Strenuous efforts to mitigate rather than innovate seem likely to increase vulnerabilities by generating public and customer backlash, motivating market competitors, and instigating potential legal challenges.

This story has significant implications for electric utilities facing increasing and especially disruptive competition that may shift their risk position from the zone in which regulation is effective to one in which it is not. That Market Street responded to disruptive competition by simply requesting rate increases from its regulator reveals denial that their economic woes were due to fundamentally changed circumstances that required new organizational strategy, not just regulatory intervention. Market Street, while fully understanding the existence of threats to its viability, showed no real signs of innovation or adaptation in this regard, but rather continued a reliance on conventional cost-accounting-based utility ratemaking practices to the bitter end.

In the end, the electric utility as an institutional form has not exhausted its relevance. Claims that utilities are in a certain death spiral seem premature. However, those predictions seem disturbingly grounded in tacit assumptions that utilities are too hidebound by their past to be able to adapt in a timely or agile way to rapidly changing conditions. If so, utilities will find themselves to be brittle rather than resilient when confronting disruptive competition in a sector that is central to social, economic, security, and environmental necessities and, therefore, cannot remain static. All signs point to the reality that utilities must change. The open question is whether they will change by embracing and, indeed, leading value creation or be changed by others in the market who embrace it first and more firmly.

1) Why would the school district get involved at all?
2) Did the district check with its constituents in the affected areas before endorsing?
3) Was this a unanimous decision made by the board?
4) What analysis of the project did the board undertake to understand the need and impact of the project before endorsing?
5) What expertise did the board utilize to make this decision?
6) What meetings with Xcel and its representatives has the board (or school staff) held regarding Xcel's proposed plan, when were those meetings held and what was the substance of those meetings?

PJM officials said that while this solution was comparable to other projects based on such factors as cost, schedule and the ability to address the reliability concerns, the Hope Creek-Red Lion 500-kV line was superior in terms of constructability.

A long-anticipated decision was handed down late Monday afternoon granting a rehearing on the 160 ft. tall, 345 kV power lines that Southwestern Power Company (SWEPCO) insisted were needed for additional electricity. The power lines were to transmit electricity to other states, not Arkansas, and would transect Carroll County and Eureka Springs. The APSC wrote that insufficient evidence for need of the transmission line was presented.

“This is what we were looking for,” Pat Costner, director of Save the Ozarks, said. “We did a solid job. This is a first in Arkansas, no one has ever challenged these lines on basis of need and brought the project to a halt.”

“Considering all the evidence provided to date, the Arkansas Public Service Commission found that while some transmission development in the area appears warranted, the record is presently insufficient to determine: the need for the particular 345 kV project that has been proposed, whether that project is consistent with the public convenience and necessity, and whether the project represents an “acceptable adverse environmental impact, considering… the various alternatives, if any, and other pertinent considerations.” Accordingly, the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the need for, and the potential environmental impact of, the proposed 345 kV project, The parties should provide additional testimony and more recent, comprehensive evidence on whether the proposed 345 kV project is needed, whether transmission requirements in the region might be met by alternative options, such as expanding, upgrading, or building lower capacity facilities, including 161 kV lines, and if not why not, the comparative costs associated with the options, the environmental impact of the options, and the long term sufficiency of the options.
“The Commission also grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the routing of the proposed transmission line. The parties should provide additional evidence on SWEPCO’s proposed routes. If SWEPCO chooses to propose or modify a route, it should submit proof that all landowners have received the statutory notice.
“With regard to routing, the parties should provide evidence whether existing 161 kV lines could be upgraded or existing rights-of-way used or expanded so as to limit adverse environmental impacts.
“Because the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence, the prior grant of the CECPN for Route 109 is vacated. Whether a CECPN for transmission facilities should be granted and, if so, along what route will be determined after consideration of all the evidence.”

I'm disturbed to see that you're regarding Lu Nelsen and Center for Rural Affairs as a primary source.  Center for Rural Affairs is not an intervenor in this project.  Center for Rural Affairs is a paid transmission advocate, through the RE-AMP program, it is paid to to promote transmission.

A CfRA Director also sits on the RE-AMP Steering Committee.   It's unfortunate that these facts are not included in your article -- this interest should be disclosed, because they are neither objective nor representing public interests or farmer interests.  If their paid advocacy was not disclosed to you, that's an even more significant problem.

Converting from bimonthly to monthly meter reading in the territory of both FirstEnergy operating companies in West Virginia will require a transition period that allows FirstEnergy time to procure additional  equipment, hire and train new meter readers and make any necessary changes to its billing platform. Therefore, the Commission will require that FirstEnergy implement monthly meter reading as quickly as possible, and no later than July 1, 2015. The Commission will monitor the transition as part of the adjustment to its metrics discussed below. The Commission will be watching for continued improvement and consistent performance. The handling of current annual read customers will also be discussed in the relevant section below. FirstEnergy should file amendments to the tariffs of each West Virginia operating company that provide for monthly meter reading and billing for residential customers. Finally, FirstEnergy may request to amend its filings in the pending general rate proceeding and provide evidence of the reasonable increase in the estimated cost of service.