From the director…
Welcome
to Pipes & Wires #100. From a humble beginning in an upstairs bedroom in
Palmerston North, New Zealand in March 2001, Pipes & Wires has grown from a
couple of simple articles covering 2 pages to a comprehensive monthly journal
circulated globally to about 1,150 readers. A couple of those articles included
a look at how SoCalEd and PG&E headed into difficulty as the
California market melted down, and why Hyder
plc sold SWALEC and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water ... funny how those
underlying themes keep coming back.
So,
anyway, this issue takes a look at some regulatory decisions, and then looks at
several mergers in the US as well as an overview of consolidation in the
eastern US. We also look the developments of an ISO standard for asset
management, the shift in Germany’s nuclear policy and finish up with a look at
Chernobyl 25 years on.
Accredited supplier status
Utility
Consultants is pleased to announce that it is now an Asia-Pacific Utilities Group (APUG) accredited
supplier (registration number 88899493).
Get Pipes & Wires “white-listed”
To
avoid being intercepted by your server as spam, please arrange to have phil.caffyn@utilityconsultants.co.nz
“white-listed” by your IT people.
Pipes & Wires on the web
Pipes & Wires on Linked In
Pipes
& Wires now has an on-line
group for readers to keep in touch on a more regular basis, bounce ideas
around or raise issues and concerns. Pick here
to visit my Linked In profile and add me
to your connections.
Pipes & Wires on Facebook
Pipes
& Wires now also has its own Facebook page. Just go to Facebook’s home page and search for Pipes
& Wires.
Pipes & Wires on YouTube
To see
a short video clip explaining more about Pipes & Wires, pick here.
Pipes & Wires on the web
To
read more about Pipes & Wires, pick here.
About Utility Consultants
Utility
Consultants Ltd is a management consultancy specialising in pretty much all aspects
of energy and infrastructure networks – pick here to see more, or
to be sent a detailed profile of recent projects, pick
here.
Regulatory decisions
Aus – the Queensland gas distribution revised
access arrangement
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires #96 and #99
examined APT
Allgas’ proposed Access Arrangement for its’ Queensland gas network (which
also crosses into NSW) for the period 1st July 2011 to 30th
June 2016, and the Australian Energy
Regulator’s (AER) draft decision respectively. This article examines the key features of
Allgas’ revised Access Arrangement.
Key aspects of the revised Access
Arrangement
Key
aspects of the revised Access Arrangement are set out in the following table
(which will be completed once the final decision emerges)...
|
Parameter |
Proposed AA |
Draft decision |
Revised AA |
Final decision |
|
Total
OpEx |
$110.12m (nominal) $102m (nominal 10/11) |
$93m (nominal 10/11) |
$115m (nominal) |
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$139.05m (nominal) $129m (nominal 10/11) |
$125m (nominal 10/11) |
$145m (nominal) |
|
|
Opening
capital base |
$421.6m (nominal) |
$424m (nominal) |
$424m (nominal) |
|
|
Closing
capital base |
$559.9m (nominal) |
$562m (nominal) |
$551m (nominal) |
|
|
Rate
of return |
10.3% (post-tax nominal vanilla) |
9.96 (post-tax nominal vanilla) |
11.38% (nominal vanilla) |
|
|
Debt
risk premium |
3.85% |
3.93% |
4.69% |
|
|
Revenue
requirement |
$372.1m (nominal) |
$345m (nominal) |
$348m (nominal) |
|
Pipes
& Wires will make further comment as the decision process progresses.
US – rejecting the PATH
Introduction
The
proposed Potomac
Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) transmission line from West
Virginia to Maryland has faced tough opposition from the West Virginia Public Service Commission’s
(PSC) over the last few months. This article examines the promoter’s decision
to suspend the PATH due to softening electricity demand.
What exactly is PATH and why is it so
important ?
For
those who haven’t followed this story closely, the PATH is a 275 mile long 765kV line from the John E. Amos power
station near Charleston, West Virginia to Kemptown Substation near
Newmarket, Maryland being promoted by American
Electric Power and Allegheny
Energy (just for clarification, the West Virginia PSC documents refer to
224 miles, which is the PATH length through West Virginia, not the total length
of 275 miles). The PATH is expected to cost about $2.1b. The existing West
Virginia and Maryland power grids are aging and becoming increasingly capacity
constrained. The promoters claim that PATH will be need by 2015 to meet
projected demand on the East Coast, a view supported by the DOE, the NERC,
and the PJM.
The promoters’ decision to suspend PATH
AEP and First
Energy (the new owners of Allegheny) have jointly complied with a PJM directive
to file withdrawals of PATH’s application from the Maryland PSC, the
Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia PSC. This is in
response to a recent softening of electricity demand that had previously
confirmed the need for the PATH.
Key events in the PATH approval process
PATH’s approval
has included the following key events....
·
15th May 2009 - PATH filed an
application with the West Virginia PSC to build a 765kV line.
·
28th October 2009 – the PSC staff
recommended that the Commission either dismiss the application or require PATH
to request a tolling. The basis for this recommendation was that the Maryland PSC had dismissed
the application and that the load and economic data was out of date.
·
4th November 2009 – PATH objects to the
dismissal but agrees to a tolling.
·
24th November 2009 – the Commission
denies the motion to dismiss but agrees to a tolling.
·
3rd May 2010 – PATH proposed to toll the
statutory date from 24th February 2011 to 16th May 2011.
·
3rd June 2010 – the Commission grants
PATH’s request to toll the statutory date.
·
8th July 2010 – PATH submitted update
information including alternative options.
·
10th August 2010 – PATH filed a 3rd
proposal to toll the statutory deadline, citing the need to correct an error in
their base-case modeling.
·
10th September 2010 – the Commission
granted the 3rd motion to toll and set a new timeframe that required
the PSC to make a final decision by 28th July 2011.
·
12th October 2010 – the Virginia
Electric & Power Company (VEPCO) sought a ruling that the rebuild of
its Mount Storm – Doubs 500kV line be exempt from various parts of the West
Virginia Code because of the urgent nature of the work. This rebuild was
approved by the PJM.
·
10th December 2010 - the PSC’s staff recommended
to the Commissioners that the PATH application either be dismissed or that
PATH be required to request a tolling sufficient to allow the PSC to undertake
further analysis.
·
6th January 2011 – AEP and Allegheny
request the Virginia State Corporation Commission to delay its planned decision
so that updated demand projections can be included in the proposal.
·
7th January 2011 – the West Virginia PSC
postponed its’ postponed its deadline for ruling until 9th February
2012 in response to the above request.
·
11th March 2011 – AEP and FirstEnergy
file withdrawals with the Maryland PSC, the
Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia PSC.
Explanatory note
For those who
thought that the FERC oversaw inter-state electric transmission, well it’s not
quite that simple. The FERC regulates tariffs, but the individual states
regulate siting. Thanks to Bob McDiarmid and the team at Spiegel & McDiarmid
in Washington DC for their assistance with this series of articles.
Aus – South Australian gas distribution
revised access arrangement
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires #96 and #99 examined Envestra’s
proposed Access Arrangement for its’ South Australian gas distribution networks
for the period 1st July 2011 to 30th June 2016, and the Australian Energy Regulator’s (AER) draft
decision respectively. This article
examines the key features of Envestra’s revised Access Arrangement
Key aspects of the revised Access
Arrangement
Key
aspects of the revised Access Arrangement are set out in the following table (which
will be completed once the final decision emerges)...
|
Parameter |
Proposed AA |
Draft decision |
Revised AA |
Final decision |
|
Total
OpEx |
$335.69m (real 08/09) $344.1m (real 10/11) |
$260m (real 10/11) |
$336m (real 09/10) |
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$506.9m (real 08/09) $520m (real 10/11) |
$415m (real 10/11) |
$507m (real 08/09) |
|
|
Opening
capital base |
$1,030m (nominal) |
$1,018m (nominal) |
$1,030m (nominal) |
|
|
Closing
capital base |
$1,595.4m (nominal) |
$1,420m (nominal) |
$1,595.4m (nominal) |
|
|
Depreciation |
$180.6m (nominal) |
$211m (nominal) |
$151.7m (nominal) |
|
|
Rate
of return |
10.64% (nominal post-tax) |
9.96% (nominal post-tax) |
Not stated |
|
|
Debt
risk premium |
3.39% |
3.93% |
|
|
|
Revenue
requirement |
$1,165m |
$985m |
$1,165m (nominal) |
|
Pipes
& Wires will provide further analysis as the process progresses.
Asset strategy
Global – the emerging ISO standard for
asset management
Introduction
The
last 2 decades have seen a strong push to codify many organisational procedures
and processes to ensure consistency, and many readers will undoubtedly be ISO accredited
at various levels. This article examines the emerging ISO standard for asset
management and compares it (or at least what has emerged so far) with PAS 55.
Previous asset management standards
Most
of us are well aware of PAS 55, which was developed in the UK in 2004 under the
Institute Of Asset Management’s (IAM)
sponsorship. In many sectors it has become the “expected way of doing business”
and was subsequently revised in 2008.
Other
countries subsequently developed useful parallel standards, so since 2008 the
IAM has been working to encourage the development of a true International
Standard and in June 2010 a group of 40 representatives from 13 countries voted
to be involved in the development process.
The emerging ISO standard
In August 2010 ISO’s Technical Management Board
authorised Project
Committee 251 (ISO/PC 251) to develop an International Standard on Asset
Management, and assigned the secretariat duties to the British Standards
Institution. The first meeting of PC 251 was held in Melbourne, Australia from
28th February to 4th March 2011, from which the following
salient points emerged...
· A re-consideration
of how risk might be included in ISO 55000 given that it is extensively covered
by ISO 31000.
· A recognition that
key terms such as “asset management” need to embrace more than just physical
assets.
· PC 251 resolved to
request ISO to allow PC 251 to develop the following 3 separate standards (as
distinct from 1 standard in 3 parts):
· ISO 55000 Asset management – Overview, principles and terminology.
· ISO 55001 Asset management – Management systems – Requirements.
· ISO 55002 Asset management – Management systems - Guidelines on the
application of ISO 55001.
· Planning the next
PC meeting for October 2011 in Washington DC at the invitation of the ANSI.
Comparison with PAS 55-1
The
following working drafts of the ISO standard were available on the IAM’s
website as of late February 2011...
·
Part 1
– Overview, principles and terminology.
·
Part 3
– Guidelines for the application of ISO XXXX-Y.
A
quick comparison indicates that Part 1 includes many of the elements of PAS
55-1:2008 and that Part 3 mirrors most of the elements of PAS 55-2:2008.
Pipes
& Wires will make further comment as the work of PC 251 makes progress.
Mergers & acquisitions
US - FirstEnergy completes Allegheny purchase
Introduction
A
bit over 12 months ago First Energy Corp made an
all-stock and debt bid for Allegheny Energy
that would create a giant utility with 6,000,000 customers and about 23,700MW
of generation capacity. This article records the closure of that deal and
recaps a few of the issues that have been discussed along the way.
Basis of the deal
The
deal was originally structured so that Allegheny stockholders would receive
0.667 First Energy shares for each Allegheny share, which valued Allegheny’s
equity at about $4.4b (which was obviously dependent on First Energy’s stock
price). First Energy will also assume $3.8b of Allegheny debt.
The strategic fit
A
quick look at some maps reveals that the acquisition will consolidate the
service territories in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and eastern Ohio, suggesting
at least some degree of strategic fit. Both utilities have regional
consolidation goals and what appear to be similar values, so the deal would
appear to be a good strategic fit.
The regulatory
approvals
Regulatory
approvals were expected to be required from 6 state regulators, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be
involved. All of these approvals seem to have run their course smoothly.
Closing the deal
The
merger became effective on 25th February 2011 under the new name and
brand FirstEnergy
Solutions. This concludes Pipes & Wires coverage of this deal.
US – Duke Energy chases Progress Energy
Introduction
The
US electric industry seems to be a flurry of merger activity at the moment.
This article continues in that theme by examining Duke Energy’s recently
announced $26b bid for Progress
Energy.
The players
Duke
currently operates about 35,000MW of generation and supplies about 4,000,000
electric customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky and
Ohio. Progress currently operates about 21,000MW of generation and supplies
about 3,100,000 electric customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and
Florida.
The proposed deal
In
January 2011 Duke offered Progress’ shareholders 2.6125 Duke shares for each
Progress share, as well as Duke assuming $12.2b of Progress’ debt. The share
offer represented about a 4% premium over Progress’ closing price on the day of
the offer (which seems low in comparison to the premiums paid in other recent
deals). So on the face of it, the merged entity will operate about 56,000MW of
generation and supply about 7,100,000 electric customers in 6 states.
The
expected merger benefits include efficiencies of siting and building new
generation, consolidation of back-office functions, and reduced fuel costs.
The regulatory approvals
The
list of regulatory approvals required is pretty extensive, as follows:
·
Securities & prospectus matters – Securities & Exchange Commission.
·
Market power – FERC.
·
Merger related matters – Kentucky Public Service Commission, South Carolina Public Service
Commission, and the North
Carolina Utilities Commission (not required in Indiana, Ohio or Florida).
·
Nuclear plant licenses – Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
·
Hart-Scott-Rodino
Filing – Department of Justice.
·
Anti-trust clearance – Federal Trade Commission.
·
Communication license transfers – Federal Communications Commission.
Pipes
& Wires will revisit this deal as progress emerges.
US
– NStar acquisition gets shareholder approval but hits a bump
Introduction
Late in 2010 Northeast Utilities launched a
$4.17b bid for NStar (formerly
Boston Edison and Commonwealth Energy) to create the 3rd largest
utility in the US (notwithstanding any reshuffling from the current flurry of
mergers). This article recaps the action, notes the shareholder approval, but
also notes some emerging questions over jurisdiction.
Key players
NStar
is the largest investor-owned utility in Massachusetts, supplying 1,100,000
electric and 300,000 gas customers. Northeast Utilities, meanwhile, supplies
1,890,000 electric customers and 205,000 gas customers in Connecticut,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Northeast has a clear strategy of growing its
regulated businesses, so acquisition of NStar and integration of proximate
service territories makes good sense.
Basis
of the deal
The
basis of the deal is that NStar shareholders will receive 1.312 common
Northeast shares for each NStar share they own so that NStar shareholders will
eventually hold 44% of the equity in the enlarged company that will have annual
revenues of about $8.4b.
Working
through the approvals
On the 4th March 2011
approximately 98% of the Northeast shares that were voted approved the deal, as
well as the Federal
Communications Commission. However in March 2011 the Connecticut Department of Public
Utility Control sought public input to help decide whether it had any
jurisdiction over the deal, whilst the Massachusetts Department of Public
Utilities is apparently seeking to impose a “demonstrate nett benefits to
customers” burden of proof rather than the “no nett harm to consumers” criteria
that has been used previously. Pipes & Wires will comment on both the
specifics relevant to this deal, and the wider regulatory policy implications
of those decisions as both regulators progress their decisions.
Energy policy
Germany – shifting nuclear policies
Introduction
A while ago Pipes & Wires examined
Germany’s nuclear policy as part of a series. This article examines the recent
rapid shift in Germany’s policy following the difficulties at Fukushima
after the earthquake.
Germany’s policy pre-Fukushima
Like many European nations, Germany’s
nuclear policy seems to have been “cyclic” in nature. Key events include:
·
In 2000 the coalition government
enacted the Nuclear Exit Law which saw several stations closed.
·
A new government (led by Angela Merkel)
in 2005 sought to re-negotiate those closures but the coalition agreement with
the Social Democrat Party saw the closures remain.
·
In late 2008 Merkel’s party became more
opposed to the closures and rejected a coalition deal to postpone the planned
closures in return for a ban on new stations.
·
After the September 2009 election, the
emerging victors (led by Merkel) reaffirmed their view that nuclear would be a
key part of Germany’s energy strategy, at least until renewables could fill the
gap.
So for a while there it seemed like
Germany’s nuclear policy was taking a sensible path forward.
The sudden shift post-Fukushima
The radiation leaks from Fukushima
after the Japanese earthquake prompted vigorous protests from the anti-nuclear
brigade, but perhaps more importantly prompted something of a quick policy
U-turn by Merkel who announced that last year’s life extension decision of 17
plants has been suspended for 3 months, and that shutdown of the 7 oldest
reactors will proceed.
So where is Germany’s electricity coming from now ?
Funnily enough, about 3,000MW of demand
is being supplied from France (just as Pipes
& Wires #77 suggested it would) and a further 2,000MW of demand from
the Czech Republic. Guess what most of that electricity will be generated from
?
Meanwhile RWE files a law suit
The government’s basis for ordering the
shutdown of the 7 oldest reactors is the “suspicion of a threat” to the plants’
safety that cannot be fully excluded. RWE
disputes that an earthquake half a world away constitutes sufficient grounds to
invoke that clause, and has filed a law suit challenging the government’s power
whilst E.On has declined to take the matter
to court within the 3 month period even thought it too doubts the basis of the
government’s decision.
Some philosophical views
The balance of public opinion seemed to
have been slowly but steadily shifting towards nuclear power over the last few
years (but only until we get renewables in place, mind you !!) It would now seem that all that hard-won
support has largely vaporised in the wake of 1 single event at Fukushima,
pretty much like how it did after Chernobyl.
Global – 25 years on from Chernobyl
Introduction
I intended this article to be a bit of
re-cap of what actually happened at Chernobyl
25 years ago on 26th April 1986, but little did I know that it would
be overtaken by Fukushima
(cynically described on the TV3 News as “Japan’s very own Chernobyl”). Anyway,
I figured it might be useful to try to get some facts about Chernobyl and cut
through some of the myths and rumors.
Some facts about Chernobyl power station
The station itself is 18km north-east
of the city of Chernobyl, and at the time of the accident in 1986 was supplying
about 10% of the Ukraine’s electricity through the 330kV and 750kV grids. Construction
began in 1970 and the first 4 RBMK-1000
reactors (rated at 3,200MWt) were commissioned in 1977, 1978, 1981 and 1983
respectively. The 5th and 6th reactors that were under
construction at the time of the accident were rapidly abandoned.
Essentially the RBMK reactor is a graphite
moderated, boiling
water reactor (BWR) that was derived from a plutonium-producing military
reactor. A critical feature of the RBMK is that when the cooling water boils to
steam, its neutron absorbing capacity drops to practically nil. This means more
neutrons are available to fission the 235U nuclei, increasing the
heat generation and in turn flashing more water to steam (giving the RBMK a
very high positive void coefficient). A high positive void coefficient doesn’t
necessarily make the RBMK inherently unsafe as the runaway can take several
seconds or even minutes, theoretically giving time to bring the reaction back
under control.
Reactors #3 and #4 were second
generation RBMK’s that had a number of improved safety features which reactors
#1 and #2 did not have.
What actually happened on 26th April 1986 ?
The accident arose from an experiment
to test whether the run-down of the turbine following a trip could provide
sufficient electricity for the cooling water pumps while the auxiliary diesel
generators were started and synchronised. Theoretical analysis suggested it
would work however 3 attempts to achieve this in practice over the 3 previous
years had all failed.
At 01:23 on 26th April a 4th
attempt at the experiment began by tripping the steam from reactor #4, which
was followed by a run-down of the turbine and 4 of the 8 cooling water pumps.
In the 39 seconds before the diesel generators were synchronised the cooling
water flow dropped sufficiently to allow voids in the cooling water circuit to
form. Although this started a positive feedback cycle, automatic control of the
graphite control rods successfully reduced that increased heat generation. At
01:23:40 an emergency shutdown was initiated (and whether this was manual or
automatic remains debated to this day). Unfortunately the design of the reactor
resulted in cooling water being expelled a few seconds before the graphite rods
filled the voids, resulting in a thermal runaway which was followed a few
seconds later by an explosion accompanied by the last recorded power output of
about 33,000MWt (10x nominal rating). A 2nd explosion followed, the
precise cause of which remains undetermined.
Note that this was the 2nd
of 3 accidents that occurred, the first being a partial core meltdown on
reactor #1 in 1981, and the third being a simple non-nuclear generator hydrogen
leak on turbine #4 (associated with reactor #2).
What happened after the 26th April 1986 ?
Seconds after the 2nd
explosion, the 2,000 ton upper plate of the reactor plate was torn lose and
blown off, and flaming material caused at least 5 separate fires on the
bitumen-coated roof. Some 3 hours later at 05:00 the reactor was shut down at
the instruction of the night shift superintendent.
Evacuation of the nearby town of Pripyat began at 14:00
on 27th April, almost 37 hours after the explosion, however there was
still no official word of the explosion until 3 days later on 29th
April when radiation alarms at Forsmark power
station in Sweden were activated. To this day a 30km exclusion zone still
exists around Chernobyl.
There are undoubtedly endless books and
articles about Chernobyl, but a particularly useful book I read recently was “Nuclear New Zealand”
by Dr Andrew McEwan ISBN 1-877270-58-X.
Industry reshuffling
US – consolidating the electric
industry
Introduction
The east
coast of the US electric industry seems to be a flurry of merger activity at
the moment. This article summarises the recent and present deals but more
importantly tries to scratch through the surface to understand the drivers of
what appears to be a leap-frog to the top.
The deals
Recent
and present deals include:
·
PPL’s
acquisition of LG&E and KU (from E.On
US) for $5.6b cash and $800m debt assumption.
·
First Energy Corp acquires
Allegheny Energy
for $4.4b in stock and $3.8b debt assumption.
·
Northeast
Utilities acquisition of NStar
for $4.17b in stock.
·
Duke Energy’s acquisition of Progress Energy for $13.8b in stock
and $12.2b debt assumption.
These
deals add up to about $45b.
Key drivers of the mergers
Most
of us understand that mergers provide an opportunity to get ahead reduce costs,
which are then shared between shareholders and customers. However a little
thought reveals a much wider range of merger benefits:
·
Cost savings.
·
Revenue enhancements.
·
Process improvements.
·
Financial structure.
·
Tax benefits
The
visible face of the current merger flurry seems to emphasise blunting the cost
of new environmental standards, avoiding duplication of generation plant,
extracting operating efficiencies from proximate generation and blunting the
effect of lower electric prices. It would therefore seem that these cost
reductions and efficiencies are more about not falling behind rather than
getting ahead.
The likely future shape of the industry
Like
most merger flurries (as in the UK, Europe and even in NZ), the size of the
biggest players tends to accelerate exponentially away from the “middle” of the
industry. Over time this may leave the “middle” players, and indeed the “small”
players with seemingly high overheads and low scale that may result in pressure
to amalgamate. I’d be surprised if further mergers didn’t emerge in the near
future.
Historical interest
UK – the secret life of the national
grid
BBC
4 recently screened three 1-hour documentaries about the history
of the UK’s national grid (which also screened on Sky in NZ). The link to
BBC 4 may not work for readers outside of the UK, so fortunately its’ been
broken into smaller segments and uploaded to You Tube in 15 minute segments as
follows (if anyone can find the links to the segments not underlined that would
be really cool)....
·
Episode 2 segment 1 of 4.
·
Episode 3 segment 4 of 4.
A bit of light reading…
Book review – “Switching On The King
Country”
Helen Reilly’s latest
book examines electricity in the King Country area of New Zealand’s north
island from the beginnings of electric light in 1911 through to the present era
(2008). In 220 pages jammed packed with stories, anecdotes, interviews,
photo’s, maps and drawings the book chronicles the development of the Waitomo,
Wairere and King Country Electric Power Boards and the Taumarunui, Ohakune and
Raetihi Borough electricity departments and the eventual formation of The Lines Company and King Country Energy. The chapter headings
include....
·
From candlelight to electric light 1911
– 1924.
·
Power in the borough is in short supply
1924 – 1939.
·
Rural communities are eventually
electrified 1939 – 1958.
·
Consolidation and expansion 1959 –
1969.
·
Upgrades, amalgamations and reforms
1970 – 1989.
·
A decade of government reforms and
company development 1989 – 1999.
·
Coming to grips with separation 1999 –
2007.
·
New challenges for rural electricity
companies 2008 -
For
those (like me) that enjoy history this book is a must have. Order yours for
the exceptionally low price of $39.95 (includes NZ postage and packaging) from
the King Country Electric Power Trust by picking here.
Wanted – old electricity history books
If
anyone has an old copy of the following books (or any similar books) they no
longer want I’d be happy to give them a good home…
·
White Diamonds North.
·
Northwards March The Pylons.
·
Marlborough Will Shine Through.
·
Two Per Mile.
·
Live Lines (the old ESAA journal)
Conferences & training courses
The following
training courses will be run by Conferenz...
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Auckland, 25th – 26th
May 2011 (note revised date).
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Wellington, 4th – 5th
May 2011.
·
ENEX
– New Zealand’s Oil & Gas Event – New Plymouth, 9th – 10th
June, 2011.
Opt out from Pipes & Wires
Pick
this link
to opt out from Pipes & Wires. Please ensure that you send from the email
address we send Pipes & Wires to.
Disclaimer
These articles
are of a general nature and are not intended as specific legal, consulting or
investment advice, and are correct at the time of writing. In particular Pipes
& Wires may make forward looking or speculative statements, projections or
estimates of such matters as industry structural changes, merger outcomes or
regulatory determinations.
Utility
Consultants Ltd accepts no liability for action or inaction based on the
contents of Pipes & Wires including any loss, damage or exposure to
offensive material from linking to any websites contained herein.