Pipes & Wires
THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY &
INFRASTRUCTURE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
Issue 62 – August 2007
From the director…
|
|
Welcome
to Pipes & Wires #62 which is a real mixed bag but with a common thread
of CapEx improvement. Amongst this thread we also look at two new regulations
in New Zealand and consider whether global infrastructure is in crisis. On the
gas front we consider the draft pipes determination in Ireland and the
possibility of collusion in Europe. We then consider two deals, look at the
formation of a single electricity market in western Europe, and examine the
Minister’s call-in of the resource consent process for the new 220kV line in
New Zealand. You can
also visit my new website
dedicated to improving CapEx. So until next month, happy reading. |
About Utility Consultants
Utility Consultants Ltd is a
management consultancy specialising in the following aspects of energy and
infrastructure networks…
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be sent a detailed profile of
recent projects, pick
this link.
NZ – public safety management systems
become law
Introduction
The Electricity Amendment Act
2006 and the Gas Amendment Act 2006 both inter
alia embody a heightened emphasis on public safety in connection with the
supply and use of electricity and gas in New Zealand. In particular the Acts spell
out the requirement for Public Safety Management Systems which are expected to
lean heavily on NZS7901
Electricity & Gas Industries – Safety Management Systems For Public Safety.
This rather lengthy article examines the background to the Acts, and what the
requirements for a PSMS mean for electricity and gas distribution businesses.
Background
The purpose of the Energy Safety
Review Bill was two-fold…
·
Improve the electricity and gas safety regimes to effectively
protect the public and property.
·
To improve the occupational regulation of electrical workers, gas
fitters, plumbers and drain-layers.
The Bill was enacted in late 2006
as the respective Electricity Amendment Act 2006 and the Gas Amendment Act
2006. Both of these Acts explicitly require electricity and gas distributors to
implement and maintain a safety management system with regard to public safety
in accordance with any regulations made under the respective Acts.
The legal requirement to implement and maintain a PSMS
The legal requirements to
implement and maintain a PSMS are set out in the respective Acts as follows…
·
Section 12 of the Electricity Amendment Act 2006 adds a new
Section 61A to the Electricity Act 1992 that requires all owners or operators
of an electricity system to implement and maintain a PSMS that requires all
practicable steps to be taken to prevent the electricity system presenting a
significant risk of serious harm to the public or significant damage to third
party property.
·
Section 11 of the Gas Amendment Act 2006 adds a new Section 46A to
the Gas Act 1992 that requires all
owners or operators of a gas system to implement and maintain a PSMS that
requires all practicable steps to be taken to prevent the gas system presenting
a significant risk of serious harm to the public or significant damage to third
party property.
The detailed scope of a PSMS
Section 27 of the Electricity
Amendment Act 2006 adds a new Section 169A to the Electricity Act 1992 whilst
Section 14 of the Gas Amendment Act 2006 adds a new Section 54A to the Gas Act
1992 which largely mirror each other. These sections set out what any
Regulations made under the respective Acts must include and what it may
include. A PSMS must provide for…
·
The systematic identification of existing hazards, and of new
hazards (if possible before they arise, otherwise as they arise).
·
The taking of all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or
minimise those hazards.
·
The regular assessment of each hazard identified.
·
The documentation of the PSMS.
·
The audit of the PSMS.
A PSMS may include…
·
Requirements relating to the design, construction, operation,
maintenance and inspection of the systems.
·
Requirements relating to the security and control of access to the
systems.
·
Requirements relating to the skills, knowledge and experience of
persons who do, or assist in doing, work on or in connection with the systems.
·
Requirements relating to the implementation and management of
contingency plans for emergency situations that affect or be affected by the
systems.
·
Requirements for processes for on-going improvement of safety in
connection with the systems.
·
Requirements for the investigation of accidents that involve or
affect the systems.
When does all this need to be done by ??
The above Sections will not
become operative until Regulations pursuant to the Acts are made, and then
there will be a transition period to comply. It is expected that a discussion
document on the Regulations will be released sometime before October 2007.
Pipes & Wires will make further analysis as this proceeds, but if you would
like further information or simply to chat about how a PSMS might work for you,
pick here.
Disclaimer
This article is not intended as specific
legal advice, and of necessity summarises the legislation into a flowing,
narrative style. Readers should examine the detail of the legislation for
themselves.
Global infrastructure - in crisis or
just groaning ??
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires #61 commented briefly on the rupture of a steam main in
downtown Manhattan that tragically led to the loss of one life. This month we
examine the tragedy of the Bridge 9340
collapse on the Interstate 35W in Minneapolis in the wider context of asset
renewals and public safety management systems.
What actually happened to Bridge 9340 ??
At this early stage it appears
that metal fatigue (obviously a very broad subject) is being closely
investigated, along with the possibility of heavy truck traffic. A possible
avenue of inquiry is the failure of the expansion bearings that instead of moving
as the bridge trusses expanded and contracted were instead requiring the bridge
trusses to flex.
Was Bridge 9340 in poor condition ??
Bridge 9340 had been designated “structurally
deficient” in the official state records as far back as 1990 (meaning some
components needed to be repaired or replaced). This was reiterated by a federal
bridge inspection in 2005 which noted the possibility of replacement. Before we
get too alarmed about that designation of structurally deficient, it must be
noted that a structurally deficient bridge is not necessarily unsafe but must
have clear weight and speed limits in place. However a National Bridge Inventory
report from 2003 indicates that the superstructure condition was poor, whilst
the substructure condition was satisfactory.
Moreover a 2001 report
commissioned by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation noted that Bridge 9340 is a non-redundant structure ie.
the failure of any one component can lead to complete failure. Interestingly
enough this report noted that fatigue cracking was unlikely to be a problem.
Whichever way we look at it, it seems
hard to avoid the painful truth that Bridge 9340 seems to have been in poor
condition relative to the demands of axle loadings, speeds and traffic volumes placed
on it.
What systems and processes were in place ??
At the time that Bridge 9340 was designated
as structurally deficient it was being inspected biennially but after fatigue
cracks and corrosion repairs were made in 1993 the inspection frequency was
increased to annually. What is not clear is how this inspection data was being
used to influence maintenance and renewals.
So is our infrastructure in crisis or just groaning ??
The American
Society of Civil Engineers 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure gave
bridges a C and indicated that it will cost $9.4b over the next 20 years to
eliminate all deficiencies in America’s 590, 750 bridges. Australia’s roads
(including bridges) scored an average of C across national, state and local
roads.
Overall America’s infrastructure
scored a big fat D, whilst Australia’s would seem to be about C+ on average. It
is however important to note that these are averages, and like all averages,
are composed of over’s and under’s.
Have your say on this matter
So is our infrastructure in
crisis, just groaning or is it mostly fine?? Pick the link to tell me your view
on the general condition of infrastructure in your country and the sector(s)
you work in. All individual responses will remain strictly confidential,
however I would like to summarise the results for a conference paper in November
(refer next article).
·
Groaning
Global – getting the renewals right
I’m expecting to present a paper
at the Electricity Networks Asset Management Summit in November on the broad
topic of asset renewals. At this stage my proposed title is “Renewals – (half)
the hidden side of CapEx”. To pre-order a copy of this paper (to be delivered
after the event) pick here.
Ireland – draft gas pipes determination
Introduction
The gas pipeline sector in
Ireland could be significantly re-shaped over the next 5 year control period (PR2)
which starts on 1 October 2007 by one or more of several new supply options,
on-going extensions and the start of full contestability. This article examines
the Commission for Energy Regulation’s
proposed PR2 tariff controls for Bord Gais
Networks in light of those possible changes.
Background
Possible changes to the volumes
and directions of gas flows with BGN’s existing transmission pipelines will be
driven by some or possibly all of the following issues…
·
The gas supply sector will become fully contestable.
·
The network is expected to be extended to other towns.
·
There is likely to be one or more new injection points…
·
When the Corrib gas field comes on stream.
·
If an LNG regasification terminal is established at Shannon.
·
When the North-South pipeline to Northern Ireland is strengthened.
Key features of PR2
Key features of PR2 sought by BGN
and those proposed by the CER are as follows…
|
Parameter |
Sought by BGN |
CER draft decision |
|
CapEx |
€316m |
€189m |
|
OpEx |
€255m |
€276m |
|
Pre-tax WACC |
5.9% |
5.2% |
|
Expected closing RAB |
€1,528m |
€1,433m |
|
Total depreciation |
€235m |
€202m |
|
NPV of total revenue |
€792m |
€737m |
Pipes & Wires will make
further comment as the CER’s final decision emerges.
Global – getting the CapEx right
I’m going to be making a
presentation on “Getting the CapEx right in the infrastructure sectors” at the NZIGE Spring Technical Seminar in
September, so if you’d like to be sent a copy of that presentation after the
conference, pick here.
Europe – competition, collusion or
national interest ??
Introduction
News emerged recently that the EU
anti-trust regulators were investigating possible collusion between E.On and Gaz de
France to stay out of each others retail markets. This article examines the
role of the MEGAL gas pipeline in the alleged collusion and considers whether
this alleged collusion adds weight to the case for separating energy and lines
or perhaps whether it needs to be viewed through a different paradigm of
security of national energy supply and the building of “national energy
champions” (to paraphrase a quote from former French Prime Minister Dominque de
Villepin).
The MEGAL pipeline
The MEGAL pipeline is the only
route for Russian gas to enter France. The pipeline runs across southern
Germany from the Czech and Austrian borders, and was jointly built in 1976 by
the joint venture company MEGAL GmbH which was backed by Ruhr Gas and GDF. The entire MEGAL system is
1,077km long and operates at 80bar pressure. Annual throughput is about 775PJ.
What exactly are the EU’s accusations ??
The EU alleges that joint
ownership of the MEGAL pipeline enabled E.On and EDF to decide who gets the gas
in the pipeline. E.On freely acknowledges that a gas transportation agreement
was in place between the then Ruhr Gas and GDF from 1975 to 2004, but that this
agreement has since been terminated and is of no relevance. Despite the
termination of this agreement, the EU is also examining recent trading
decisions for evidence of collusion.
Does this add weight to the separation argument ??
Because both GDF and E.On are gas
transmitters, gas distributors and gas retailers it could be argued that their
joint ownership of the MEGAL pipeline will influence the allocation and routing
of gas to their respective retail businesses. Perhaps a better approach to this
dilemma might be to consider whether separating lines and energy would
eliminate the concern … afterall as the strict theory goes a lines company that
doesn’t have any interest in downstream energy markets should make un-biased
lines decisions. The practical reality is that the technical and operational
characteristics of lines such as capacity, capacity constraints, outages and
routine switching may tilt the playing field vis-à-vis different energy
companies.
Another significant aspect in the
specific context of the MEGAL pipeline is that of national sovereignty.
Previous issues of Pipes & Wires have noted the importance of sovereignty
interests in the following acquisitions…
·
The German Government’s preference for a German company (E.On) to
acquire Ruhr Gas.
·
The French Government’s desire to see a national energy champion
emerge (which was hoped to be a merger of Suez
and GDF).
·
The Spanish Government’s preference for Endesa to have been acquired by SDG Gas Natural (which didn’t happen).
It would be hard to imagine that
lesser operational issues such as routing and allocating gas would not be
influenced by the same intense sovereignty issues. Afterall it would be hard to
determine whether a routing or allocation decision had been made on the basis
of market collusion or on national energy security. So while issues like the
MEGAL pipeline might apparently add weight to the argument for separating lines
and energy it’s hard to imagine that simply forcing companies like E.On and GDF
to divest either their lines or their energy business will overcome intense nationalist
interests.
Global – the emerging standard for
asset management
To find out more about improving
your asset management activities through adopting the emerging global standard
for asset management PAS 55-1:2004 pick here
or call Phil on +64-7-8546541, or to request a Slide Show on implementing PAS
55-1 pick here.
UK – the impact of DG on security
standards
Introduction
Most of us are familiar with
Engineering Recommendations P2/5 and P2/6 that set out guidelines for security
of electricity supply. This article examines an open
letter from OFGEM and a companion report that pose a number of technical
questions.
Can DG provide security ??
A key question posed by OFGEM is
whether P2/6 will continue to be an appropriate standard as active networks,
DG, virtual power
plants and demand side management become more prevalent.
The companion report by KEMA and Imperial
College has concluded that there are no known instances of UK distributors
using DG to provide security, with the lack of any framework for distributors
to reward DG for providing security being identified as a barrier. The report
goes on to note that several examples are occurring in Holland where the
regulatory framework provides for DG to be rewarded.
So it appears that DG could
provide some security if there is an appropriate mix of primary energy sources
and interconnection, and possibly some reward mechanism in the regulatory
framework.
OFGEM’s consultation
OFGEM is consulting on this
matter until 21st September, and will be running a workshop on 14th
September. Coming a bit closer to home, reconsideration of security standards
for New Zealand may also be timely as the Electricity Governance
(Connection of Distributed Generation) Regulations 2007 become operative at the
end of August 2007.
NZ – draft DG Reg’s become operative
Introduction
The Electricity Governance (Connection of
Distributed Generation) Regulations 2007 were notified in the New Zealand
Gazette earlier this month, and come into force on 30 August 2007. This article
examines the background to those Regulations and discusses how a lines business
might comply.
Background to the Regulations
Over the past 4 years the Ministry of Economic Development has been
compiling regulations to set out the minimum terms and conditions on which electricity
lines businesses must connect generation belonging to a third party. The MED’s
discussion paper notes that facilitating distributed generation is consistent
with many aspects of the Government
Policy Statement on Electricity and with Section 172D (10) (1) of the
Electricity Act 1992.
The result was the draft Electricity
Governance (Connection of Distributed Generation) Regulations 2006 which were
released for consultation in September 2006. These Regulations inter alia set out the maximum
connection charges for various ratings of generators, and regulated terms and
conditions that will apply if a lines business and generator cannot agree on
connection terms.
Summary of the Regulations 2007
Key features of the Regulations
that will become operative on 30 August are as follows…
·
Establishment of a process by which generators can apply to a lines
business to connect generation.
·
Setting out regulated terms and conditions for connecting
distributed generation if the generator and lines business cannot agree on
acceptable terms.
·
Establishment of a default dispute resolution process.
·
Defining the pricing principles that a lines business must apply
when setting connection charges.
·
Setting maximum fees for processing connection applications and
inspecting prior to commissioning.
For a summary of the changes to
the Regulations over the successive consultations pick here.
Complying with the Regulations
Complying with the Regulations
will require a lines business to broadly do the following…
·
Publicise free of charge its application forms and fees,
connection and operating standards, regulated terms and conditions, and its
curtailment and interruption policies both on the web and at its offices.
·
Follow the detail of Schedule 1 to the Regulations when processing
initial and final applications, and when connecting the generation.
·
Connect a generator on the regulated terms and conditions if a
mutually agreed contract has not been finalised within the time periods
specified in Schedule 1.
·
Resolve any disputes in accordance with Schedule 3 of the
Regulations.
·
Set its connection charges in accordance with Schedule 4 of the
Regulations.
·
Treat all generators equally.
Utility Consultants has been
working with the policy framework and draft regulations over the course of the
consultation period, so we’re up to speed with the issues and requirements. For
more information or just to chat about how your company can comply, pick here.
Disclaimer
This article is not intended as
specific legal advice, and of necessity summarises the legislation into a
flowing, narrative style. Readers should examine the detail of the legislation
for themselves.
Global – promoting best practice CapEx
Utility Consultants is pleased to
announce the launch of a specialist website
dedicated to promoting best practice CapEx policies, processes and planning in
the infrastructure sectors.
Europe – E.On plays out the end game
Introduction
Previous issues (several in fact)
of Pipes & Wires recorded E.On’s long and
diligent pursuit of Spanish utility Endesa.
Although E.On’s bid was finally gazzumped by ENEL
and Acciona, E.On did reach an agreement
to purchase about €10b of assets that ENEL was required to divest. This article
examines those assets.
Background
Endesa first came into play in
early 2006 when SDG Gas Natural made
an unsolicited bid that was ultimately rejected (Pipes & Wires #48, #50 and
#52). Fresh from its abandoned pursuit of ScottishPower in early 2006 (Pipes
& Wires #45 and #47), E.On took a tilt at Endesa that was ultimately
gazzumped by Italian utility ENEL and Spanish sustainable development company
Acciona in May this year. A happier side to this gazzumping was an agreement
for E.On to acquire a range of assets.
The assets involved
E.On will acquire the following
assets from the enlarged ENEL…
·
Spanish electric utility Viesgo,
making E.On Spain’s fourth largest utility with a contracted capacity of
2,725MW.
·
Spanish wind farm operator Energi E2 Renovables Ibericas.
·
Endesa’s European subsidiary Endesa Europa SL which includes
businesses in Italy, France, Poland and Turkey.
The EU has ruled that none of
these acquisitions would give E.On a dominant presence in any market, and
could, in a few cases, provide additional competition. It’s been interesting to
have followed the many aspects of E.On’s play for Endesa, but now the end game
is being played out it’s probably a good time to end the story. No doubt E.On
will be back, especially if the EU forces separation of lines and energy (which
might be as soon as next month).
NZ – northward march the pylons
Introduction
Earlier this month it was announced
that the Minister for the Environment will use his call-in powers under the
Resource Management Act 1991 to better coordinate assessment of the proposed
220kV line from Whakamaru to Otahuhu and Pakuranga. This article examines what
exactly a call-in is and what the issues meriting the call-in are.
The call-in process in the Act
Making resource allocation
decisions under the Act is generally the responsibility of district or regional
councils or both. However the Act does provide
for the Minister to intervene in matters of national significance. The Act
was amended in 2005 to increase the intervention options available to the
Minister, but still with the expectation that this power would be used
sparingly.
Broadly speaking the Minister may
intervene in a resource consent application or notice of requirement if either
the applicant or the council involved requests intervention, or if the Minister
decides that intervention is warranted. Calling-in is only one of several
interventions that the Minister can use in matters of national significance.
Reasons for calling-in the transmission lines
There are a number of issues on
which a call-in can be based. In this instance the call-in is based on the
following three issues…
·
The widespread nature of public concern.
·
The significant use of physical and natural resources.
·
Because it effects 2 regions and 7 districts.
·
It is likely to make significant changes to the natural
environment.
One of the two options available to
the Minister under call-in is to appoint a board of inquiry which will hear
submissions and evidence and consider the work done by each of the councils’ to
date. The board will then publish a draft decision which will be available for
comment, after which a final decision will be published.
As the call-in process is a
significant aspect of infrastructure policy and planning, Pipes & Wires
will provide further analysis and comment as the process proceeds.
Europe – towards a single electricity
market
Introduction
About 2 months back another
little piece of history was made as Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and
Holland agreed to form the largest single electricity market (SEM) to date with
an expected commencement date of 1 January 2009. This article briefly examines
the EU requirements to form an SEM and the background legal framework.
Background
Directive 1996/92/EC set out
common rules for electricity markets within EU member states that have lead to
improved efficiencies and tariff reductions. Directive 2003/54/EC set out
further rules to improve market efficiencies and also repealed Directive
1996/92/EC.
Key requirements for a single market
Directive 2003/54/EC sets out a
number of requirements that member states must impose within the broad
principle that electricity undertakings must be operated commercially with no
discrimination between undertakings with the overall objective of achieving a
competitive, secure and environmentally sustainable market. The requirements
for member states are…
·
To impose public service obligations which may include security of
supply, standards of price and quality, energy efficiency and climate
protection.
·
To ensure that all domestic and small commercial customers have
access to reasonable and easily comparable prices.
·
To protect vulnerable end-use customers, including helping them
avoid disconnection.
·
Ensure appropriate systems are in place to enable all eligible
customers to access transmission and distribution networks.
·
To designate system operators
·
To unbundled customers accounts.
It is readily apparent that the
formation of an SEM will require the intense cooperation of individual member
states which as we’ve seen might not sit easily or comfortably with the
formation of national energy champions in Germany, possibly in France but
probably not in Spain. However the presence of multi-national utilities such as
E.On, ENEL and RWE may make grid interconnection easier.
The next milestone in the
formation of a European SEM will be the kick-off of the Irish SEM in November
2007, so Pipes & Wires will make further comment then.
Aus – NGC Transco sells Basslink
Introduction
Late last month it was announced
that NGC Transco had agreed to sell the Basslink HVDC link to CitySpring Infrastructure for
A$1.175b after heightened interest among bidders. This article examines exactly
what the Basslink is and why it might be so sought after.
What exactly is the Basslink
Basslink is a 400kV HVDC link
between Tasmania and Victoria with a continuous rating of 480MW and a
short-term rating of 630MW. The link is 370km long of which 290km is undersea
cable. Its key purpose is to both increase security against dry years in Tasmania
and peak capacity shortages in Victoria.
Why might the Basslink be so valuable??
The tag-line on Basslink’s
website gives a clue to why it might be so valuable … “secure” and
“competition” are two of the words used. Basslink enables the injection of up
to 630MW into the south-eastern states at peak times, providing both useful
support to this market and competition to Snowy Hydro. And when the rains don’t
come in Tasmania, up to 480MW can be continuously injected from the
south-eastern mainland market.
Christopher Hinton consolidates an industry
The
early years
Christopher was born in Tisbury, Wiltshire in
1901 (that’s close enough to the late 1800’s). In 1917 he commenced an
engineering apprenticeship at the Great Western Railway’s works at Swindon and
in 1923 he was awarded an IMechE scholarship to Trinity College from which he
graduated with a first class degree in mechanical sciences.
Life
before electricity
Christopher’s first post-university job was
with one of Imperial Chemical Industries pre-decessors, where he was appointed
chief engineer in 1930 at the remarkably young age of 29. After two war-time
secondments to government agencies, Christopher was asked to manage part of the
newly-formed Department of Atomic Energy. When the UKAEA was established in
1954 Christopher was appointed managing director of the industrial group where
he oversaw developments at Windscale, Capenhurst, Calder Hall and Dounreay.
The
industry restructures
History buffs may recall that the Electricity
Act 1947 consolidated over 600 small distributors into 14 regional electricity
boards (which pretty much reflect the current distribution license holders) and
also established the British Electricity Authority to operate the generation
and the grid. The BEA became the Central Electricity Authority in 1954, but
only three years later the government decided to restructure the CEA into the
legendry CEGB. Around this time Christopher was asked to chair the board which
he did until his retirement in 1964. During his chairmanship the CEGB constructed
2 nuclear and 8 coal fired stations. Christopher also had a particular interest
in developing the CEGB’s scientific research function (which may have stemmed
from his early scientific background at ICI’s predecessor)
Life
after electricity
Just prior to retiring and for several years
afterwards Christopher was chairman of the World Energy Conference and retained
an interest in its activities right up to his death in 1983. He was also
president of the IMechE and chancellor of the University of Bath from 1966 to
1980. Honors included an OBE in 1951, a KBE in 1957, a life peerage in 1965 and
an Order Of Merit in 1976.
Conference papers
Utility Consultants has recently
presented the following conference papers which are available upon request…
·
“Tariff
control of Pipes & Wires utilities – where is it heading??” – presented
at the NZIGE Spring Technical Seminar,
October 2006.
·
“Setting
service levels for utility networks” – presented at the Electricity Network
Asset Management Summit, November 2006.
Conferences & events
·
NZIGE
Spring Technical Seminar – 17th – 18th September 2007
(Wellington).
·
East Africa
Power Industry Convention – 18th to 21st September
2007 (Addis Ababa).
·
Land Pipeline
Engineering – 25th and 26th September 2007 (New
Plymouth).
·
iPAD Central Africa – 9th
to 12th October 2007 (Kinshasa).
·
1st Annual Metering, Billing
& CRM Conference – 16th to 18th October 2007 (New
Delhi).
·
West Africa
Power Industry Convention – 19th – 21st November 2007
(Abuja).
·
Electricity
Network Asset Management Summit – 20th to 21st November
2007 (Wellington).
·
Inaugural
Advanced Metering Summit – 27th November 2007 (Auckland).
Any old books in your library ??
I’m looking for old books and
magazine articles on electricity industry and borough council history,
especially books like jubilee celebrations of utilities or back copies of the
old “Live Lines”. If you’ve got any old books like this that you don’t wish to
keep please send them to me.
Tell me how good this issue was…
Please pick one of the links
below to tell me what you think of this issue of Pipes & Wires…
·
Good
·
Average
·
Poor
If you get this is a hard-copy,
your comments can be emailed to issue#62@utilityconsultants.co.nz
If you receive this second-hand by email, you can receive Pipes & Wires
directly by picking here.
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.