Multiple committee probes into Enron's bankruptcy have distracted Congress' attention from federal legislation to advance electricity market restructuring (the term currently favored over deregulation, because fostering competition requires revising existing laws and regulations). But expect a renewed push soon from both the Bush administration and the Congress. Despite the fact that some states put restructuring on hold after the 2001 California power crisis, many states continue to move toward enabling competition.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, is nearing final markup of the Electric Supply and Transmission Act. The point man on the bill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) claims to have enough votes in the House to easily pass this first federal deregulation bill. The picture in the Democrat-controlled Senate is murkier, unless the White House can defuse opposition to energy legislation that includes drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration remains committed to competitive electricity. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has been knocking down those who blame deregulation for California and Enron. He blames California's intervention in making long-term purchases of power for saddling the state's consumers with higher rates after the shortages of 2001. And so far, Abraham says there is no evidence that energy trading was the cause of Enron's collapse. In fact, he praises the company's pioneer role in expanding the competitive power market from zero to nearly 900 billion kilowatt hours since 1994.

Seventeen states have passed enabling legislation or regulations to implement choice of power suppliers at the retail level without federal legislation, and some are running pilot choice programs. In five Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia, where deregulation began in 1997, no brownouts have occurred, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, a pro-market think tank. The Center also cites reports that Pennsylvania electricity consumers have saved $3 billion and are paying 4.5 percent below the national per kilowatt average. Despite the administration's commitment to increasing the nation's overall energy security, there are other forces that will affect future pace of restructuring:

• A major question mark is a case before the Supreme Court challenging the FERCS authority to form regional transmission organizations (RTOs), which are viewed by restructuring backers as essential to establishing truly competitive markets for electricity. It's hard to see the Court undermining the FERC, but the case adds to uncertainties among power investors and buyers.
• Transmission line access is another sticky wicket, particularly for areas where new power plant construction has been held up by environmental permitting problems or where existing utilities are seeking to include "stranded costs" associated with older generation plants in rates charged for sending outside power over their lines.
• State utility commission resistance to ceding authority to the federal government. A key element of the Barton bill, for example, is federal land-taking authority to aid building of new transmission lines.

Beyond federal and state actions, oil prices remain the major incentive or disincentive for generating and moving more electricity. Due to the slowing of the world economy, there is now less enthusiasm than there was in the 1990s among growing, newer energy companies like Enron. Throw in the tinderbox of Arab-Israeli conflict and unknown future impacts of the war on terrorism, and the crystal ball becomes still harder to read.

The only certainty in the next couple of years is that electric rates will be uncertain, and vary by region until a truly national (and North American) commodity market for electricity is established.