WHO CARES? NOT FERC THAT'S FOR SURE!
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) continues to dismiss discrimination and antitrust complaints against
monopolist utilities that use their market power to kill environmentally
sensitive small independent power projects. This time (Docket Nos. EL00-12-000 and EL99-81-000) FERC says Tennessee Power Company (TPCO) is premature and dismisses
TPCO's complaint on a technicality (should have been filed under Section 205 -
- next time what, improper margins?), totally ignoring the plain and simple
truth: Ameren insists on charging TPCO's project a distribution charge 10 times
a comparable rate it recently filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission
(ICC). That is to say nothing of the fact that FERC chooses to continue to keep
its head in the sand when it comes to the scientifically proven benefits of
distributed generation.
That rate Ameren filed with the ICC is
actually an amount Ameren is to credit retail consumers for taking service at a
slightly higher distribution voltage. But when you turn it around, and it is an
additional amount an independent generator is required to pay Ameren for
putting power into the distribution at the slightly lower voltage, the rate
increases tenfold. Of course, Ameren does not charge itself this charge since
it is not required to unbundle its rates, and it matters not that TPCO's
project will reduce global warming by removing an equivalent of approximately
100,000 tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere. It also matters not that
Ameren would actually realize net savings with distributed generation on its
system. FERC concludes its dismissal order by "strongly encouraging"
TPCO and Ameren to resolve their dispute. Talk about adding insult to injury.
That's about like telling a rape victim to resolve a dispute with a rapist.
The only good thing to come out of this
complaint is that FERC did clarify that merchant generators do not have to
secure transmission service when negotiating what should be an independent
interconnection agreement.
Another point worth considering is the lack
of support from Al Gore and the Clinton Administration, despite direct appeals
to both the President and Vice President for support in overcoming this market
barrier to an environmentally sensitive project that would reduce the emission
of greenhouse gases. It looks as if they talk the talk but don't walk the walk,
or is there some other reason? Could it have anything to with Gore's cronies on
the TVA Board of Directors and in TVA upper management talking to their friends
in the administration and FERC? TVA has a long well established record of
opposition and discriminating against TPCO.
(EL99-81-000
may be viewed in its entirety under a RIMS
search at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm by inserting EL99-81 in docket box and starting
search 07-01-99)
(EL00-12-000 may be viewed in its entirety under RIMS search at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm by inserting EL00-12 in docket box and starting
search 10-01-99)
