KGRKJGETMRETU895U-589TY5MIGM5JGB5SDFESFREWTGR54TY
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 :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : /domains/enrgy/feldman/0311flmn.htm
<html>

<head>
<title>November 2003: &quot;Blackout Janus&quot;</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.&nbsp; In particular, he has analyzed 
	and executed a wide variety and substantial value of project financings.&nbsp; He 
	chairs the American Bar Association&#8217;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.&nbsp; 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">&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</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 --></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>
      November 2003</u></b></p>
    <font SIZE="6"><b>
    <p align="center">Blackout Janus</p>
    </b></font>
    <p><strong>by Roger Feldman&nbsp; -- &nbsp; Bingham, Dana L.L.P.<br>
    </strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine 
    Magazine: 2</em>003/11/01)<br>
    </font><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Palatino; color: black">
    &nbsp;</span></p>
    <font FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="1"><i></i></font>
    <font SIZE="3">
    </font>
    <i></i>
    <p>Like the Roman God, Janus, who looked both forward and backward 
    simultaneously to gain a realistic perspective on events, the power industry 
    must assess whether the recent Blackout has or will affect the marketplace 
    value of transmission and transmission-supported generation assets in play 
    today, and whether the long-predicted flood of asset transactions will be 
    released.</p>
    <p>Here is one assessment:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Regarding transmission, as with most crises, once a national need is 
      identified &#8211; in this case grid improvement &#8211; more funds, or incentives to 
      invest more funds, are likely to become available.&nbsp; Whether such 
      funds and incentives stimulate the merchant transmission market and 
      enhance the value of existing assets, will depend both on whether (i) 
      satisfactory reform of the regulatory environment also is stimulated, so 
      that sound investment projections can be made,&nbsp; and (ii) the new 
      incentives made available favor aggressive application of structured 
      finance techniques, or use of more traditional corporate finance to 
      support deals by more traditional players.<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>In theory, existing generation assets value could receive a collateral 
      boost from the Blackout, i.e., perceived public need for supply 
      redundancy. This would not correspond to the actual more granular patterns 
      of valuation. In practice, the value of enhanced non-utility ownership of 
      generation also will depend on regulatory reform. Therefore, the value of 
      existing assets will be enhanced, for some, as the deregulated model gives 
      way to the re-regulated model up to the point where they can no longer 
      compete with rate-based assets.<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>Distributed generation could receive an impetus from the Blackout 
      because of its role as a reliability support mechanism. The extent of 
      public impetus for this development may reflect the extent to which the 
      relationship between enhancement of distribution, through installation of 
      key DG facilities and improved transmission operations, is perceived. 
      Targeted public policy supporting DG project finance may be required. In 
      any case, the value of already interconnected DG is likely to be enhanced.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>How could such a clear-cut signal as the Blackout&nbsp; produce such 
    uncertain and ambiguous results?</p>
    <p>With respect to the impact of the Blackout itself, there is no lack of 
    consensus as to necessary technical fixes. To one degree or another, 
    virtually all observers have identified the existence of:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>a capital investment deficiency in both transmission and distribution 
      (estimated at $30-100 billion); <br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>an inadequate infrastructure system, incapable of carrying the amount 
      of power that it is called on to bear, particularly under current usage 
      patterns;<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>reliance on outdated technology that is not responsive to the 
      requirements imposed by deregulation; and<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>absence of mandatory system reliability standards.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>General issues, such as whether a unified national transmission grid is 
    the optimal configuration for power transportation and whether as much 
    transmission capacity should be developed as generators consider optimal 
    regardless of cost, remain but they are not now impeding needed progress.</p>
    <p>However, the basic problem is that, notwithstanding the Blackout, no 
    definitive reform of grid management and future systems requirements 
    identification has emerged. The occurrence of the Blackout cannot be counted 
    on to revise the regulatory environment. Of course, underlying this veneer 
    of political and policy issues are competing corporate economic interests.
    </p>
    <p>The future value of many assets depends on the determination whether the 
    United States technically can and should continue a hybrid provision of 
    system of service by the power industry, part by integrated firms that 
    produce and transmit power and partially by firms (or organizations) 
    specializing in one of these activities, which rely upon innovative federal 
    (or regional) governance to protect the competitive economics of their 
    business strategies.</p>
    <p>The Blackout consequently has been characterized as justifying two polar 
    opposite sets of policy con-clusions: </p>
    <ul>
      <li>One holds that deregulation is a flawed approach to the power 
      industry, which has resulted not only in:</li>
    </ul>
    <blockquote>
      <blockquote>
        <p>- power flows as a result of open access in ways and directions that 
        cannot be accommodated by the existing grid; but also in </p>
        <p>- &quot;freeloading&quot; on the use of the existing (and potentially enhanced) 
        wires by non-regulated wholesale producers and beneficiaries of 
        transmission improvement.</p>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <p>This is the argument behind support for measures that would defer any 
    FERC implementation of FERC&#8217;s Standard Market Design as a condition of 
    making Congressional progress on other issues related to prevention of 
    future blackouts. </p>
    <ul>
      <li>The other reminds us that traditional regulation is a flawed approach 
      to the modern power industry that:</li>
    </ul>
    <blockquote>
      <blockquote>
        <p>- balkanizes the oversight of operations and, by deferring 
        excessively to locally regulated control areas, leads to blackouts; </p>
        <p>- stifles healthy open access competition via such as that which 
        already has been unleashed in the generation sector and overturned the 
        impact of developments; and </p>
        <p>- will not furnish the cost-of-service incentives necessary for 
        transmission enhancement. </p>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <p>The Blackout debate is, of course, actually an extension of a &quot;seven-year 
    war&quot; regarding the introduction by FERC of competitive markets to replace 
    the existing regulated monopoly model. An ancillary thrust of its Standard 
    Market Design proposal (even as scaled back to make it more politically 
    acceptable) was, among other matters, to assure the framework for the 
    economics of both generation and transmission in a deregulated environment a 
    commercially viable tool on an ongoing basis. Currently, of course, the 
    somewhat perilous future of this approach is before Congress.</p>
    <p>In sum, because the Blackout crisis and ensuing debate was one not only 
    of management of the power transportation system but of the future of 
    deregulation, its future impacts (for good or ill) will fall both on the 
    value of generation and transmission.&nbsp; It was through modification of 
    access to the transportation system that competitive generation markets were 
    created. The resolution of the transportation crisis, therefore, has the 
    potential to protect existing leverageable cash flow streams &#8211; thereby 
    enhancing or modifying the&nbsp; value of many assets &#8211; or simply to 
    reestablish a model in which corporate finance of returns increased by 
    regulators locks in traditional utility structure and affects valuation 
    accordingly.</p>
    <p>Accordingly, here is a Janus-like, reasonable hypothetical construct of 
    how events may respond to the Blackout. Its implications can be modified 
    over time, if prognostications prove inaccurate:</p>
    <p>(1) The operation of the grid will be improved introduction of needed 
    control techniques, such as improved overall mandatory reliability 
    management, national operating standards and Federal eminent domain for 
    transmission lines. </p>
    <p>(2) A limited form of regional grid management, with some voluntary 
    elements and considerable regional variation, will be instituted. </p>
    <p>(3) There will be declining regulatory support for IPPs labeled as 
    transmission system troublemakers, and utilities will continue to move 
    assets into rate-based or self-service facilities; merchants will continue 
    to risk manage hedged investments for selected players.</p>
    <p>(4) Recognition of the difficulty and associated probable time delay of 
    developing any new transmission, notwithstanding piecemeal reform, 
    particularly in a regulatory environment where siting issues continue and 
    there are regulatory ambiguities in development of markets, will contribute 
    to some increased focus on use of distributed generation as reliability 
    backstop and also as a technique for reducing transmission system strain 
    through distribution system improvement.</p>
    <p>Accordingly, we are increasing likely to see hybrid regulated/nonregulated 
    markets, particularly in generation, and competition between regulated and 
    unregulated assets. Key trends during the three- to five-year period while 
    the state/FERC regulated-unregulated environment continues in both 
    transmission and generation are: </p>
    <ul>
      <li>Nonregulated generation will need to compete with utility generation, 
      both for utility native load and on-the-spot and short-term capacity 
      markets.<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>Full, fixed-cost recovery by regulated units from native load will 
      enable utility generation&nbsp; to compete at purely marginal cost in 
      competitive markets.<br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>If this is the case, a higher premium to be required on non-regulated 
      investments; regulatory commissions may then allow higher achievable 
      returns on equity for regulated utilities. </li>
    </ul>
    <p>Which leads to two non-intuitive conclusions:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Existing valuation of asset valuations may (gasp) be no more accurate 
      than prior models, due to the effect of regulation. <br>
&nbsp;</li>
      <li>Opportunities created by differing perceptions of buyers and sellers 
      of how changing regulation will affect them may be created, which could 
      serve to bridge some of the current market pricing gaps and attract new 
      buyers of regulated assets and companies into the market.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>A result that would certainly please Janus. </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.&nbsp; In particular, he has analyzed and executed a wide variety and 
	substantial value of project financings.&nbsp; He chairs the American Bar 
	Association&#8217;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.&nbsp; 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>

Anon7 - 2021