PURPA ‘Worse than Useless’

✍ Scribed by Arthur W Adelberg

• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Year: 1997
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 273 KB
• Volume: 10
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1040-6190
• DOI: 10.1016/s1040-6190(97)80536-2

✦ Synopsis

quiremtnts were intended to promote technologies that could not thrive in a monopoly, rate-of-return environment." Tlius, Kanner says, changing PURPA can only be justified by also changing the regulated monopoly status of utilities. As Chairman of the PURPA Reform Group (PRG), I have heard many similar ,ariations on this theme. PURPA supporters typically postulate that the law fills some essential role. It is, they say, providing beneficial competiti\re forces. Or it is sening as a major shield for consumers against ra\V utility monopoly polver. Or, as Kanner claims, it "was intended to promote technologies that could not thrive" in the old monopoly world. Having "pro\Jed" that I'URPA is essential, its supporters then "reason" that it must be retained until perfect retail competition occurs, some time in the 21st Century. In fact, I'URPA is now useless. Illdeed, it is worse than useless. It is a major barrier to the very competition that Kanner professes to support. It risks forcing utilities to enter into more long term power contract obligations, and to incur more stranded costs, at the very time policymakers are urging (or requiring) utilities to exit the energy supply business and mitigate those costs. Given its past record of supporting primarily fossil fuel technologies at excessive costs, the PURPA model is hardly worth preserving to ad\vance renewable technologies.