From the director…
Welcome
to Pipes & Wires #91. This month features the introduction of an expanded
web presence for Pipes & Wires on Linked In, Facebook and You Tube, and
also signals the end of those endless summer days that I spoke of.
This
issue examines a few regulatory decisions from Romania, India and the
Philippines, as well as examining energy and regulatory policy in Australia, the
US, Argentina and Bulgaria. We conclude this issue with a look at the industry
reshuffling in Europe and a “privatisation” in the US.
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 determinations
As
most of the 5 yearly price resets for which much is published in English have
come to an end, this section examines a few price decisions from areas where
price resets tend to be annual and less well as documented (at least in
English). These articles are a bit more ad-hoc and less structured that Pipes
& Wires systematic analysis of other resets.
Romania – increasing the transmission
grid tariffs
Introduction
This
brief article examines the recent transmission tariff increases that will apply
to the Romanian grid operator Transelectrica.
A bit about Transelectrica
Transelectrica
owns and operates the 220kV, 400kV and 750kV grids in Romania which are
administered in 8 geographical regions, and also provides market operation
services. Because of the interconnected nature of the grids in south-eastern
Europe, Transelectrica is also involved with the European Network of Transmission
System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E).
Transelectrica is a joint-stock
company with 73.6% of the equity held by the Ministry of Economy and Commerce,
13.5% held by an institutional investor, and 10% traded on the Bucharest stock
exchange.
The tariff increase
The
Romanian energy regulator ANRE has allowed
Transelectrica to increase its average transmission tariff from €3.8/MWh to
€4.0/MWh, or about 5.3%.
Transelectrica’s investment plans
Transelectrica
has an investment program of about €1b over the next 10 to 15 years, and has
recently arranged to borrow €65m (which doesn’t seem much compared to
Transelectrica’s annual revenue of about €715m).
India – increasing tariffs in Tamil
Nadu
Introduction
Keeping
electricity prices down does provide a competitive advantage for
energy-intensive industries, but unless care is taken those low prices can also
lead to declining supply reliability. This article examines the recent request
for price increases by the electricity board in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
Background
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) has not
raised its prices to large users for over 7 years, and last year it lost 60
billion Rupees (about NZ$1.8b) due to the escalating cost of wholesale
electricity. This cash deficit has led to declining reliability and increasing
load shedding.
The proposed price increases
The
TNEB consequently sought to increase its prices by about 11% for domestic
consumers using between 100kWh and 200kWh per month, 12% for domestic consumers
using between 200kWh and 300kWh per month, and about 16% for high-voltage
industrial consumers. These price increases are expected to increase revenues
by about 1b Rupees per year.
The regulator’s response
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
has been consulting consumer groups however it seems likely that the price
increases will be approved.
Philippines – backing down on the
tariff increase
Introduction
Most
of us in the industry will understand and accept the need for power (and I use
that term very broadly to include by line and energy charges) prices to
increase to fund renewals and new capacity. In some cases those increases can
be very significant. This article examines the recent decision by the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) in the
Philippines to suspend its proposed 22% price increase.
Background
MERALCO
has had a rather complicated history of price increases which included the
following...
·
A 1994 price increase was reversed in
1998.
·
A dispute over the RAB methodology that
led to a Supreme Court decision in 2002 upholding the Energy Regulatory Commission’s (ERC) original
decision.
The decision to suspend the tariff
increase
In
2009 MERALCO sought a 0.269 centavos per kWh (about 0.0082 NZ cents) increase
to its distribution prices from the ERC. The ERC approved this price increase
to reflect an increase in wholesale energy prices of 1.83 pesos per kWh
increase.
In
early 2010 several consumer groups pressured the ERC into reconsidering the
price increase, so the ERC set a hearing date for early February. However in
late January MERALCO decided not to implement the increase.
Postscript
In
case anyone is wondering how Manila Electric Company abbreviates to MERALCO,
the abbreviation is actually from the original name, Manila Electric Railroad
Company.
Energy policy
Argentina – examining the nuclear
policy
Introduction
After
examining the nuclear policies of most countries in Europe, it’s time for a bit
of a change. This article takes a bit of a poke around Argentina’s nuclear
policy (which might lead to an examination of nuclear policies in other South
American countries).
The transition from research to
commercial power
Following
a period of research from 1950 onwards, a feasibility study of a 300 to 500 MW
reactor in the Buenos Aires region was undertaken. The scientific bias toward heavy water reactors
strongly favored German and Canadian manufacturers, hence it is not surprising that
Siemens and Atomic Energy of Canada dominated the
subsequent nuclear construction program.
The construction phase
The
construction history of Argentina’s 3 nuclear power stations is as follows...
·
Construction of Argentina’s (and
indeed, Latin America’s) first commercial nuclear power station began at Atucha, about 100km west
of Buenos Aires, in 1968. This station is based around a Siemens-KWU pressurised
heavy water reactor (PHWR), and is rated at 357 MW. Atucha was completed in
1974, and subsequently became known as Atucha I.
·
Construction of a second nuclear plant
began near Embalse
in the Cordoba province. This station is based on a CANDU PHWR rated at 648
MW. Embalse was completed in 1984.
·
Construction of a second station at
Atucha (to be known as Atucha II)
began in 1980 based around a Siemens PHWR rated at 750 MW. However construction
languished at around 80% completion until August 2006 when the government
decided to re-activate the nuclear program with a commitment to complete Atucha
II by 2010 (a recent official pronouncement indicated that it will be completed
by the end of 2010).
The current situation
Argentina’s
annual generation is about 115,000 GWh of which only about 4% is nuclear, which
is very low compared to most of the European countries we have already examined.
The current nuclear policy
The
then government of Nestor
Kirchner re-activated the nuclear program in August 2006 with a US$3.5b
program to complete Atucha II by 2010, and extending the life of Atucha I and
Embalse. It is not clear whether this was driven by the technical merits of
nuclear power or whether it was a knee-jerk reaction to the severe natural gas shortage
of 2004. What was clear was Kirchner’s dislike of foreign-owned utilities,
which, along with his comfortable relationship with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, would
suggest a rather nationalist view of energy resources. Kirchner was replaced as
president in December 2007 by Mrs
Kirchner in general elections, and to date there are no obvious signs of
any anti-nuclear sentiment emerging.
Where could the policy go ?
There
seem to be a number of policy-shaping drivers at work here...
·
Recent and present governments appear
to be strongly left-of-center on the political spectrum, and may be prone to
policy dominated by ideology rather than pragmatism. Pipes & Wires has
noted that such governments tend to be anti-nuclear (all except France, but
maybe that’s because so many jobs depend on the nuclear industry).
·
There is a strong dislike and distrust
of foreign-owned utilities, suggesting that energy policy will have a strong
nationalist bias. However it would be surprising if it goes as far as
nationalising those utilities (such as Chavez did in Venezuela) as Argentina
seems to have a more pressing awareness of the need to maintain foreign investor
confidence.
·
The natural gas crisis of 2004 appears
to still be fresh in people’s minds, so venturing anywhere towards “lights out”
territory is a complete political no-go.
·
Argentina doesn’t appear to have heaps
of Uranium reserves (not like Australia), so it would be hard to play a strong
energy self-sufficiency line.
I
have this feeling that the Argentine government will have a lot of big balls in
the air and that the nuclear detail of the overall energy policy is unlikely to
get a lot of priority ... the priority will be “mantenga las luces en” – “keep
the lights on”, especially after the recent
blackout in neighboring Brazil.
Australia – energy policy in the West
Introduction
Pipes & Wires #86 examined the rumored re-amalgamation of Western Australia’s
generator Verve Energy and
retailer Synergy, and concluded that it appeared to have ground to a halt. It
was, however, noted that Energy Minister Peter Collier planned a “shakeup of the WEM rules” to “fix Verve’s
financial woes”. This article revisits the matter in light of the Western Australian Energy Market Study that was released in late 2009.
Key conclusions of the Study
The key conclusions of the Study
include....
·
That the Short Term Electricity Market
(STEM) includes some complicating features and a compensation mechanism that
appears to be under-rewarding some participants. Despite this, there is an
increasing number of competing generators.
·
Recognition that at least some
government involvement is necessary to create efficient outcomes, but that some
participants perceive that involvement to be excessive and are being
discouraged from investing.
·
Regulated retail tariffs below the cost
of supply are damaging some participants.
·
That the unconstrained basis of
connecting new distribution customers may be resulting in inefficient
investment.
·
That the regulatory process for
approving new transmission investment lacks transparency.
·
That the distribution regulatory
framework will need to accommodate embedded generation, and incentivise
innovation and the uptake of new technologies.
These conclusions all seem very
reasonable, and make good sense, so it will be interesting to see whether the
Study’s recommendations are implemented.
Linking the Study’s conclusions to the previous concerns
The major concern of all this was that
Verve’s charges were simply too low, and it was not clear how a shakeup of the
WEM would address this given that those charges were set by regulation. However
the Study has also emphasised that regulated tariffs need to be “transitioned
to a cost reflective level” through a transparent process.
That particular recommendation makes
sound analytical sense, but how politically acceptable it is remains to be
seen.
Bulgaria – funding new nuclear stations
Introduction
The
pages of Pipes & Wires have much to say about nuclear power, and in
particular the tension between the increasing political priority of reducing
CO2 emissions and the legacy anti-nuclear stances. This article examines the
proposed Russian funding of a new nuclear plant in Bulgaria.
Background
Pipes & Wires
#87 examined Bulgaria’s nuclear policy, and noted that about 31%
of Bulgaria’s electricity was generated by its 1 nuclear plant at Kozloduy
but that Kozloduy was shut down as part of Bulgaria’s accession to the EU. That
article also noted plans for two 1,000MW third generation VVER reactors at Belene in
northern Bulgaria.
The Belene funding arrangement
collapses
Last
year the Bulgarian National Electricity
Company’s (NEK) 49% strategic partner in Belene, German utility RWE, withdrew from the project citing the
Bulgarian government’s inability to secure funding. As much of the foundation
work had been completed and the equipment manufacture was well underway, this
proved something of a dilemma.
The offer of Russian funding
Within
a day of RWE announcing its’ withdrawal from Belene, the Russian state-owned
nuclear corporation Rosatom
announced its’ wish to take a stake in Belene. However the Bulgarian
government’s inability to attract funding could see the available stake
increase from 51% to 80%, and is expected that identifying a suitable partner
could take 18 months. Meanwhile delivery of the 2 reactors is likely to slip to
2013 and 2014 respectively.
Regulatory policy
US – considering tariff equalisation
arrangements
Introduction
Power
sharing across ever-widening geographical regions to better utilise generation
and capture weather and timing differences are nothing new. This article
examines the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC) recent approval for 2 Entergy
subsidiaries to exit from a power sharing agreement amongst 5 Entergy
affiliates and ends with some philosophical musings on cross-subsidies.
The power sharing agreement
The
Entergy System Agreement is an interconnection and pooling agreement dating
from 1982 that requires the central economic dispatch and exchange of energy
amongst the 5 affiliates Entergy
Arkansas, Entergy
Louisiana, Entergy
Gulf States, Entergy
Mississippi and Entergy
New Orleans that provide wholesale and retail electricity services across
Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. The Agreement includes 7 service
schedules that address matters such as reserve equalisation, allocation of
revenue and allocation of costs.
Difficulties with the Agreement
A
key part of the Agreement is that it allows allocation of costs and revenues
amongst the parties. This has become contentious (so the Arkansas Public Service Commission has
argued) because about 20% of the average Arkansas electricity bill goes to
subsidise customers in other states where generation costs are higher. The PSC
claims that this subsidy has amounted to about $869m over 3 years.
Exiting the Agreement
Entergy
Arkansas signaled its intention to withdraw in December 2013, whilst Entergy
Mississippi signaled its intention to withdraw in December 2015. The FERC
approved the respective plans to withdraw, and moreover added the additional
criteria forbidding either utility from compensating the remaining parties, and
relieving them of any obligations to the other parties after they have
withdrawn.
Some philosophical musings on
cross-subsidies
Cross-subsidies
seem to have fallen from grace since the economic reforms of the 1980’s, but my
guess is that without subsidies most of us would be a lot worse off.
In
the context of this article, the good folk of Arkansas have subsidised
electricity bills in other states to something like $869m over 3 years – let’s
call that $290m per year to make the numbers nice and easy. A bit of Googling
revealed that over the 11 year period from 1995 to 2006 Arkansas’ rice farmers
alone received $4.7b in federal subsidies, which is about $430m per
year. Add to this another $300m for the 3 other major crops of cotton, wheat
and soybeans and the picture starts to emerge that Arkansas receives subsidies
of about $730m per year for its 4 largest crop farming industries alone (equivalent
to about 1% of the state’s gross product). That subsidy has to come from
somewhere, and that probably includes those states whose electricity is
subsidised from Arkansas.
US – taxing wind power in Wyoming
Introduction
Pipes &
Wires #90 examined some of the subsidies available for renewable generation
and some of the wider policy implications. This article (or maybe it’s an
opinion piece) examines the opposite – a Bill to impose a tax on wind
generation in the US state of Wyoming to reflect inter alia increased road maintenance costs.
The Bill
House Bill HB 0101
was introduced to the House by Representative Rodney
Anderson to impose a $3/MWh (or 0.3c/kWh) tax on wind generated energy to
reflect the costs of wind farms, particularly increased county road maintenance
costs. The Bill is a centerpiece of Governor Dave Freudenthal’s legislative agenda to make renewable energy pay its way (which may seem
rather surprising for a Democrat).
Key
elements of Bill 0101 include...
·
A tax of $3/MWh on wind generated
electricity (subsequently reduced to $1/MWh).
·
The tax to become effective 3 years
after the first electricity is produced.
·
The tax will be split 60% to the
counties where the wind farm is located, with 40% going to the Wyoming general
fund.
The Bill’s progress
The
House Revenue Committee voted to reduce the tax to $1/MWh and approved the Bill
to proceed to the House, whereupon it was signed by both the Speaker and the Senate
President.
Its implications
The
Bill has understandably angered both the environmental lobbies and investors
who took advantage of the various classes of subsidies (and negotiated energy
sales agreements and have now found that the tax bites into their profit).
However it comes as a relief to those counties that are incurring increased
road maintenance costs, and probably recognises the inevitable back-swing of
these sorts of issues.
Some
might argue that it is unfair to expose the renewable sector to regulatory and
policy risk, while others can quite validly argue that lines and fossil-fired
generation have had more than their fair share of risk to benefit the
renewables sector. This is obviously a highly emotional issue that is close to
the hearts and wallets of many, so having set out some facts, that is probably
a good place to finish and climb of my soap box.
People in power
A
couple of years ago Pipes & Wires featured the life stories of some blokes
born in the late 1800’s who shaped the electric power industry as we now know
it. Researching and writing those articles was a lot of fun, so I’m going to
write a few more (and if anyone wants an electrical pioneer to be researched
and included, pick here
to contact me).
Pinhas Rutenberg powers up the Holy
Lands
Birth, early life, and revolutionary
leanings
Pinhas
Rutenberg was born in the town of Romny
in the Ukraine on 5th February 1879. After high school he enrolled
at the Technical Institute in St Petersburg where he also joined the Socialist
Revolutionary Party. After the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905, Rutenberg fled
to Europe and into the influence of Vladimir Lenin, but was back in Russia
before the end of 1905.
Attention turns to the Holy Lands
Around
the time of World War 1, Rutenberg’s attention turned to 2 matters – hydraulic
engineering and the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Around 1915 he
began to gather a band of soldiers around himself who were prepared to fight
for a Jewish state, and while in the United States recruiting soldiers he also
completed the detailed design for an electric power system using Israel’s hydro
resources.
The Bolshevik revolution
Rutenberg
returned to Russia sometime around 1916 or 1917 and was soon appointed
vice-president of the local Petrograd duma. After finding himself on the losing
side of the October Revolution, Rutenberg was jailed but was released about 6
months later as German troops neared Petrograd. After the Socialist
Revolutionary Party fell from public favor, Rutenberg fled Russia never to
return.
The journey to Israel
Along
with several others Zionist leaders, Rutenberg appeared at the Treaty Of
Versailles negotiations in 1919 advocating his electrification plan. This plan
gained financial support from the Rothschilds (and later gained political
support from Churchill). It does seem that Rutenberg liked a good scrap as one
of his first activities when he finally arrived in Israel was to join the Haganah and get involved in the
Arab hostilities of 1921.
Founding the power company
Finally
in 1923, Rutenberg founded the Palestine
Electric Company Ltd (now known as the Israel
Electric Corporation Ltd) and was granted concessions to develop hydro
power stations on the Jordan and Yarkon Rivers. The company grew, but curiously
enough Jerusalem was excluded from its supply area until 1942 because of an
earlier electricity supply franchise issued to Euripides
Mavromatis on the eve of World War 1 (this saga makes for a whole interesting
story in itself, which I’m thinking I’ll follow up with a series on famous
power struggles).
Later life and death
Not
much seems known about Rutenberg’s later life other than he died on 3rd
January 1942 at the age of 62 and was buried at the Mount of Olives.
Errata – James Stobie, a bloke of
concrete and steel
Last
month’s article on James Stobie and his steel and concrete power poles noted
that Stobie poles were rarely used outside of South Australia, with Broken Hill
in the Australian state of New South Wales being one of the only other places
they were used.
However,
one of Pipes & Wires long-time readers advised me that the Palmerston North
City Council electricity department in New Zealand bought heaps of them around
1923 for what is understood to have been about 15 shillings each. Apparently 6
of the poles survived to as recently as 1992, when a newspaper article was
written about them.
Industry structural changes
Europe – reshuffling the industry
Introduction
The
reshuffling of the European electricity and gas industry is never far from the
pages of Pipes & Wires, whether it’s under the heading of Energy Markets or
Mergers & Acquisitions, or under this heading of Industry Structural
Changes. This article is a stock-take of recent events and the spotting of some
big trends rather than an analysis of any single event, but will hopefully pull
together some threads that will set the context for future examination.
Recent events
Events
that Pipes & Wires has examined over the last year or so that seem to be
contributing to the reshuffling of the European energy sector include...
·
E.On
sells its’ transmission grid business Transpower
Stromübertragungs GmbH to state-owned
Dutch transmission utility TenneT.
·
Formation of GASPOOL in Germany as Gasunie, Ontras – VNG Gastransport, Wingas Transport, Dong
Energy Pipelines, and StatoilHydro Deutschland agreed to
consolidate their operations.
·
Electricité
De France looks to sell its UK wires business EDF Energy (while holding tight to British Energy).
·
RWE
puts its grid business into a wholly-owned subsidiary called Amprion.
·
Merging of 2 gas zones into 1 in
France.
·
EnBW acquires a stake in EWE.
·
Agreement on the Third
Internal Energy Market Package.
·
Various attempts to consolidate the
Spanish energy sector involving Endesa, Iberdrola, Union Fenosa and Gas Natural.
·
The forced sale of RWE
Transportnetz Gas’ (TSO Gas) high-pressure gas network in the western
provinces of Germany.
·
The sale of Dutch utilities Nuon and Essent
to Vattenfall and RWE respectively.
·
The Pax
Electrica 2 agreement between Electrabel,
SPE and the Belgian Government which limits
Electrabel’s share of the generation market.
Identifying the trends
Scratching
under the surface of this activity suggests the following major trends...
·
What appears to be a realignment by
some of the well known giants such as E.On, RWE and EDF away from vertically
integrated lines and energy within a legacy geographical markets towards energy
only across legacy borders where they can leverage their competencies of
generation and retail markets to create unregulated value. The sales of
transmission grids that would give low-cost generation access to high-price
markets could feature strongly here.
·
What appears to be a bit of scramble by
some second-tier movers to buy up anything with any apparent synergy,
presumably with a view to not miss out and then do some future horse trading.
·
Continued acquisition of lines by investment
funds, particularly those that require predictable dividend income to accumulate
for future pension obligations.
·
Regulatory expectations that gas
markets will consolidate to improve liquidity, improve balancing and reduce
transaction costs.
·
Regulatory intervention to limit market
shares (divest generation) or promote access to markets (divest transmission
grids).
·
The anxious attempts by a few countries
to form national energy champions (France and Germany successful, Spain not
quite so successful) in the face of a liberalising EU market. This might also
tie up with a hint of nationalisation (eg. TenneT’s acquisition of Transpower)
in which government’s appetites for risk and policies on open-access
transmission suggest that government’s are logical owners of transmission grids.
Given its
significance, Pipes & Wires will be regularly examining the reshuffling of
the EU markets, so expect regular updates !!!
Mergers & acquisitions
US – SWEPCo buys Valley Electric
Introduction
American Electric Power (AEP) subsidiary Southwestern Electric Power Co (SWEPCo)
will buy (subject to final regulatory approval) Louisiana-based Valley Electric Membership
Corporation for $94m in a deal touted to reduce Valley consumers’ bills by
about 20%. That sounds a bit counter-intuitive given that one would expect an
investor-owned utility (IOU) to raise prices to cover its commercial
rate of return vis-a-vis a Cooperative, so Pipes & Wires investigates this issue
a bit deeper.
The talk about the tariffs
Valley
customers could expect to save an average of 20% of their electricity bills as
a result of SWEPCo’s lower retail tariffs (which are typically 25% lower than
the Louisiana average). Even the Louisiana
Public Service Commission is singing the praises of the deal, saying Valley
customers deserve to pay the same price as customers in Shreveport (which in my
mind raises some concerns about how well the underlying costs of rural v’s
urban supply are understood).
What’s really behind the deal ?
So
what’s really behind the deal ? How can an IOU have lower tariffs than a Coop ?
The short and simple answer appears to be that SWEPCo has access to lower cost
wholesale electricity than Valley, so it really becomes a bit of no-brainer.
The regulatory take on this
I’d
have to say it’s not often that a regulator seems to applaud the privatisation
of a utility, so perhaps this deal really is something. It’s also pleasing to
see common sense prevail as the Valley board approved the sale as it will be
good for members. It’s also good to have some serious and objectively based
challenge to the simplistic notion that Coop’s will always be cheaper than
IOU’s.
A bit of light reading…
Book review – “Connecting The Country”
Helen
Reilly’s latest book “Connecting The Country” is a history of NZ’s national
grid from 1886 to 2007 that interestingly enough splits into the development of
the AC and DC systems. Filled with photos, anecdotes and witty stories this is
a really worthwhile read.
Order
your copy from Transpower’s
web site … cost is $60 incl. GST.
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.
Conferences & events
The following
training courses will be run by Conferenz, and are targeted at newcomers to the
industry...
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Auckland, 5th – 6th
May.
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Wellington, 31st May – 1st
June.
·
Gas
Market Fundamentals – Wellington, 2nd June.
CapEx – general interest stuff
Levels of service and their impact on
CapEx
This
presentation was made at the Infrastructure CapEx Summit in November 2008. If
you’d like a copy, pick here.
Upsizing – the other half of the hidden
side of CapEx
This
presentation was made at the Electricity
Engineer’s Association conference in June 2008. If you’d like a copy, pick here.
Getting the CapEx right in the infrastructure
sectors
This
presentation was made at the NZIGE
Spring Technical Seminar in September 2007. If you’d like a copy, pick here.
Renewals – (half) the hidden side of
CapEx
This
presentation was made at the Electricity Networks Asset Management Summit in
November 2007 on the broad topic of asset renewals. If you’d like a copy, pick here.
PAS 55 – 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.
Website promoting best practice CapEx
Utility Consultants is pleased to announce the release of a specialist website
dedicated to promoting best practice CapEx policies, processes and planning in
the infrastructure sectors.
Assorted 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.
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.