2001 IEEE T&D Expo

Atlanta, 30 Oct – 2Nov 2001

This was a large event, with over 9,000 attendees, 500 exhibitors, and 150 technical papers. Sponsored by the IEEE Power Engineering Society, it focuses strictly on T&D technology, though a number of special panel sessions dealt with big picture questions.

A great deal of information is still available online at:
Using the buttons on the left side, “Conference” goes to a complete program listing, and “Exposition” to the exhibitor list, complete with urls for most companies. The technical papers were published on a CD.

–Opening Session

Teddy Püttgen, PES President Elect, opened the conference with the comment that electric utilities continue to be “technology enabled” rather than “technology driven”, but that is changing. Allen Franklin, CEO of the Southern Co, explained that the spinoff of Mirant enables SoCo to focus specifically on the southeast. with its vertically integrated companies, competitive generation, and new services. He sees transmission as the hottest issue, e.g. in Congress. John Rice of GE Power sees big promise in digital networking of generation and T&D. David Stump of ABB expressed a similar vision, applying ABB’s corporate-wide “Industrial IT” strategy to the utility industry. Based on the experience in the UK, Ian Davis of National Grid talked about the need for incentives for T&D investment, efficiency and performance, leading to an emphasis on asset management. Franklin came across as a very traditional utility executive, when he dismissed fuel cells, quoting “30 years ago fuel cells were almost ready. They still are.”

–SuperSession- Deregulation

The presentions were far ranging and exhaustive, and it would take many pages to give the full flavor. Charles Stalone (former FERC commissioner) took a long time to explain the issues before Congress, to strike the right balance between free markets and protections against market power abuse. David Jermain, Anderson Consulting, gave an entertaining review of the history of California’s debacle– based on a very faulty design, state officials made it much worse once things began to unravel. (I have his powerpoint presentation which he kindly sent, along with an ok to share it selectively.) Mark Rossi (Barker, Dunn & Rossi) reviewed utility deregulation around the world. Many countries are doing it, some quite successfully, though no-one gets it right at first. Richard Tabors (Tabors, Caramanis & Assoc) discussed regulation of generators, and pointed out that price volatility is intrinsic to any commodity market–it’s the journalists who renamed it “spikes” in the case of electricity. Finally Paul Addison (SolomonSmith Barney) said that customers really care about total price, not the profits of individual players. Service penalties and bonuses are needed if there is to be any incentive for investment in T&D.

–“How to Become a 3rd World Utility”
In a panel session on T&D Reliability, Jim Burke of ABB outlined 10 steps to reducing reliability.
1. Eliminate experienced engineers; replace with young ones who won’t stay.
2. Don’t participate in standards setting.
3. Lose control over generation and transmission
4. Replace things only when they fail; keep for 50 years or more til there are no spare parts.
5. Buy on price (first cost). Don’t pay for quality.
6. Eliminate R&D
7. Reduce manpower and budgets
8. Overload equipment thus increasing failure rates.
9. Lose control over daily activities–overdo outsourcing.
10. NIMBY – no new T&D but not no growth
[ I can supply a pdf of this paper, from the conference CD]


I visited a number of exhibitors. Here are some highlights.

– Arbiter Systems Inc.
High precision meters, traceable to NIST.
Can error-correct any meter to be much more accurate.
GPS clocks. Other interesting innovations..used by NxtPhase

– Cannon Technologies
Monitoring and control of loads and devices
Yukon modular software for distrib autom and demand mgt
eSubstation…low cost ($25K per substn)
Impressive customer list Sell only to utilities.
Started in ’87 w/ purch of a wireless subsidiary of ABB.
Announcing marketing deal with Honeywell soon. (load control thermostats)

– DTE Energy Technologies–“CableWise”
The “only” insitu inservice live cable test capability–uses partial discharge
[[ Is it really true? Has this “holy grail” finally been found?]]

– IFD Corporation
Clever little mechanical popout device the goes inside distribution transformer to indicate an overpressure has occurred- which means that a fault has occurred inside. Visible from the street. [Sort of like the gadget that tells you your turkey is cooked.]

Cable testing products and services. Experts in partial discharge. Company is on campus at Univ Connecticut, led by prominent professor. Took back license from UltraPower (Minn, MN) which closed.

– NxtPhase
Optical PT/CT. Looking very strong. {See UFTO Note 22 Jun 2000}

– Power Line Systems
T-Line design/management software to 500 utilities worldwide.

– Power Measurement Ltd.
Hi end meters for revenue and PQ monitoring. for large customers. OEM to ABB and Siemens. Sev. new simpler cheaper products.

– Serveron Corp.
Monitoring transformer gas in oil, and battery systems. Received a lot of attention at their booth, and appear to be progressing rapidly. [See UFTO Note 14 May 2001}

=====Substation monitoring=====
(Besides GE, Serveron, Cannon, etc.)

– DoubleTree Systems
comprehensive solution..have installations in China. Systems Control Inc. alumni

– Doble
Has abandoned development of “InSite”. Doing individual modules instead, for later “integration” at IP level. First is for bushings. Will announce a transformer pkg very soon

=====Power Switching=====

ABB – AX1 Air insulated Medium Voltage Switchgear.
1/2 the footprint, cheaper, arcing eliminated, simple installation, low/no maintenance.
http// — search for AX1


Pole Plus
N Amer lic for EdF developed wood pole testing technology and management system. Acceptance is growing. [See UFTO Note 11 Jun 1999]

MiniMax Software Corp.
Video surveillance specifically for substation monitoring, Also a distribution system “stakeout” pen-based computing solution.

The Valley Group.
Device measures trans. line cable tension directly; Plus nearby measurement of temperature the cable would be if unloaded — gives direct realtime reading of maximum possible loading.

NIST Workshop – Technical Implications of Deregulation

It’s been 5 years since the first UFTO visit to NIST, and we’ve had continuing contacts ever since. Our colleagues there have recently announced an upcoming workshop that may be of interest.

“Challenges for Measurements and Standards in a Deregulated Electric Power Industry”

A Workshop focused on the Technical Implications of Deregulation

–> For details, go to:
(ignore the password request–just click on “cancel”)

Key Bridge Marriott, Arlington, VA (near downtown Washington, DC)

December 6-8, 1999

Sponsored by:
-NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
-EEEL (Electronics and Electrical Engineering Lab)
-Electricity Division

Technical Co-Sponsors: IEEE, DOE, NST, ERPI and NEMA

Deregulation promises to spur significant change in the electric power industry. To compete successfully and to provide the high levels of services that customers expect, companies will have to adapt to a new business climate, while effectively integrating emerging technologies into their operations. Thus, this historically regulated industry will be challenged to identify its technology needs in a changing and uncertain environment. To help the industry respond effectively, this workshop will address technical challenges related to measurements and standards that are needed to ensure continued reliable generation, transmission, and distribution of electric power.

The technical impact of deregulation on the industry’s measurement and standards infrastructure will be assessed from the perspectives of the electric utilities, power producers, electrical equipment manufacturers, meter manufacturers, federal and state regulators, government agencies, and standards-writing bodies. Sessions for this two-day workshop will focus on:

– measurement needs for transmission and distribution,
– international and voluntary standards needs of a deregulated
electric power industry,
– communication and control systems protocols and standards,
– competitive metering,
– distributed generation, and
– power quality.

The workshop will feature three or four plenary speakers each morning, and their comprehensive overviews of the technical topics will be complemented by panel sessions each afternoon. Panels will consist of recognized experts from all sectors of the electric power industry and relevant government agencies. The workshop’s published proceedings will identify key technical challenges facing the industry as it undergoes fundamental change, and it will discuss potential solutions. Copies will be distributed to all attendees.

Registration fee: $350 (includes reception, two lunches, and proceedings)

For questions and comments about this workshop, contact:

James K. Olthoff, 301-975-2431,
Electricity Division, NIST
Gaithersburg, MD

Technological and Economic Assessment of the Changing Measurement and Standards Needs of the Electric Power Industry

With restructuring of the electric power industry looming in all 50 states, NIST has initiated efforts to anticipate needs for measurements and standards that may arise as the industry transitions from a system of monolithic utilities to a diverse collection of firms competing to generate, distribute, and meter the power that goes to homes and businesses. In its role as the nation’s measurement authority, NIST has commissioned a study of technology and marketing trends in the transmission, distribution, and generation sectors of the electric power industry. Researchers will assess measurement and standards needs identified by power industry experts interviewed during the study.

The results of the study will be presented in a report, which will be distributed to the attendees of the workshop. An overview of the report and the conclusions therein will be presented in the first plenary talk of the workshop.

In May 1997, The Electricity Division at NIST published a planning document entitled:

“Measurement Support For the U.S. Electric Power Industry in the Era of Deregulation with Focus on Electrical Measurements for Transmission and Distribution”

It is available in “html” and “pdf” format.

A earlier draft of this document was offered to UFTO companies for comment.
(ref: UFTO Notes: 28Jan97 and 14Nov96)

The Division continues to seek input on its program to provide metrology support to the US electronic instrumentation and test equipment industry.

QuickStab: Calculates Maximum Transmission Load and Stability Margin

(Two years ago, the developer of this program was referred to UFTO by DOE, and an UFTO Note was done at that time. Since then, the need has become even greater; there have been improvements to the code; and it has been implemented by a major utility.)

With deregulation, privatization and open access transmission, energy transactions across large electrical distances become commonplace, and can cause major wheeling power flows which, in turn may bring the networks near their limits of stability and loadability.

However, power systems cannot be operated safely near the state of maximum loadability. A much lower load level needs to be defined such that all thermal, voltage and stability constraints are met. NERC calls it the Total Transmission Capability (TTC) and recommends to further reduce it by a Transmission Reliability Margin (TRM) to account for uncertainties. This value must be further adjusted by the Capacity Benefit Margin (CBM) to finally determine the system loading that guarantees full operating security.

The safe operating limit, however, is highly dependent upon topology, voltages, number and location of generators, and other system conditions. For dependable on-line decision making, this limit must be reassessed in real-time for every single change of the operating state.

Critical states occur at or close to the TTC. This limit is not constant. It depends on the generation, customer demand and transmission network conditions, and must be computed from the real-time conditions of the transmission network. Such a capability is needed both in real-time and for postulated conditions, but detailed stability methods are time consuming and require data that may not be readily available.

QuickStabTM answers this need. It identifies both the point of maximum power transfer and the distance to it without computing load-flows. In other words, it predicts the maximum loadability from any operating state, even if far from the limit conditions. This feature is one of the most particular aspects of the short-circuit currents nodal analysis and cannot be found in other algorithms.

Starting from a power-flow or state estimator base case, it computes the system’s MW loading limit such that voltage collapse and steady-state instability do not occur. Then it shows which units and tie-line injections are most likely to cause instability; provides information that can help develop a remedial action strategy; and identifies the P-V points of successively degraded states towards instability. Quickstab also determines the system MW loading for a user-defined security margin.

Results are displayed in a unique, easy-to-understand graphical format. The computations are extremely fast. For example, the solution of a 300 bus case on an inexpensive PC takes just 0.44 sec. Most recently, the QuickStabTM computational modules were enhanced and recompiled with Microsoft C/C++ version 6.0 in a Windows NT 32 bit native environment. The program also runs under Windows 95/98. It is Y2K compliant.

QuickStab’s solution technique is based on the short-circuit currents nodal analysis method, which was perfected in Europe in 1961 and became a “classic” in the voltage-stability circles in 1980. Two studies sponsored by EPRI and Southern Company Services (Southern) in 1990-1993 demonstrated the speed and validity of the approach.

It is now field-proven. In 1998, QuickStab was adopted by Companhia Energetica de Sao Paulo CESP, in Brazil, and by Oficina de Operacion del Sistema Interconectado OPSIS, in Venezuela. CESP uses the program both off-line, on PCs under Windows 98, and in real-time on Digital Alpha processors under Digital Unix. OPSIS uses QuickStab for real-time only. These two EMS implementations of QuickStab were provided by ABB-Bailey Network Management as part of its RANGER baseline.

QuickStab offers significant benefits. It can help increase revenues from wheeling power while meeting higher MW demand and reliability requirements. It can be used on-line, embedded in or as an add-on to an existing EMS. And with its modular design and ANSI C compliant code implementation it can be easily integrated with third-party load-flow, contingency analysis and security assessment programs.
QuickStab is available now to utilities, consultants and universities, under a range of license options.

For additional information, or to make arrangements for a presentation, contact:
Dr. Savu Savulescu
SCS Computer Consulting, Fresh Meadows NY

CPUC OIR–Deregulate Elec. Distribution???

**(note proposal below, and let me know of your interest)***

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is about to embark on what may become the most far-reaching restructuring process to date. Motivated in large part by the advent of distributed resources (small generation and storage technologies) and the California Alliance for Distributed Energy Resources (CADER), the CPUC will evaluate over the next 12 months the rules for the distribution systems of the future.

Topics will include the role of wires companies, true retail access, whether the wires should remain a monopoly, and whether distribution companies can own or operate distributed generation and storage. The results could dramatically alter some of the most important aspects of AB1890, define the distributed technology market rules in California, and influence similar discussions now heating up in other states and on the federal level.

At its regular meeting on Dec 17, the CPUC issued an “OIR”:

R.98-12-015, “Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider
Commission Reforms in the Structure and Regulatory Framework
Governing Electricity Distribution Service”

The full text is available online:
(in HTML, Word, or PDF format)

>>> The Summary and Rulemaking Questions are attached below. <<<<<

*******”OIR Watch Proposal”***********

Obviously, utilities in California will be heavily involved (they’re named as respondents). The rest of the country will probably want to pay close attention to this entire discussion, as lengthy and voluminous as it is likely to be.

Distributed Utility Associates (founding members of CADER and a leading consultant in distributed resources) is considering a plan to prepare concise monthly reviews of the CPUC Distribution System Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR), and to interpret its progress, direction and interpreting its importance.

The rulemaking’s implications could include new definitions of distribution companies, new business opportunities or exclusions for wires companies, needs for new or revised energy technologies and set the pace of distributed resources market entry.

In addition, a final synopsis on the resulting rulemaking and its implications on the electric utility industry could be issued at the conclusion of the twelve to fifteen month process. This would be offered as a subscription package.

Pricing is to be determined, probably in the range of $5,000, assuming a sufficient number of subscribers. UFTO Client Companies would be eligible to subscribe at a substantial discount.

Please let me know how this idea strikes you, and what your level of interest might be.


By this order, we open a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the Commission should pursue reforms in the structure and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution service. The purpose of this proceeding is to gather additional information to assist us in framing proposals to the Legislature and our stakeholders for whatever reforms may be necessary in light of current developments in California’s electric industry.

This rulemaking will provide the opportunity for the Commission to begin consulting with the Legislature and collaborating with the Administration, interested stakeholders, and other state/local agencies who may have jurisdiction or interest in electric distribution and generation issues. In particular, we believe that our consideration of issues focusing on distributed generation and/or distribution competition will benefit from a collaborative effort among the Commission, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the California Electricity Oversight Board (EOB). This process will allow us to work with these parties to identify the range of issues on distributed generation and distribution competition, and their interrelationships; explore whether we should undertake a focused analysis of distributed generation or a more comprehensive consideration of distribution competition issues; and determine those issues we can address more narrowly and more expeditiously. At the end of this process, we anticipate issuing a proposal that reflects our coordination with the CEC and the EOB, outlining the specific steps we will undertake, in cooperation with the Legislature, in addressing the issues and considering proposed changes in our regulatory policies and rules.

We solicit comments and proposals regarding the scope and substance of issues that need to be addressed, possible policy options, and the procedural steps that the Commission could pursue in adopting and implementing needed reforms that are consistent with the state’s goals and objectives in electric restructuring. We invite responses to our questions in Appendix A of this rulemaking. Respondents shall and interested parties may file opening comments on or before March 17, 1999, and reply comments on or before May 17, 1999. Given the collaborative efforts we intend to undertake with the CEC and the EOB in this proceeding, respondents and interested parties should also provide copies of their comments to these two agencies. We intend to consider a proposal from the Assigned Commissioner in the summer of 1999.


Rulemaking Questions

From a policy perspective, does consideration of DG necessarily require a broader, more comprehensive look at distribution competition and the role of the UDC?

Where has competition, as it relates to distribution, emerged or not emerged in California? Has there been growth in irrigation, municipal, and other public utility districts in the existing service areas of the UDCs? What has been the market penetration of DG, self-generation, and T&D substitutes in California?

Is there a need for further reforms in the structure and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution service, in light of current market developments described in your response to Q2 above? If so, what are they? What is the UDC’s ultimate role in this restructured energy market?

How would competition in distribution service be effected? Please give specific examples or scenarios manifesting competition in distribution facilities and/or services. What is the Commission’s role and the roles of other state/local agencies?

How would the integrity, reliability, safety, and efficiency of the T&D system be affected by a more competitive electric distribution and/or DG market? Please provide policy options.

What are the regulatory jurisdictional effects, if any, of allowing more competition in distribution and/or DG? Please provide policy options.

Provide an assessment of the possible environmental impacts of increased competition in distribution and/or DG. Please provide policy options.

Provide an assessment of the possible social, economic, and labor impacts, including implications for public purpose programs (i.e., energy efficiency and low-income programs), of increased competition in distribution and/or DG. Please provide policy options.

What are the ratemaking consequences of introducing or encouraging more competition in distribution and/or DG? Please provide policy options.

Describe the potential costs of promoting competition in distribution and/or DG? What are the potential stranded costs? What are the benefits? How should the potential costs and benefits be analyzed and quantified?

Does competition in electric distribution service have implications on the delivery infrastructure for natural gas? Please describe any such interrelationship and the resulting impacts on customer benefits, the environment, and regulatory structure?

What procedural steps should be pursued? Should there be a more focused analysis of DG issues, or a more comprehensive consideration of issues surrounding distribution competition? Are there issues which are more appropriately considered in workshops, full panel hearings, and/or other procedural forums?

Reliability TF Final Report

Electric System Reliability Task Force Completes Final Report

On Tuesday, September 29, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s (SEAB) Task Force on Electric System Reliability conducted its final meeting in Washington, DC and approved its final report.

The Task Force’s final 150 page report, “Maintaining Reliability in a Competitive U.S. Electricity Industry: Final Report of the Task Force on Electric System Reliability,” dated September 29, 1998, addresses the critical institutional, technical and policy issues related to maintaining bulk-power system reliability in the context of a more competitive electric industry. It will be submitted to the Chairman of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and Secretary Richardson following the incorporation of the final Task Force review comments.

Printed copies of the Report can be obtained from Richard Burrow, SEAB, (202/586-1709 or

Inquiries regarding the Report can be directed to Paul Carrier (202/586-5659 or

Here is a Reuters news story about the report:

Competition won’t hurt power reliability, DOE told

WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) – A Department of Energy advisory panel on Tuesday said opening the nation’s bulk-power markets to competition should not damage reliability of electric supply, although deregulation is a complex task.

Ending a 21-month investigation, the DOE task force concluded that the “viability and vigor of commercial markets must not be unnecessarily restricted,” and market forces now being implemented depend on fair and open access to the transmission grid.
“The traditional reliability institutions and processes that have served the nation well in the past need to be modified to ensure the reliability is maintained in a competitively neutral fashion,” the task force report said.

The group, officially called the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Task Force on Electric System Reliability, was formed to address the question of whether consumers would be able to count on electricity service after restructuring.

The task force began its work as a result of concerns raised after power outages in Western states during the summer of 1996. It is chaired by Dr. Philip Sharp, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

At the time the task force was formed, the DOE asked the group to define an agenda “to address relevant technology development and analysis tools, control schemes, operating practices and data requirements for ensuring reliability under changing industry structure and regulation.”

The report also said there is uncertainty regarding statutory and regulatory authority over reliability management, which was being exacerbated by the unbundling of vertically integrated utility functions.

The group said commercial markets should develop economic practices consistent with the mutual interests of the participants, ensuring grid reliability maintenance.

The role of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) must also adapt to an increasingly decentralized and competitive industry, the report said. The NERC represents wholesale power systems in 10 regions in the U.S. and most of Canada.

Other findings praised the implementation of Independent System Operators, and said competitive markets should be created for ancillary services, like load following, spinning reserve and loss replacement.

Of the numerous recommendations supplied by the task force, the report highlighted the group’s confidence that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a restructured North American Electric Reliability Organization can maintain performance.

During the transition from monopoly markets to open competition, the task force said electric utilities should open their transmission systems to others and in many cases divest their generating assets.

DOE Reliability TF paper on T&D

The Department of Energy’s Electric System Reliability Task Force has written a position paper, “Incentives for Transmission Enhancement”. The report indicates that a need exists for the construction of more power lines to relieve congestion, and that regulators should provide incentives for their construction. In the report, the Task Force reviews the nature of transmission and the challenges facing transmission companies in a deregulated electric industry. The report concludes that the main concern facing grid reliability is the need for stronger state and federal-level regulation to promote sound investments.

The report and earlier materials are available on line:

Electric System Reliability Task Force – Minutes and Reports

Ninth Meeting – Minutes from the ninth meeting (May 12, 1998).
Eighth Meeting – Minutes from the eighth meeting (March 10, 1998).
Seventh Meeting – Minutes from the seventh meeting (January 1998).
Sixth Meeting – Minutes from the sixth meeting (November 1997).
Fifth Meeting – Minutes from the fifth meeting (September 1997).
Fourth Meeting – Minutes from the fourth meeting (July 1997).
Third meeting – Minutes from the third meeting (June 1997).
Second meeting – Minutes from the second meeting (March 1997).
First meeting – Minutes from the first meeting (January 1997).

Incentives for Transmission Enhancement (in PDF) (August 1998)
Transmittal Letter to Walter Massey, Chairman of SEAB (in PDF)
Technical Issues in Transmission System Reliability (in PDF) (May
Transmittal Letter to Walter Massey, Chairman of SEAB (in PDF)
Ancillary Services and Bulk-Power Reliability (in PDF) (May 1998)
Transmittal Letter to Walter Massey, Chairman of SEAB (in PDF)
The Characteristics of the Independent System Operator (March 1998)
Transmittal Letter to Walter Massey, Chairman of SEAB
Table: Roles, Functions and Relationships of Various
Institutions with ISOs
Task Force SRRO Letter Report (November 1997)
Task Force Interim Report (July 1997)
Transmittal Letter to Walter Massey, Chairman of SEAB

For more information on the Electric System Reliability Task Force, please contact:

Richard Burrow
DOE, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (202) 586-7092

Energy Daily Conf. International Lessons

Subject: UFTO Note — Energy Daily Conf. International Lessons
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

Energy Daily is holding a conference on “Lessons” from deregulation experiences in other countries. My own view is that there’s been far too little attention paid to to what’s been learned overseas, except perhaps for the UK (which may not be a very relevant situation!), so this is a welcome sign.

They’ve just posted this conference on their web site…

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

June 24-25,
International Power Deregulation: Lessons and Implications for U.S. Utilities,
Washington, D.C.

Is there life after deregulation?

Well, of course there is. But what is the nature of that life? To this point, deregulation of U.S. electric utilities has been almost an academic exercise. The unanswerable question, so far, is how it would really work. Will generation really be a boring, vanilla business? And transmission, an exciting, profitable business? Nobody really knows. It is all speculation. But we do know that nothing goes the way it is planned and that the most daring futurists are wrong.

The Energy Daily, in its desire to answer some of these questions. has joined forces with the international consulting firm of Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett (PHB) to peer into the future with the guidance of those who have already been there. Many countries have already restructured–New Zealand, and Argentina, for example. They have very real, hands-on stories to tell and often those stories are at odds with what is anticipated for the U.S. PHB has consulted with utilities around the globe and, together with The Energy Daily, has assembled an imposing panel of experts on life after regulation for a special conference on “International Power Deregulation: Lessons and Implications for U.S. Utilities” scheduled for June 24-25, 1997 in Washington, DC.

The Economist magazine recently compiled a disturbing list of infrastructure investments over time that had gone wrong, sometimes from ignorance and sometimes from political intervention. But, it concluded, at this point in history, with growth rates in many target countries around 10 percent, it would be foolish for international companies to stay out of the infrastructure boom. Be careful and know what you are doing, The Economist concluded.

There is now a convergence between the international experience in electric industry restructuring and deregulation in the U.S. Great fortunes may be made, or lost, in the American electric utility industry after deregulation, as they will be around the globe. The concepts discussed in “International Power Deregulation” may well save American utilities hundreds of millions of dollars by helping them avoid repeating the mistakes that others have made and paid for. I am looking forward to seeing you at this most critical meeting with the gifted and knowledgeable experts from around the globe.


9:00 am “Welcome and Introduction”
Llewellyn King, Publisher, The Energy Daily (Co-Chair)

9:15 am “International Overview”
Howard W. Pifer III, Chairman, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett (Co-Chair)

10:15 am “Restructuring Assets: Functional Unbundling, Divestiture, and
Moderator: Fred Baird, Managing Director, Putnam Hayes Bartlett Asia-Pacific, Ltd.

John Rowe, President & Chief Executive Officer, New England Electric System (US)
Robert W. Thomson, Chief Executive, Trans Power New Zealand Ltd. (New Zealand)
David Jones, Group Chief Executive, National Grid Company (UK)
Joseph P. Kearney, President & Chief Executive Officer, US Generating Company (US)

12:15 pm Luncheon and Address: “The View from Wall Street”
Charles A. Trabandt, Chairman, Strategic Advisory Services, Merrill Lynch

1:45 pm “Reasons for Restructuring: Politics, Ideology, and the Need for New Capacity”
Moderator: Brian Caine, Director, Ernst & Young (Canada)

Peter Grenier, Secretary of Energy (Brazil)
Brian Pomeroy, Partner, Touche Ross, (UK)
Alfredo Mirkin, Secretary of Energy (Argentina)
William Farlinger, CEO, Ontario Hydro (Canada)
Jamie Wimberly, Vice President, Consumer Energy Council of America Research Foundation

4:00 pm “Market Structures to Implement Restructuring: ISOs, Poolcos, & Power Exchanges”
Moderator: Larry E. Ruff, Managing Director, Putnam Hayes & Bartlett

Graeme L. Dillon, Chief Executive Officer, Victoria Power Exchange (Australia)
Cesar W. de Faria, Director, President, Copelmi Mineracao(Brazil)
Eileen Marshall, Director of Regulation, Ofgas (UK)
Shmuel Oren, Professor, University of California, Berkeley (US)
Jan Moen, Director of Regulation and DSM, Norwegian Water Resources & Energy

6:30 pm Reception, Dinner and Address: Hosted by Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett

Hon. James E. Schlesinger, Senior Advisor, Lehman Brothers


8:00 am “Control or Restructuring: Problems of Federal versus State Jurisdiction”
Moderator: William H. Hieronymus, Managing Director, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett

Pierre Lederer, Senior Vice President & Head, General Economic Studies, Electricite de France (France)
Javier Herrero, Managing Director, Iberdrola (Spain) *
Richard O’Neill, Director, Office of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (US)
Robert Gee, Commissioner, Texas Public Utilities Commission and Chairman, NARUC Electricity Committee

10:15 am “New Competition and Emerging Markets: Developing Viable Strategies”
Moderator: James M. Speyer, Managing Director, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett

Richard C. Green, Jr., Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, UtiliCorp. United Inc. (US)
Stephen Snyder, President & Chief Operating Officer, TransAlta Utilities (Canada)
Lee W. Hogan, President, & Chief Executive Officer, Retail Energy Group, Houston Industries, Inc. (US)
A Representative of National Power (US) *

12:15 pm Luncheon and Address: “International Experiences and Domestic Problems”
Llewellyn King (Co-Chair)

1:45 pm “Drawing Conclusions”
William W. Hogan, Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

2:45 pm “Wrap-Up Session and Adjournment”
Howard Pifer III (Co-Chair)
Howard W. Pifer (Co-Chair)


Conf. on Buying and Selling Generation Assets

Subject: UFTO NOTE — Conf. on Buying and Selling Generation Assets
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

This is a follow up to a note I sent you several weeks ago. The conference location has been changed from NYC to San Francisco (I’m told there wasn’t a hotel available in NY!)

NOTE Special arrangement–UFTO Members Discount.

TO: Clients and Colleagues of Ed Beardsworth
FROM: Jim Naphas, Conference Manager, Infocast, Inc.
DATE: March 18, 1997

RE: Special 25% discount invitation FOR UFTO MEMEBERS
to attend an upcoming Infocast conference

San Francisco Marriott, San Francisco, California, April 14-15, 1997

The era of deregulation brings with it much uncertainty, and one of the leading questions is the status of generation. A wave of generating asset transfers on an unprecedented scale is expected in the near future as a result of industry restructuring. This shuffling is creating a potentially monumental opportunity for today’s power industry players to buy, sell, or spin-off generation assets to improve competitiveness, or to enter this highly competitive market.

Infocast has assembled a group of experts from across the nation to address future market conditions, estimation of the value of generation assets in the new competitive era, the ever-changing regulatory waters, and financing of these deals. Enclosed is a descriptive brochure on this informative program for your review.

By special arrangement, Infocast is extending this special invitation allowing UFTO Member company personnel to register for this program at a 25% discount off the regular tuition. (Please note: if you are a government employee you qualify for the government discount of 40% only.) To receive the reduced tuition, just mention this email offer to the registrar when enrolling.

If you have any questions about the conferences, please feel free to contact Jim at (818) 902-5400.

We look forward to seeing you this spring!
An Up-to-the-Minute Review of Today’s Hottest Issues in Generation Portfolio Management with Practical Discussion Based on Today’s Transactions

The Future of Generation Portfolios in a Deregulated Market

Determining the Value of Your Company’s

Understanding Critical Accounting and Financing Issues

Regulatory Issues in Asset Transfer

State-of-the-Art Marketing Strategies for Generating Assets

Sponsored by INFOCAST
Official Publication: COMPETITIVE UTILITY

APRIL 14-15, 1997

As a result of the ongoing restructuring of the U.S. power industry, we are seeing the beginning of a wave of generating asset transfers. It seems clear that this trend will continue on an unprecedented scale. This titanic shuffling of assets is creating a critical opportunity for today’s power industry players to buy/sell/spin-off generation assets in order to meet their goals-whether those goals are growth, rationalization of a generating portfolio to improve competitiveness, or even to seize the opportunity to enter or exit this highly competitive market. As large as the opportunities are, however, this will not be an easy game to play. Players must deal with great uncertainty about future market conditions, estimate the value of generation assets under those market conditions, navigate uncharted regulatory waters, arrange financing and/or obtain the approval of their debt and equity investors while negotiating the best possible deals. Only those who are aware of the latest approaches and industry thinking on these subjects will be able to emerge from the process with their winnings in hand.
Infocast has brought together a group of experts from Wall Street to Washington to provide a briefing on the critical issues in generating asset management. Case studies will serve as a practical example providing helpful do’s and don’ts when negotiating your own deal. Register today and learn how to seize the opportunity to improve your company’s generation portfolio.

Monday April 14, 1997

Welcome and Introduction from Conference Chairman
Jeffrey C. Bodington, President, Bodington & Co.

Generation Portfolios and the New Environment
Why divestiture makes sense in some cases
– Reduced regional market power, both vertical and horizontal
– Handling stranded costs
– Making assets more efficient, inside or outside the electric industry
– Why purchases make sense in other cases
– More efficient operation means lower prices, higher profits
– The value of national generating companies
– Consolidating niche markets and functions
– FERC market power policies and their impact on asset transfers
Charles Whitmore, Senior Economist,
Assistant Director of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Regulator’s policy objectives
Linkage between federal and state authority
Decisions regulators must make
Practical issues affecting schedules for divestiture
Forecast of what will happen and when
P. Gregory Conlon, President, California Public Utilities Commission

Understanding the regulatory framework
Understanding the commercial process
Understanding stockholder interests
Reconciling regulatory, commercial and stakeholder interests
Finding a regulatory strategy that works
Joseph M. Malkin, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP; outside counsel to Pacific Gas & Electric

NRC policies and regulations on asset transfers prior to the emergence of restructuring
NRC policy questions raised by restructuring
Integrating NRC policy on restructuring with policies of other agencies (FERC, SEC, State Commissions) ~ Impact on asset transfers of current NRC initiatives
George A. Avery, Partner, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

Dimensions of stranded costs: size, timing and rate of payment
Generation divestiture and stranded cost recovery
Asset sales as a method for estimating stranded costs
Risks and risk allocation measures
– for vertically integrated utilities
– between Gencos and regulated companies
– between regulated companies and customers
Theresa Flaim, Ph.D., Vice President, Corporate Strategic Planning, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

The best of times, the worst of times-opportunities and threats in the restructured wholesale and retail power markets
New wine in old skins-reconfiguring existing portfolios to take advantage of new strategies
Historic relics-dealing with assets and arrangements “inherited” from the regulated monopoly era
To hedge or not to hedge-role of risk management strategies in meeting new challenges of operating a “genco” in an unbundled marketplace
Calpine’s rationale for pursuing a merchant power strategy
Rod Boucher, President, Calpine Power Services Co.

Group Luncheon & Address

Edward J. Walsh, Group President, Power & Government Americas & India, Stone & Webster

Valuation of Generation Portfolios

Critical new fuel issues
Evaluating fuel issues for merchant plants ‘ Predicting future fuel markets ‘ Understanding the future link between fuel and power markets ~ Fuel management for a competitive market
Jeffrey P. Price, President, Resource Dynamics Corp.

Forecasts of demand
Existing and future sources of supply
Fuel price uncertainties
Balancing supply and demand
Charles Mann, Director, Fieldstone Co.

Valuing plants within transmission constrained areas
Getting paid for providing system support and ancillary services
Understanding reliability contracts with the independent system operator
Assessing competitors’ barriers to entry
Glen Davis, Vice President, AES Transpower

The goal…to promote the most efficient operations
Defining the efficiency/competency curve for operators
Looking at the variability among operators
Meeting the need to have the most efficient operators
Craig A. Mataczynski, Vice President, US Business Development, NRG Energy, Inc.

Describing each option’s structure
‘ Summarizing each options key benefits and costs
The roles of regulators
What has been done to date and why?
New structures to consider
Alan Levande, Vice President, Goldman Sachs & Company

Glen Davis, AES Transpower
Alan Levande, Goldman Sachs & Company
Charles Mann, Fieldstone Co.
Craig A. Mataczynski, NRG Energy, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Price, Resource Dynamics Corp.

Cocktail Reception: There will be a cocktail reception at the conclusion of day one giving you an opportunity to meet speakers and your fellow attendees.


Tuesday April 15. 1997

Welcome and Introduction from Conference Chair
Jeffrey C. Bodington, President, Bodington & Co.

Financing Issues
Bond indentures
Rating the pieces of a once-integrated utility
Merchant plant risks
Peter N. Rigby, Director, Project Finance Ratings, Standard & Poor’s

Market “price” risk: impact of supply and demand
Market “access” risk: market infrastructure and business risk in being able to dispose of power output
Increased use of commodity and financial hedging instruments
Effectiveness of risk allocation and mitigation strategies
How much risk will the financial markets be willing to accept: profile of an acceptable financing package for generating assets
Lewis J. Hart, Jr., Managing Director, CIBC Wood Gundy Securities Corp.

Requirements for Transferring Assets
Examining the auction process in terms of legal due diligence, regulatory and contract issues
Fraudulent conveyance issues
Using indenture provisions to maximize the available consideration
Balancing the interests of the various parties involved
J. Michael Parish, Senior Partner, Reid & Priest, LLP

The spirit vs. the letter of indenture
Refinancing and defeasance strategies – Stranded costs securitization issues
Inter-company transfers and property release funding options
David P. Falck, Partner, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts

Types of sales structures
Financial reporting and the accounting issues involved
Regulatory matters and its impact on accounting
David Etheridge, Partner, Arthur Andersen

How can different project acquisition structures affect environmental liabilities?
Types and methods of due diligence necessary to identify environmental liabilities
Anticipating changes that affect project permitting and raise compliance costs
Andrew A. Gracie, Esq., Partner, Chadbourne & Parke

Utility plants that have already sold and their valuation
Key factors determining value
Timing for new sales
Regulatory issues
Assessing closing risk
Jeffrey C. Bodington, President, Bodington & Co.

Marketing Generation Assets
The positioning of assets
Approaching the market-auction v. negotiation
Calculating fair value in a deregulated market
Identifying a qualified buyer
Categorizing types of buyers-financial v. strategic, public v. private
Jeff Miller, Partner, The Beacon Group

Obtaining bid protections to lessen the risks for the lead bidder
Maintaining flexibility to ensure the leading bid remains viable
Strategies used by the non-lead bidders to come from behind and successfully acquire assets
Ronald L. Rencher, Partner, LeBouef, Lamb, Greene & MacRae

Strategy for marketing of nuclear power
Data requirements for assessment of nuclear power acquisition
Financial considerations and economic analysis
Anis D. Sherali, P.E., Vice President Power Supply, Economic, Regulatory and Financial Planning, Southern Engineering Co.

Telephone: (818) 902-5400
Fax form to: (818) 902-5401
Mail form to: Infocast, Inc.
13715 Burbank Blvd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91401

E-mail form to:

Tuition: $995.00 The full tuition is payable in advance and includes program instruction, continental breakfasts, luncheon and reception, complete conference documentation and refreshments. * 40% Discount for U.S. Federal, State and Local Government Employees: $597.00
Program Schedule: Registration will take place from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Monday, April 14. The conference will take place from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., followed by a cocktail reception from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The conference will resume on Tuesday, April 15 at 8:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:15 p.m.
Accommodations: Infocast has secured a limited number of rooms at the San Francisco Marriott, which will be held at a special rate of $177.00 until March 14,1997. To receive the special rate, call the hotel directly at (415) 442-6755 and mention that you are an Infocast registrant. The hotel is located at 55 Fourth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Air Transportation: For discounted airline fares, please call Uniglobe Executive Travel at (800) 676-3932 and mention your participation in the Infocast conference.
Cancellation, Refund & Credit: If your written cancellation is received prior to March 31, 1997, a full refund will be made. Written cancellations received on or after March 31,1997, will create a credit of the tuition good toward any other Infocast conference or publication. In the event that a program is canceled, Infocast does not assume responsibility for any expense other than the tuition fee.
MCLE Credits: Infocast certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 13 hours.

Registration Form:
Enclosed is a check payable to “Infocast” to register the following individual in:

Buying and Selling Utility Generation Assets
San Francisco Marriott – San Francisco, CA
April 14-15, 1997 (415) 442-6755

Name __________________________________________________

Position _________________________________________________

Organization _____________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________

City __________________________ State ____ Zip __________

Telephone _____________________ Fax _____________________

Person Authorizing Training ______________________________

Credit Card Information:

( Visa ( Mastercard ( American Express

Card Number _______________________________________________

Expiration Date ___________ Name ___________________________

Signature __________________________________________________

Tracking Code A B C