The Experts below are selected from a list of 57 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul W Macavoy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The formal work-product of the Federal Power Commissioners
2011Co-Authors: Paul W MacavoyAbstract:* The Federal Government publishes each year a volume on the cases decided at the Federal Power Commission. The cases, rendered in chronological order, deal with matters related to pricing and sales of natural gas and electricity in interstate commerce. They are that part of the formal work or "output" of the five Federal Power Commissioners that is supposed to guide the surveillance activities of FPC staff members and ultimately the economic performance of the electricity and natural gas industries. The last complete set of such cases, Volume 42 of The Federal Power Commission Reports, provides a record of the last few months of the Chairmanship of Lee C. White in 1969 and the beginning months of the new Republican Chairman, John C. Nassikas, in that same year. As far as can be determined, not many friends or critics of the FPC have read this volume of 1041 pages through to the end, possibly because there are few general questions that can be answered by doing so. This volume is reviewed here to answer only two questions: what were the aims or goals of the Commissioners behind the decisions arrived at, and how are these decisions likely to affect the economic performance of the regulated companies? The goals of decision-making by the Commissioners should be made clear in the more than 350 cases in Volume 42. The legislation of Congress in the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, and the FPC cases decided on appeal by the Federal Courts, direct the Commissioners in their decisions and require the use of certain language in their written findings and orders. But it is not at all clear that precedent provides strict goals for the case decisions-the language of the statutes and appeals cases appears to be so general that it could serve as the basis both for decicling a case and for rationalizing a decision once it has been made. The Commissioners might well have their own reasons, and be able to express their will with wide latitude in their own decisions. The cases may show whether they seek to favor consumers, or rather to favor the producers they regulate. The first type of favoritism would tend to drive prices towards the level of
-
the effectiveness of the Federal Power Commission
2011Co-Authors: Paul W MacavoyAbstract:This paper takes the view that the Federal Power Commission dispenses services that have measurable economic benefits and imposes the costs of these services on both the regulated firms and the final consumers of gas and electricity. An attempt is made to define and measure benefits from regulation at the margin, where this margin has been chosen by the Commission via present rulemaking and surveillance activities. The costs of regulatory proceedings are estimated to include expenditures of the Federal Power Commission and other participants in the Commission's proceedings, and to include implied losses of final consumers consequent from regulatory delay. Benefits are compared to costs for each of the Commission's areas of responsibility, and the comparisons pose the question whether there ought to be more or less regulatory activity. The estimates here imply that the FPC is operating at a greater scale than net benefits warrant, particularly as a consequence of its ventures toward regulating natural gas production in the last decade.
Malcolm T Dungan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission over importation of liquefied natural gas
2016Co-Authors: Malcolm T DunganAbstract:The jurisdictional question breaks down into two subsidiary questions, that is to say: 1. Is LNG "natural gas" within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act?1 If the answer to this question is "no," it follows that the Commission has no jurisdiction at all over traffic in LNG. If the answer is "yes," it becomes apparent that importation of LNG is subject to section 3 of the Act; but the question still remains: 2. If so, does the transportation of LNG from a foreign port to a U.S. port, and its sale to a U.S. distributor or pipeline company constitute "the transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission . . ." within the meaning of section 7(c) of the Act?2 It is concluded that the answer to the first question is "yes," and the answer to the second question is "no." The pattern of a project for the importation of LNG may be as
Julia Weiler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Competition in the Natural Gas Industry
2016Co-Authors: Julia WeilerAbstract:Competition has played a very limited role in the interstate market in recent years. From 1954 to 1978, it was virtually eliminated in producer sales because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U.S. 672 (1954). That decision required the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to establish just and reasonable rates for wellhead sales, which it did first by establishing maximum areawide rates and thereafter nationwide rates. See Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 490 U.S. 474 (1968); American Public GasAss'n v. FPC, 567 F.2d 1016 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 907 (1978). Since the rates established were generally lower than the rates that could be charged in the intrastate market, there was little incentive to commit reserves to the interstate market. The result was extensive curtail-
Philip D. Endom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Competition Under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act — 1967
2016Co-Authors: Philip D. EndomAbstract:By the provisions of the Natural Gas Act,1 Congress gave the Federal Power Commission broad Powers to regulate the selling and transmitting of natural gas in interstate commerce. In addition to its considerable Powers to fix rates which may be charged for these jurisdictional activities, the Commission possesses what may be termed a precedent Power to authorize these acts a Power to regulate the entrance of companies into interstate gas business, as well as their future growth. These Powers are found in Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and are exercised by the Commission in either granting or denying applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity. As in any business where there is a potential for growth, the entities composing the natural gas industry compete to make new sales and to serve new markets. This competitive drive is a motivating factor which the Federal Power Commission has in recent years found increasingly necessary to consider in the exercise of its certificating Powers. In 1967 the Commission was faced with a number of situations involving competition between regulated pipeline companies which took the form of requests for FPC authority to provide essentially the same service. Competitive situations were also presented in cases involving interstate pipelines and intrastate or local distribution systems. Finally, a third element of competition has been introduced in recent cases in which the Commission's Staff supported alternative plans to those proposed by the parties. This paper will briefly review the Commission's 1 967 opinions involving competition for certification.
Harvey L Goth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
significant developments in Federal Power Commission pipeline certificate cases in 1968
2016Co-Authors: Harvey L GothAbstract:While what may or may not be significant is always a matter of individual judgment, it does appear that during 1968 the Federal Power Commission, either by Commission decisions or by Examiners' initial decisions, has issued statements on six issues which likely will have a significant impact upon future natural gas pipeline certificate cases. These issues are antitrust, sales competition, Commission Staff participation, Commission jurisdiction over consumer-owned pipelines, condemnation, and temporary certificates.