|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/enrgy/feldman/ |
Upload File : |
<html>
<head>
<title>May 2001: Dumbing Us Down On PUHCA Repeal</title>
</head>
<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a>
<img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" width="229" height="100"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
<tr>
<td width="25%" valign="top" align="center">
<!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="wv_sidebar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%" id="table1">
<tr>
<td width="25%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0_I1">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
<area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map>
<img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0_I1" width="110" height="350"><p>
<a href="../searchpma.htm">
<img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Arial"><strong><small>About The Author:<br>
<br>
</small></strong><span lang="X-NONE" style="color: black"><font size="2">
ROGER FELDMAN, Co-Chair of Andrews Kurth LLP Climate Change and Carbon
Markets Group has practiced law related to the finance of environmental and
energy projects and companies for 40 years. In particular, he has analyzed
and executed a wide variety and substantial value of project financings. He
chairs the American Bar Association’s Committee on Carbon Trading and
Finance, serves on the Board of the American Council for Renewable Energy,
and has been a senior official in the Federal Energy Administration. He is
a graduate of Brown University, Yale Law School and Harvard Business School.</font></span></font></p>
<p class="BodyText05DS" align="left" style="text-align:left"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="19883" endspan --><p> </td>
<td width="75%" valign="top">
<img src="../images/feldman.gif" alt="Washington Viewpoint by Roger Feldman" border="0" width="375" height="75"><p><b><u><br>
May 2001</u><br>
</b></p>
<p><font size="6"><b>Dumbing Us Down On PUHCA Repeal</b></font></p>
<p><strong>by Roger Feldman -- Bingham, Dana L.L.P.<br>
</strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
200</em>1/10/06)<br>
</font></p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">As a nation, we seem to have been dumbed down to the
"pseudo causal" sound bite. Instead of judging from the facts, we let
ourselves be led by superficial formulations of how the facts might relate
– whether they do or not. We are all too willing to suspend disbelief. Our
collective brain no longer relates observations of what has happened in
the past to the reasonableness of what projected results of policy actions
will be in the future. Then we get angry at the end results. My Websters’
defines this as "dumbing down." This trend has spread to the energy policy
dialogue (now known as the great Energy Crisis solution forum).</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In the wider policy arena, the best example of the
dumbing down of public discourse is the Administration’s tax cut
rationalization. First, the cuts were an entitlement due us for the boom
times we created: Government didn’t need and was not entitled to the money.
Then the cuts became anti-recession medicine that the nation desperately
needed. The fact that states that had set the tax cut pattern early –
curiously Texas and Florida – now find themselves strapped for minimal
program funding requirements is not a fact to conjure with. Not to worry, it
won’t work out that way in Washington: because <u>here</u> we agree to tax
cuts before we agree to budgets, so we never know what we gave up in the
first place.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">In energy, the most ironic example of policy discourse
dumb down is the pell mell rush to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company
Act (PUHCA). Originally, the rationale was that PUHCA wasn’t necessary. The
operation of deregulation would replace antique anti-consolidation rules
with the invisible band. Deregulation, after all, meant competition (which
also meant lower prices). Repealing PUHCA enhanced competition, case closed.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">But then California happened. It turns out that
deregulation <u>can</u> lead to consolidation of market power in the hands
of a small number of asset owning sellers (and higher prices). Not to worry.
It turns out PUHCA repeal really was necessary so that investors will make
the investments required to provide the infrastructure (like transmission)
to offset the effects of non-competitive deregulation. How do we know?
Warren Buffett has promised he will buy more assets if there is no PUHCA
limitation. Sounds good. After all, Ted Turner’s gift balanced our foreign
policy’s inability to stay in the United Nations. Senator Gramm has linked
PUHCA repeal now to California contagion avoidance.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">But is lack of incentive for investment what actually
caused the California crisis? Until only yesterday, that was the received
wisdom. That’s why FERC couldn’t even cap wholesale "market based" rates
when they were arguably not "just and reasonable." Doing so would deter
investment by reducing returns. But now caps (or "cucumbers" as the Chairman
prefers to call them) seem to be OK, according to FERC, because of newfound
recognition that competition won’t work well until there is more investment.
Which, it turns out, can in fact occur if there is even some anticipation of
deregulation gauged to how markets are operating. Maybe Warren Buffett will
choose not to; other investors will.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Also, repeal proponents have emphasized, there is no need
to worry about how PUHCA repeal will affect how deregulated markets operate
because PUHCA is old: even if human nature has not changed since 1935, the
quality of regulation has improved. Any consolidation resulting from repeal
will be offset by <u>better</u> competition due to deregulation. Only one
problem with this theory: the facts. The power industry is consolidating
through mergers – rapidly. In fact, more holding companies exist now – 50%
more – than before deregulation. Much larger swathes of territory are
holding company held. And the quality of regulation of market competition is
in question.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Not to focus on this issue say the proponents of repeal.
The nation needs these consolidated juggernauts to fix the decrepit
transmission system by making more investment. One problem: transmission
still remains regulated at a low return after PUHCA repeal . That can be
fixed of course: deregulate transmissions and let a few large holding
company owners run for-profit transcos that reward them for their
transmission investment risk-"taking" – unleash the hobbled greatness of AEP,
Merant and the other pitiful giants (including the profitable owners of the
near-bankrupt California operating utilities). Will that be anticompetitive:
well, that’s not the problem.</p>
<p>Before agreeing with this bland dismissal, read the fine print of S. 206,
the statutory blueprint for standalone PUHCA repeal without deregulation
reform. The Commission (that’s SuperFERC, the savior of California) will
remain empowered to review utility books and records to assure there are no
market abuses. And states’ rights to protect consumers are preserved –
subject, that is, to the unblockable FERC-approved, market-based wholesale
rates that are rapidly supplanting the waning power sales contracts imposed
by state </p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">commissions for a period of years as a part of state
deregulation settlements.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">And the statute adds a few proposed, modest caveats. No
unwarranted disclosure to the public "of any trade secrets or sensitive
commercial information" (could this mean pricing and trading strategy of the
type FERC found, initially at least, was wholly legitimate in California).
FERC’s exemption authority from all this open books and records nonsense is
to be selectively applied to persons who solely own exempt wholesale
generators. (Could that be every utility unregulated, subsidiary owning
only, market rate based merchant plants throughout the country?) But then
again, the repeal proponents tell us, that’s one of the benefits of PUHCA
repeal: the opportunity for national branding. That’s why gasoline prices
fluctuate so wildly as a result of intense competition across the country.
(Not...) No wonder David Sokol chides the power industry for having lost its
vision – by which he means specifically that it has been content to earn the
rates of return that were established in the 1960s. He should know; his
partner in mid-America, Warren Buffett, wants to make more investments.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Is there a rational balance between free market rhetoric
and real market imperfections in the PUHCA repeal debate? PUHCA, as a
securities fraud protection and a shield against self-dealing, affiliate
transactions, may have been outmoded by the increased sophistication of
regulation. That was the argument of the last two decades. But <u>now</u> we
have deregulation. Deregulation will evoke investment with or without PUHCA.
It won’t solve the need for transmission investment – better regulatory
policy will. It can’t transform FERC, the open market-hearted mastiff, into
Deputy Dawg, the market abuse hunter (it’s just not in the statutory genes).
And, it won’t improve the looming market power problems which consolidation
poses for the healthy operation of competitive markets. All this is not to
say PUHCA should not be repealed; but it is to say there was a good reason
PUHCA repeal was proposed in a larger deregulation context, one which the
post-repeal studies now proposed in the Senate will not rectify. Events have
only served to prove the wisdom of this view. Does anyone seriously believe
PUHCA repeal is what is needed to save California from itself or the nation
from the newly discovered "energy Crisis"? Just as surely as that eight
months of newly drilled Arctic oil at high marginal cost will be the
solution to increased foreign dependence.</p>
<p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Energy is politics. And politics is sound bites. Sound
bites are generalizations. All this must be accepted; it is what it is. But
it helps us all if the arguments for energy policy relate to common sense
and the facts.</p>
<p>No more dumbing down to effect PUHCA repeal.</p>
<!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="wv_bottom.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->
<hr color="#FFFF00">
<p class="MsoBodyText" align="left" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:left"><font face="Arial" size="2">
<span lang="X-NONE" style="color: black">ROGER FELDMAN, Co-Chair of Andrews
Kurth LLP Climate Change and Carbon Markets Group has practiced law related
to the finance of environmental and energy projects and companies for 40
years. In particular, he has analyzed and executed a wide variety and
substantial value of project financings. He chairs the American Bar
Association’s Committee on Carbon Trading and Finance, serves on the Board
of the American Council for Renewable Energy, and has been a senior official
in the Federal Energy Administration. He is a graduate of Brown University,
Yale Law School and Harvard Business School.</span></font></p>
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="63395" endspan --></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
<p align="center"><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>