Electricity stays costly after deregulation

October 15, 2006|By New York Times News Service

A decade after competition was introduced, long-distance phone rates had fallen by half, air fares by more than a fourth and trucking rates by a fourth. But a decade after the federal government opened the electricity business to competition, the market has not produced such a decline.

Instead, more rate increase requests are pending now than ever before, said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, the association for the investor-owned utilities that provide about 60 percent of the nation's power. The investor-owned electric utility industry published a report in June, "Why Are Electricity Prices Increasing?"

About 40 percent of all electricity customers - those in 23 states and the District of Columbia where new competition was approved - mostly paid modestly lower prices over the past decade. But those savings were primarily because states, which continue to have some rate-setting power, imposed cuts, freezes and caps at the behest of consumer groups that wanted to insulate customers from any initial price swings.

The last of those rate protections expire next year, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies warn in a draft report to Congress that "customers may experience rate shock" as utilities seek to make up for revenue they did not collect during the period of artificially reduced prices and to cover higher costs of fuel. They warned that "this rate shock can create public pressure" to turn back from electricity prices set by the market to prices set by government regulators.

The disappointing results stem in significant part from the fact that a genuinely competitive market for electricity production has not developed.

Concerned about rising prices, California and five other states have suspended or delayed transition to the competitive system.

And voters in two California cities, Sacramento and Davis, will decide next month whether to replace investor-owned utilities with municipal power in hopes of lowering rates. Drives are under way to expand public power in Massachusetts. In Portland, Ore., the city council tried and failed to buy the local utility company.

Electricity customers in other states are facing rude surprises.

In Baltimore, an expected 72 percent rate increase in electricity prices has aroused so much protest that the Maryland General Assembly met in special session, where it arranged to phase in the higher costs over several years. In Illinois, rates are about to rise as much as 55 percent.

Three states in the Northeast opened their electricity markets to competition, with different results.

In Connecticut, residential electricity rates rose up to 27 percent last year to an average of $128 a month, and are expected to go up as much as 50 percent more in January.

In New Jersey, rates rose up to 13 percent this year, and are poised to go much higher.

New York residential customers, by contrast, paid an inflation-adjusted average of 16 percent less in 2004 than in 1996, a state report said. It is not known how much of that is attributable to government-ordered rate cuts, but the state benefited from huge increases in power generated by its nuclear plants and by buying power from New England plants that, starting next year, may have less electricity to sell to New York.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and five other agencies, in the draft of the report to Congress, are unable to specify any overall savings. "It has been difficult," the report states, "to determine whether retail prices" in the states that opened to competition "are higher or lower than they otherwise would have been" under the old system.

Joseph T. Kelliher, the commission chairman, said Friday that eventually "market discipline will deliver the best prices" and noted that every administration and Congress since 1978 has pushed the industry toward competition. He added that the commission recognized a need for "constant reform of the rules."

A truly competitive market has never developed, and, in most areas, the number of power producers is small. In New Jersey, for example, only six companies produce power, and not all of them sell to every utility.

Some utilities have decided to buy electricity not from the cheapest supplier but from one owned by a sister to the utility company, even if that electricity is more expensive. That has been the case in Ohio.

And if electricity is needed from more than one producer, utilities pay each one the highest price accepted in the bidding, not the lowest. This one-price system, adopted by the industry and approved by the federal government, is intended to encourage investment in new power plants, which are costlier than older ones.

But critics say that, as in California five years ago in a scandal that enveloped Enron, the auction system can be manipulated to drive up prices, with the increases passed on to customers.

Advocates of moving to the new system say that, in time, the discipline of the competitive market will mean the best possible prices for customers. Alfred E. Kahn, the Cornell University economist who led the fight to deregulate airlines and who, as New York's chief utility regulator in the 1970s, nudged electric utilities toward the new system, said that he was not troubled by the uneven results so far.

"Change," Kahn said, "is always messy."

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.