|
On January 1, 2002, Texas became the most recent
state to step into the contentious arena of electricity
deregulation.
Once seen as inevitable, the nationwide movement toward deregulation
has become mired in controversy due largely to the highly
publicized collapse of California's flawed deregulation
system.
Proponents of deregulation contend that it will bring consumers
lower prices and reduce the costs of doing business. Consumer
watchdog groups argue that "dereg" will have the
opposite effect, portraying it as a potential disaster for
families and small companies. Both camps agree on one thing,
however: the results of Texas' experiment will
be crucial in determining whether deregulation really is the
wave of the future.
Utility basics
Until recently, electric utilities throughout the United States
operated as regulated monopolies, with exclusive territories
and guaranteed returns based on rates set by state regulators.
Typically, utilities controlled all three portions of the
process needed to bring electricity to the home: generation,
transmission and final distribution to end-users. Transmission
and distribution are examples of what some call "natural"
monopolies. Even if allowed to do so, no one could economically
build competing, state-spanning networks of power lines, for
instance.
Deregulation, then, aims to bring retail competition to power
generation, allowing consumers to pick their electrical suppliers
based on price and other concerns, such as the sources of
power and the amount of pollution involved.
Dereg, Texas-style
Texas began moving toward deregulation in 1995, when the state
opened its wholesale power market to competition. The Legislature
expanded the deregulatory process further in 1999 with Senate
Bill 7, legislation that deregulates retail electricity markets
for customers served by private, investor-owned utilities.
Texas' 77 electric cooperatives and 73 city-owned utilities
will not be a part of the deregulated retail market unless
they opt to join.
S.B. 7 calls for private utilities competing in Texas to
"unbundle" into power generating companies, transmission
and distribution entities, and new companies called retail
electric providers (REPs), which will buy power from generating
facilities and sell it to end users.
Texas' Public Utility Commission (PUC) will continue to regulate
transmission and distribution and will license REPs. The retail
market will be overseen by the Electric Reliability Council
of Texas (ERCOT), a private, nonprofit organization that manages
the energy grid that handles 85 percent of the state's power.
Certain areas of the state, including El Paso and portions
of East Texas and the Panhandle, do not fall under ERCOT's
authority and will not participate in deregulation.
Texas followed the lead of other states by building in guaranteed
customer savings. Beginning in January 2002, existing investor-owned
utilities must offer residences and small commercial customers
rates representing a savings of at least 6 percent over their
January 1999 price. This "price to beat" will remain
in effect until January 2007. It is designed to benefit customers
who choose not to switch providers and to represent a built-in
challenge to REPs wishing to lure customers away from their
traditional utilities.
Due to this benchmark price, as well as lower natural gas
costs for generators, many Texans are guaranteed to see lower
utility bills over the next year. A 2001 report by the Energy
Institute at the University of Houston's C.T. Bauer College
of Business estimated that deregulation will save Texas households
an average of $78 each in 2002. And Representative Steven
Wolens, a sponsor of S.B. 7, says that the benefits should
extend beyond savings.
"As the competitive market matures in the next few years,
we should see the development of new technologies and new
services, similar to the explosion of retail communications
products and services following the deregulation of phone
service," Wolens says.
California screamin'
Twenty-four states including Texas have adopted some form
of electricity deregulation, although many have not completed
the process. Six of those states--Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Oregon and West Virginia--have delayed its implementation,
while California and Nevada have suspended the process.
This epidemic of cold feet is due in large part to California's
disastrous experience with deregulation in 2000 and 2001.
California's experiment began well, reducing average rates
by about 10 percent. In 2000, however, the process went off
the rails in a welter of power outages, skyrocketing wholesale
and retail prices, bankruptcies and allegations of price-gouging.
Some electricity rates rose nearly a hundredfold.
The crisis has been described as a "perfect storm,"
a combination of events that led to market havoc. California's
economy was still flourishing in the high-tech boom, and power
generators were struggling to keep up with a growing population.
An unusually hot summer switched on air conditioners throughout
the West Coast just as a prolonged drought led to a shortage
of hydroelectric power.
Tight federal emissions standards have made it difficult
for California to add power generating capacity, forcing it
to depend heavily on energy purchases from out
of state, while an inadequate transmission infrastructure
impedes the transfer of power among the state's regions.
Still other aspects of the crisis, however, seem attributable
to the way in which California approached deregulation. California
froze the retail rates charged by incumbent utilities on the
assumption that competition would lower prices. The freeze
prevented power companies from passing on sharply higher fuel
costs, contributing to the bankruptcy of one utility and driving
another to the brink before the state authorized price increases.
Moreover, California required utilities to buy and sell power
through a volatile short-term market, preventing utilities
from locking in rates with suppliers.
At present, California's electricity rates are higher than
before deregulation began.
Texas: not California
Proponents say, however, that Texas' deregulation program
has advantages that should prevent any repetition of the California
crisis. For one thing, Texas imports less than 1 percent of
its power from out of state, compared with 25 percent for
California.
"California also relies on water and wind, two intermittent
resources, for more than 20 percent of its generation needs,"
says Wolens.
Texas, by contrast, draws its power from a variety of sources,
leaving it much less vulnerable to uncontrollable factors
such as the Pacific Northwest drought.
According to Kathleen Magruder, vice-president of Government
Affairs for The New Power Company, an REP already serving
more than 80,000 Texas customers.
"Texas is blessed in that it sits on top of a lot of
natural gas, the preferred fuel for generating electricity,"
Magruder says.
And unlike California, Texas has expanded its power generating
capacity rapidly. According to the PUC, 45 power plants have
been built in Texas since 1995. Another 17 are under construction
and 32 are in the planning stages.
"A lot of people predicted exactly what happened in
California," Magruder says. "They built a fundamentally
flawed model that was doomed from the beginning."
Texas' law does not include the short-term market for energy
that proved so hazardous in California. Texas' REPs are free
to strike stable, long-term agreements with energy generators.
And Texas has avoided another pitfall by allowing incumbents
to raise the "price to beat" as often as twice a
year if fuel prices rise, which should help guarantee their
solvency.
Of course, this hardly means that Texas' plan has
been without controversy. Some prospective providers have
complained that Texas has set its price to beat too
low to cultivate a competitive market, a claim consumer groups
reject.
Customer protections
Texas is attempting to protect consumers as they enter the
sometimes-confusing world of deregulation. To ensure that
Texas' energy supplies remain abundant, the PUC is
developing rules that would require power companies to buy
extra reserves if the state's excess power capacity drops
below a certain level.
Customers may cancel any contract within three days without
penalty and can also leave a contract if the provider changes
its terms. State law also contains provisions to prevent people
from being switched from one REP to another without their
knowledge.
Power shopping Beginning in January 2002, many Texans were
able to purchase electricity from competing
providers. It's an opportunity to save money--if you're a
careful shopper. Here are some points to remember: You may
switch providers at any time, so don't feel pressured to make
a decision.
Review your old utility bills or contact your current provider
to obtain a year's worth of your usage data. This should give
you a good idea of what your own summer and winter consumption
patterns are like--an important thing to know, since some
providers' rates will vary depending on the amount of electricity
you use.
Always read providers' electricity facts labels, which will
provide you with vital comparative data on factors such as
average prices and contract terms. If you don't have a copy
of a company's label, you can find comparative information
for providers in your area on the Public Utility Commission's
(PUC's) Texas Electric Choice Web site www.powertochoose.org.
Compare prospective providers' rates with your current provider's
"price to beat." Make sure that any offers you receive
include all charges, including taxes, generation and delivery
charges and any service fees.
Study prospective providers' contract terms. Be sure you're
aware of items such as cancellation fees. Check providers'
track records. The PUC can tell you about any complaints that
have been lodged against a company in Texas. If they are new
to the Texas market, find out where they have been active
in the past and check on their reputations in those states.
Bruce Wright
Fiscal Notes
|