-approved by the Board of Public Utilities: Decisions and Orders in Docket Nos. EX01050303 (dated Dec. 11, 2001), EX01110754 & EO02070384 (dated Dec. 18, 2002), and EO03050394 (dated Dec. 2, 2003). 11 Frederick Butler, Presentation at the Illinois Commerce Commission Post-2006 Symposium, April 29, 2004, at 8. 12 No information has been released about how many tranches of load of various types were awarded to specific winning bidders. 13 Massachusetts D.T.E. Orders 02-40-A, 02-40-B, and 02-40-C, Investigation by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy on its own Motion into the Provision of Default Service, dated Feb. 13, 2003, Apr. 24, 2004 and Sept. 12, 2003. 14 Maine Public Utilities Commission, Standard Offer Study and Recommendations Regarding Service After Mar. 1, 2005, Dec. 1, 2002, Appendix E: Detailed Summary of Standard Offer Bid Processes and Results. 15 California Public Utilities Commission, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies and Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Generation Procurement and Renewable Resource Development, Decision 02-10-062, Oct. 24, 2002.