Transmission Shifts

T

H

E

Transmission Shifts TVA Ready to Team With MISO, Southern, Entergy on Uniform Grid

T

he Tennessee Valley Authority has signed memorandums of understanding with the Midwest Independent System Operator, Southern Co., and Entergy to work on developing uniform and seamless transmission service across a major portion of the eastern U.S. Together, the four transmission operators control some 150,000 miles of transmission lines serving more than 1 million square miles. ``Seamless transmission service is essential to functioning wholesale power markets,'' said MISO CEO Jim Torgerson. The regional coordination agreements are designed to provide a simpli®ed rate structure to minimize panaking across the region; a coordinated system for transmission service reservation; common congestion management; coordinated grid 2

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

expansion; common protocols for determining available transmission capacity; common reliability protocols; common methods for connecting generators to the grid. TVA is also working with East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Associated Electric Cooperative, and Big Rivers Electric Corp. on a public power regional grid.

PJM, MISO Like FERC's Standard Design Plan

T

he two major regional transmission organizationsÐthe PJM Interconnection and the Midwest Independent System OperatorÐsaid that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's working paper on standardized market design (SMD) is right on the money. The two organizations, trying to merge their operations into a giant regional transmission operator, said FERC's initiative ``will bring benefits to end users and market participants alike by creating efficient, price respon-

1040-6190/02/$ ± see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

O

C

U

S

sive, deep, and liquid energy markets regardless of the scope of transmission control areas, dramatically reducing seams issues.'' Responding to FERC's March paper (available at http:// www.electricity-online.com/ ted/2002/02mar19.html), the two transmission system operators agreed that the focus of an SMD should be ``(1) securityconstrained, bid-based dispatch, (2) locational marginal pricing, (3) ®nancial transmission rights (FTRs), including point-to-point and ®nancial ¯owgates, (4) realtime and day-ahead energy markets, and (5) voluntary market participation supporting self-scheduling, bilateral transactions, and ®nancial hedging.'' The ideas of the FERC staff, PJM and the MISO noted, are similar to what they have been hammering out for their joint operations. But the two transmission organizations have some re®nements they would like to see in the FERC plan. These include ``(1) FTR options products (including The Electricity Journal

T

H

E

point-to-point and ®nancial ¯owgates), (2) longer-term auction mechanisms to create more liquid markets for FTRs, and (3) mechanisms to provide incentives for demand response.'' he fundamental agreement between the two transmission organizations and the FERC staff is the focus on financial, not physical, transmission rights. ``Physical rights would severely limit security-constrained economic dispatch,'' said PJM and the MISO, ``because it would require the regional transmission organization to track ownership of megawatts as it redispatches the system. This would reduce redispatch options that are available and would therefore reduce the efficiency of the dispatch. Financial rights provide customers the ability to hedge congestion costs, and are fully tradable. Financial transmission rights have no adverse impact on the economic dispatch because the commercial contracts are settled outside of the physical dispatch.'' Support from a third ISO, The New York Independent System Operator, was more limited. The NYISO said that ``consistent transmission rules across control areas will protect customers and increase the bene®ts realized through competition.'' CEO William J. Museler said, ``Put in automotive terms, the FERC has provided the blueprint for a superior chassis, body, and engine and now it's a matter of selecting the appropriate options to complete the design.''

T

June 2002

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

But the Empire State grid manager warned in a news release that FERC's key challenge will be to ``balance the need for standardization to achieve a seamless transmission grid with the need to permit regional differences and market innovations to address local issues. What may appear to be a `seam' problem or market design ¯aw from one side

of an interface may be a valid market design innovation addressing physical limitations on the other side of the seam.'' The NYISO said it is concerned with the FERC paper's proposal that ``generation sources that are not intermittent or subject to environmental restrictions should be allowed to elect to participate as though they were intermittent or energy limited resources.'' This, said the ISO, would give generators the opportunity to physically withhold power from the market, pushing up prices. Also weighing in on the FERC paper were a group of seven generation and transmission cooperatives, styling themselves ``transmission dependent

O

C

U

S

utilities (TDUs).'' The best way to protect electric transmission customers against vertically integrated investor-owned utilities (IOUs), they said, is a single tariff for all bundled retail loads, including those of the IOUs. The TDUs said FERC could substantially overcome ``undue discrimination in the provision of transmission service by vertically integrated IOU transmission owners if it required them to take ®rm transmission service for their own retail loads using [a regional transmission organization's open access transmission tariff's] terms, conditions, and rates. Use of a single tariff would also bring a greater measure of fairness to the current competition between vertically integrated IOU transmission providers and their wholesale transmission customers for new loads locating in their regions.'' The TDU ®ling noted several examples of undue discrimination in transmission pricing by IOUs. One is energy imbalances. Transmission owners that operate control areas don't face imbalance charges, notes the ®ling, ``because they use inadvertent energy accounts with their neighbor system to resolve any mismatches between their load and generation. Transmission customers, on the other hand, must purchase energy imbalance service.'' Another case is scheduling. Transmission owners don't face the same 20minutes-before-the-hour requirements of other participants in the market.

1040-6190/02/$±see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

3

T

H

E

But it's not just a single price that should make up a transmission tariff. ``All of the other terms and conditions of the tariff must apply to all loadsÐbundled or unbundledÐfor true comparability to be afforded to all users of the grid,'' argue the TDUs. ``These terms and conditions would include designation of network loads and resources, interconnection requirements for new loads and resources, and ancillary service requirements, among others.'' State utility commissions, the ®ling notes, will oppose moving to a single tariff for all bundled retail loads, ``in large part based on jurisdictional grounds.'' But, say the TDUs, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have drawn the jurisdictional line squarely in FERC's favor in New York v. FERC (see http://www.electricity-online.com/ted/2002/ 02mar06.html).

Restructuring Notebook S&P Downgrades Diminished, but Risks Remain High

W

hile the trend in credit quality for the U.S. utility industry remains negative, says Standard & Poor's, the number of actual ratings actions diminished somewhat in the first quarter of 2002. S&P revised ratings of 19 companies in the quarter (16 downgrades and three bumps upward). That compares to 44 downgrades and

4

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

seven upgrades in the final quarter of 2001, and 28 ratings actions in the first quarter of 2001 (20 down, 8 up). Industry trends for the quarter included weakening ®nancial pro®les, increased business risk in ``investments outside the traditional regulated utility businesses,'' stock repurchases, and ``faltering regulatory support.''

S&P said that over 12 months, the number of companies rated A and above signi®cantly declined while the number of ®rms at BBB or below has risen substantially.

The Nuclear Family FPL's Price on Seabrook Nuke Sets New High

I

n the highest-priced nuclear power plant sale to date, FPL Group of Juno Beach, FL, has won an auction to buy 88.2 percent of the 1,160 MW Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire, some 40 miles north of Boston, for $836.6 million. FPL is buying the plant, in a process launched in late

1040-6190/02/$ ± see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

O

C

U

S

2001 by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, where the plant is located, with cooperation from the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, from the licenseeÐ Northeast UtilitiesÐand minority owners, including the United Illuminated Co., BayCorp Holdings, National Grid Group plc, Nstar, and the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative. The remaining interestsÐheld by municipal utilities Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., Taunton Municipal Lighting, and Hudson Light & Power DepartmentÐwill not be sold. FPL says it wants to close the deal by the end of this year and will ®nance it with equity and debt. The company says it expects to see the plant put money in earnings per share in 2003 and ¯ow some 10±12 cents per share to earnings each year over the next three years, with pro®ts accelerating after that. The deal includes FPL paying $749.1 million for the plant, including a decommissioning fund of what should be about $233 million at closing; $61.9 million in nuclear fuel; and $25.6 million in components for the canceled second unit of the Westinghouse four-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR). FPL says it has no plans to try to complete the second unit. Lew Hay, FPL's CEO, said, ``This acquisition supports our strategy to become a major energy provider in the Northeast region.'' The company has 1,400 MW of hydro and fossil The Electricity Journal

T

H

E

generation in the region, with a new 535 MW gas-®red plant coming on line this summer. Seabrook will become part of FPL Energy, the company's independent power unit. It will represent more than one-third of FPL's generation in the Northeast and will increase the subsidiary's 5,063 MW of capacity nationwide by more than one®fth. ``Seabrook is a high-quality and safely operated plant,'' said Hay. ``We are con®dent that our combined team will be able to operate it at levels of safety and operational performance comparable to our other nuclear reactors.'' FPL also owns and operates the Turkey Point nuclear plants at St. Lucie, both PWRs, both in Florida.

Exelon Exec's Exit May Doom Pebble Bed Nukes Exelon Corp., the primary force behind the new pebble bed nuclear reactor technology, has dropped out of the consortium pushing the technology, according to Norton Haberman of the U.S. Department of Energy. Exelon Vice President Betsy Moler con®rmed the decision in a Reuters report. Industry insiders suggested that the move was related to the retirement of co-CEO Corbin McNeill, a nuclear power veteran and former head of PECO Energy who was given a share of the top company job when the Philadelphia utility merged with Commonwealth Edison of Chicago. June 2002

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

ComEd's John Rowe, whose utility included a large nuclear ¯eet, was not viewed as being as enthusiastic about nuclear power as McNeill. Exelon has a 12.5 percent share in the pebble bed project, designed to produce a smaller, passively safe reactor suited to merchant operations. Other major participants include Eskom, the

South African state-owned utility, and BNFL, the British nuclear fuel company. The consortium had planned a $300 million demo in South Africa next year, but the fate of that effort is now uncertain. ``It's a goner,'' said one nuclear industry veteran. ``Corbin was the cheerleader for this technology, and without him, it can't go forward.''

Reading the Regions Consultant Warns of Uneven Effect of Cancellations

T

he U.S. reserve margin of electric power will peak

O

C

U

S

starting in 2004 at a hefty 37 percent, says a new report from the Arlington, VA, consulting firm Energy Ventures Analysis, as supply outstrips demand nationwide. But regionally, a spottier record is likely. ``The boom of new power projects grew from just a few regions and spread unevenly throughout the country,'' said EVA's A. Michael Schaal. ``A few regions only recently attracted the interest of developersÐjust before the current crunch in new power plant ®nancing,'' added Schaal. ``Those regions have a high proportion of capacity that is vulnerable to cancellation or delays.'' The report, U.S. Reserve Margins, April 2002, tracks the year-by-year expected excess capacity over demand on a regional basis. In another report, Tracking the Boom of New Power Plants in the U.S., EVA says that at the end of the ®rst quarter of 2002, a total of 263,000 MW of new gas-®red capacity was under construction or active development in the U.S. and 11,000 MW of new capacity began operating during the quarter. Over the 1998±2007 time frame, 348,000 MW of capacity has started up or is under development, a 6 percent decrease over the last quarter of 2001. EVA's plant-by-plant assessment suggests that further cancellations or delays will take place during the year, so that only 291,000 MW of planned capacity will actually get built.

1040-6190/02/$±see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

5

T

H

E

Healthy Reserves, Depressed Prices Seen for WSCC

F

or a change, California figures to be boring this summer. Henwood Energy Services' latest forecast of the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) power market concludes that ``the severe supply shortages of 2000±2001 are history and the region has now returned to adequate reserve margins driven by the competitive market forces that responded to the shortage of energy and capacity.'' The Sacramento, CA, consulting firm notes, ``Wholesale electricity prices have returned to historical low levels, prompting many developers to cancel, defer, or postpone projects previously announced and/or under construction. Additionally, more capacity is now under construction than was originally projected despite major cancellations and a worsening liquidity crisis affecting developers.'' According to Mark Henwood, CEO of the eponymous ®rm, ``Against this background of healthy reserve margins and depressed prices in the WSCC, there are still opportunities for developers who can operate below average costs.'' He said current conditions ``offer opportunities for companies with relatively strong balance sheets to optimize their portfolios, hedge their exposure to risks, and strengthen their position vis-aÁ-vis their weaker rivals for the next boom cycle taking shape.'' 6

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

The Technology Play Los Alamos Team Sees Way to Suck CO2 out of Air

I

magine a cheap, easy way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That's what scientists at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National

Laboratory are aiming at, and the technology would allow continued use of fossil fuels while still providing protection against global warming. A Los Alamos team presented their idea on sucking CO2 out of the air, and turning it back to use for producing more fossil fuel, at an American Chemical Society meeting in Orlando, FL ``If you can capture atmospheric carbon dioxide,'' said Manvendra Dubey, ``then you limit the environmental impact of fossil fuels and you can continue to use them. We have come up with a way to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide that we are putting in the atmosphere. Our approach is particularly well

1040-6190/02/$ ± see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

O

C

U

S

suited to capturing CO2 from numerous small sources, such as automobiles, that are largely being ignored.'' The method that the group is developing works on a dilute stream of CO2 in the air rather than focusing on concentrated forms of CO2 in power plant exhaust gases. The method works with ordinary air with a CO2 concentration of about 370 ppm. Dubey's conceptual model uses the wind and natural atmospheric mixing to transport the CO2 to a removal site, where the air is passed over an extraction agent, such as a solution of quicklime. The CO2 in the air reacts with the quicklime to become calcium carbonate, a solid that falls to the bottom of the extractor. The CaCO3 is then heated to yield pure CO2 and quicklime, which is recycled to the extractor. The puri®ed CO2 could be sequestered by direct injection or sold to the petrochemical industry for use in enhanced oil recovery. The cost of the process would be roughly the equivalent of 20 cents per gallon of gasoline, according to the Los Alamos researchers. An extraction facility to remove all of the current man-made CO2 emissions would require an area of one square yard per person in the developed world. It would make sense to locate such facilities in desert regions, since the discharged air would be de®cient in CO2, and not suitable for growing plants. But large desert expanses should not be affected by the CO2 de®cit and would provide the The Electricity Journal

T

H

E

open space necessary for the facility and for the discharged air to mix with the atmosphere. The next step in the research is to run some computationally intense models to optimize the extractor con®guration and to examine other chemicals that could be used in extraction.

Environmental Environment

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

said, ``By proposing his Clear Skies Initiative, President Bush has sent a message to Congress that acid rain is a problem we can, and must, solve right now. The mandatory sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury cuts President Bush proposed in Phase 1 of his plan are very similar to the cuts contained in the Acid Rain Control Act (H.R. 25/S. 588), a bill

Adirondack Council Endorsement Spurs Scathing Critique

T

he Bush administration's proposed Clear Skies Initiative has produced an environmental cat fightÐmake that a CAT fight. Praise for Bush's plan to cut power plant emissions from the Adirondack Council, a prominent regional conservation group, has earned some scathing criticism from a second leading environmental outfit, the Clean Air Trust (CAT). The Adirondack Council, one of leading organizations in the ®ght against acid rain, says the proposed legislation would halt acid rain damage to the Adirondack wilderness. The initiative aims to cut power plant emissions of three air pollutantsÐ nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercuryÐby about 70 percent each. The ®ght was kicked off when AC executive director Bernard Melewski, speaking beside U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christie Whitman at a press conference,

June 2002

sponsored by every member of the New York congressional delegation. Phase 2 makes even deeper cuts, which would help accelerate the rate of recovery in the Adirondacks.'' In retaliation, the Clean Air Trust has named the Adirondack Council as its ``Clean Air Villain of the Month.'' Since 1999, the trust has named corporations, lawmakers, and conservative think tanks for their alleged ``contribution to air pollution.'' The trust has never before named another environmental group as being among these so-called villains. The CAT explains, ``This is a ®rst for usÐand an uncomfortable ®rst at that. Why, you might

O

C

U

S

ask, are we singling out an environmental organization noted for its advocacy of protecting the Adirondack Mountains? Because the Adirondack Council has broken ranks with other environmental groups and is supporting the Bush administration's so called `clear skies' initiative. In the process, the council is providing cover for the administration's efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act.'' The trust charges that the administration wants to eliminate or weaken current Clean Air Act requirements for electric power plants, including new source review, regional haze standards, toxic pollution control requirements, and authority for states to reduce interstate pollution. ``We don't want to speculate on the council's motives. And we think it has done extremely valuable work in the past,'' says the CAT, adding ``We can only hope the council will reconsider the political damage it is causing.''

Federal Judge Nixes N.Y.'s Pollution Ploy A federal judge has ruled that a New York law aimed at pressuring upwind Midwest and Southern states to reduce pollution was unconstitutional. The ruling was a major defeat for N.Y. Gov. George Pataki. The court agreed to a summary judgment motion from the Clean Air Markets Group (CAMG), a utility organization, that the New York law on its face

1040-6190/02/$±see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

7

T

H

E

violated the supremacy and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In 1999, at Pataki's urging, New York enacted a law that essentially taxed in-state utilities that buy sulfur dioxide allowances under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments from units in upwind states at 100 percent of the cost of the allowance. Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, in Albany, basically ruled that the state law is constitutionally indefensible. urd found that New York legislators intended to use their law to force reductions in upwind state emissions. But the federal law, he said, ``does not permit one state to control emissions in another state,'' and thus falls afoul of the Supremacy Clause. The state law, he wrote, ``is preempted by the Clean Air Act and the [Environmental Protection Agency] implementing regulations and CAMG is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'' The utility group also charged that the New York law violates the Commerce Clause and is ``protectionist.'' New York argued that it is not protectionist because it applies only to New York companies. Hurd agreed with the upwind interests. What the legislature really intended in the New York law, Hurd said, was to restructure the EPA's SO2 allowance program, and was aimed solely at out-of-state generators, as it did not apply to

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

allowances from New York generators, despite the fact that they ``contribute to between 13 and 38 percent of the acid deposition in the state.'' The New York law, Hurd ruled, ``imposes a burden upon interstate commerce.'' Pataki's of®ce gave no immediate indication of whether it would appeal the ruling to a federal appeals court. There will

H

8

be political pressure on him to make the appeal, despite the limited chance of success. The Long Island newspaper Newsday quoted state Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester County, an original sponsor of the bill, calling on Pataki to appeal. ``This bill was carefully drafted to meet constitutional tests and we still believe it does,'' Brodsky said.

Restructuring Notebook Study Sees RTO Types Breeding Like Rabbits

A

s the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

1040-6190/02/$ ± see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

O

C

U

S

geared up for a major rulemaking on regional transmission organization structure and pricing, Xenergy released its annual field guide to the RTOs. The massive 2002 United States Regional Transmission Organization Study includes profiles of 23 present, planned or promised, non-profit, and for-profit systems. In addition, 35 appendices explain the bewildering array of cost, fee, and membership criteria. Pro®les include detailed descriptions of membership and governance, transmission system operations, scheduling, dispatch and pricing, energy market operations, and other key issues. No two organizationsÐexisting or potentialÐare alike. FERC is apparently not pleased with this proliferation. The study makes clear that FERC is in the driver's seat, and is becoming more aggressive. It notes that `` FERC's July 12, 2001 orders requiring the consolidation of RTOs into four regional entities sent shock waves through the transmission industry. These orders were in sharp contrast to the relatively laissez-faire approach taken by FERC during the previous administration. In the coming year and beyond, the new FERC position will continue to affect the U.S. transmission industry as RTOs evolve in response to the push for interregional coordination, standardization, and consolidation.'' The situation is still ¯uid and the future unclear. The study explains that ``one of FERC's main arguments behind exercising The Electricity Journal

T

H

E

more authority over RTO development is that FERC mandates will help to stabilize the market and provide potential investors with a clear view of the future. Whether FERC's regional consolidation and market standardization efforts will foster this stability across the U.S. is yet to be seen, though the possible evolution of a single RTO with standardized market rules in the Midwest provides an early indication that FERC's bets may pay off.'' States' rights make up a growing issue that could derail FERC's aggressive agenda. Some state regulators, particularly in the Southeast and West, see the new FERC movement toward mandatory participation in large regional RTOs as stepping over the boundaries of their own jurisdictions. The study notes that ``states have the potential to signi®cantly delay the RTO implementation process because they can refuse to allow utilities to transfer control of their assets to an RTO.'' So the grid may become gridlocked. In the meantime, as the study makes clear, wheels are spinning in every direction. Complex nonpro®t, for-pro®t, and hybrid schemes are all still on the drawing board. New power plants, which are under state purview, are being built in all parts of the country, but new transmission to handle that power is largely at a standstill. There is a growing sense of frustration, and fear that the grid may become unstable. As the study says, in the midst of all the confusion ``most June 2002

N

E

W

S

I

N

F

agree that the system needs to encourage investment in the nation's antiquated transmission system.''

Start Simple on FTRs, Advises Hogan

P

olicymakers designing FTRs as part of their construction

of competitive markets should start with the simple, advises Kennedy School economist William Hogan. Various analysts have advocated different approaches to financial transmission rights, starting with point-topoint transmission obligations, point-to-point options, flowgate obligations and options, and hybrid models. n a recent paperÐFinancial Transmission Right FormulationÐHogan advises, ``If all forms of rights are to be included in a hybrid model, the policy implication is to start with point-topoint obligations as the first practical implementation. Later evaluate the introduction of options or flowgate rights once

I

O

C

U

S

these have been demonstrated to be workable in a real grid with complexity that does not appear in simplified examples.'' Hogan notes that the discussion of transmission rights began with the concept of physical rights to transmission services. But transmission is so complex that getting physical just doesn't work. Simple physical models of transmission rights, Hogan notes, ``soon founder after confronting the limited capacity and complex interactions of a transmission grid. The industry searched for many years without success looking for a workable system of physical rights that would support decentralized decisions controlling use of the grid.'' Hogan's analysis starts with point-to-point forward obligations as FTRs, the de®nition of which ``follows closely the notion of bilateral transmission schedules.'' These are the FTRs in the PJM system. Hogan says, ``A PTP±FTR obligation is a ®nancial contract for the payment of the locational price difference. When matched with a corresponding delivery of power, the charge for transmission usage just balances the FTR, and there is a perfect hedge. This is true whether or not the price difference is positive or negative.'' A natural component to the FTR obligation, says Hogan, would be a point-to-point FTR option ``that did not require payment when the price difference was negative.'' This might be a better tool for hedging ``and it is typically the ®rst suggestion from market

1040-6190/02/$±see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

9

T

H

E

N

participants because of the perception that there is a closer analogy to the presumed option not to schedule under a physical right.'' But that's the rub, argues Hogan, because ``in the real dispatch everything is an obligation,'' adding, ``The analytical problem for options is similar to the problem for physical rights. Without knowing all the other ¯ows on the system, it is not possible in general to know if any particular transaction will be feasible.'' The major alternative to pointto-point rights has been ¯owgate rights, both ¯owgate obligations and ¯owgate options. The current

E

W

S

I

N

F

approach to ¯owgate rights is as ®nancial contracts focusing not on the price differences across locations but ``on the shadow prices for the constraints. This ®nancial perspective greatly simpli®es the ¯owgate formulation and generalizes easily to the idea of selling constraint limits, not just ¯ows on lines.'' lowgate rights as obligations ``raises the possibility that payments will be negative,'' notes Hogan, raising interest in flowgate options. But, he says, ``there is much less than meets the eye in the distinction between the FG± FTR obligation and option.'' He suggests dispensing with the

F

O

C

U

S

option approach and sticking with flowgate FTRs as obligations. Finally, there are those who take a Maoist approachÐlet a hundred FTR ¯owers bloom. ``Rather than make a policy decision about the best form of transmission rights, a suggestion is to do everything . . . and let the market decide.'' But, given the complexity of even the simplest approaches to FTRs, the hybrid system causes analytical and computational migraine headaches, ``combining the four types of FTRs in a single auction with a combined test of simultaneous feasibility and revenue adequacy.''&

Conference

Date

Place

Sponsor

Contact

Power-Gen Europe

June 11±13

Milan, Italy

PennWell Corporation

1-918-831-9160 http://www.powergeneurope.com/

Worldwide Energy Liberalisation:Building on Lessons Learned

June 24±25

Leipzig, Germany

EURELECTRIC

32-2-515-10-00 http://www.eurelectric.org/

25th IAEE International Conference: ``Innovation and Maturity in Energy Markets''

June 27±29

Aberdeen, Scotland

IAEE

216-464-5365 http://www.eurelectric.org/

World Renewable EnergyCongress VII & Expo

June 29±July 5

Cologne, Germany

World Renewable EnergyCongress

‡44 (0)118 961 1364 Fax: ‡44 (0)118 961 1365 E-mail: [email protected]

10th Nuclear Plant Performance Improvement Seminar

July 15±16

Saratoga Springs, NY

EPRI

704-547-6017 Web: http://www.epri.com

Nuclear Fuel Supply Forum

July 23

Washington, DC

Nuclear Energy Institute

202-739-8000 Web: http://www.nei.org

Value & Risk in Energy Market Workshop

Sept. 11±13

Kansas City, MO

EPRI

www.epri.com 1-888-332-8258

POWER-GEN Asia

Oct. 2±4

SunTec City, Singapore

PennWell

‡1-918-831-9160 Fax: ‡1-918-931-9161 E-mail: [email protected] Url: www.powergenasia.com

Energy Markets in Turmoil: ``Making Sense of It All''

Oct. 6±8

Vancouver, BC

IAEE

216-464-5365 http://www.iaee.org/

Energy Policy and Its Impact on Markets

Oct. 16±17

Arlington, VA

Power Marketing Association

Web: http://www.pmaconference.com

POWER-GEN Middle East

Oct. 21±22

Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates

PennWell

‡44 (0)1992 656 620 Fax: ‡44 (0)1992 656 704 E-mail: [email protected]

Global Energy Conference

Nov. 6±8

London

Hawksmere Plc and Croner Training

‡44 (0)20 7881 1886 Fax: ‡44 (0)20 7730 4672 E-mail: [email protected] Url: www.hawksmere.com/international

19th Annual Conference

Nov. 13±15

Orlando, FL

National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO)

‡1-202/822-0954 Fax: ‡1-202/822-0955 E-mail: [email protected] Url: www.naesco.org

POWER-GEN International 2002

Dec. 10±12

Orlando, FL

PennWell

‡1-918-831-9160 Fax: ‡1-918-831-9161 E-mail: [email protected] Url: www.power-gen.com

Electric Power 2003

May 4±6, 2003

Houston, Texas

TradeFair Group Inc.

(713) 463-9595 http://www.electricpowerexpo.com/conference.asp

10

1040-6190/02/$ ± see front matter PII S1040-6190(02)00321-4

The Electricity Journal