6.6. ERMUSR 01-11-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

their TOs can be o~°ercome. f Dint o~~~ncrship would also better promote the policy goal of adequate transmission infrastructure to support long- term power supplies needed Co assure adequate and reasonable priced electric sere-ice to all consumers, regardless of what type oCk~ad-serving utility supplies chem. Joint generation ownership also helps limit market powcr.21 If, For example, five different owners hold an interest in a major generating facility and have transmission rights terminating at a commercially significant market hub, the market poi,°er of each party at chat hub is reduced. A party ~~~ishing to reserve. long-term transmission capacity then has the option of dealing with five counterparties, rather than being req~,~ired [o live tcith ~1~hatever 1'TFLs it can obtain from an KTO. If coupled ~~-ith a regional Or1SlS in ~~~~hich all the interest holders participate (such as the wes7"IYans.net OASIti), and a regional Cransmission planning regime, such a decentralized svsten~ could provide many of the benefits of RTOs, at much less cost. Another advantage of ajoint-ownership model compared to the RTO rnodcl is that it preserves the link between the ol~>ligation to serve and the responsibility to invest.. ~~1~hen a retail service provider has die responsibilit~~ for securing sufficient resources to serve its load, it also takes on the responsibility for assuring that the resot_u~ces can be delivered. Fulfilling this responsibility could involve participation in a transmission system expansion or entering into a transmission contract .with a term that matches the resource commitment. There arc many examples in RTC) and non-RTO regions of joint transmission expansion efforts and groups established to jointly own transmission facilities nn behalf of several smaller retail ser~~ce providers. `'2 21 ryI'P~~ notes that puI>]ic power joint generation projects in the ~ti'est have a long history of success, e.g., the Intermountain Power Project. Public poker systems are joint owners of over 20,000 '~1~ti' of coal, h}'dro-electric, nuclear and gas-fired poker capacity throughout the United States. Our co-owners include over 40 different investor-o"ned utilities, cooperatives, and independent poker producers, as well as nurrierous other public power systems. Specific examples include the Palo Verde (A'7,), IVlillstone 2 (CT), and Crystal River 3 (FL) nude°ar plants, the Rodemacher 2 (l.A) and Trimble County 1 (Ky~ coal plants, and the: i~4cClain (Oh) and South Fond du Lac (\1%1) gas-Tired plants. 22 Joint o~cnership of specific transmission lines by public power utilities and other parties is widespread in the weste°rn United States. In addition, public 22 Restructuring at the Crossroads: FERC Electric Policy Reconsidered