1 / 13

Structuring Electricity Markets

In this analysis, we explore the multifaceted impact of Rate of Return (RoR) regulation on the electricity market. While RoR once attracted massive investments and improved reliability until the 1970s, it also led to excess investment and risk aversion. The transition to a restructured market yielded efficiencies and transparency but also introduced incentives for manipulation and rising costs for consumers. This examination highlights the challenges of fostering competition, managing risks, and ensuring fair pricing in an evolving electricity landscape.

bly
Télécharger la présentation

Structuring Electricity Markets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Structuring Electricity Markets Lester B. Lave Electricity Industry Center Carnegie Mellon University January 10, 2008

  2. Rate of Return Regulation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly • Created a stable structure that attractive massive investment • Incorporated R&D (best before 1970) • Fostered cooperation among utilities • Got electricity to almost every customer • Produced rapidly falling real prices & increasing reliability – at least until 1970

  3. RoR Regulation: The Bad • Excess investment (Averich-Johnson) • Disincentive to take risks, invest in R&D • Didn’t build or operate nucs & coal well • Large blackouts (1966, 1977, …) • PUC goals not low price, efficiency • PUC not effective regulator; revolving door

  4. RoR Regulation: The Bad • Excess investment (Averich-Johnson) • Disincentive to take risks, invest in R&D • Didn’t build or operate nucs & coal well • Large blackouts (1966, 1977, …) • PUC goals not low price, efficiency • PUC not effective regulator; revolving door How does this record compare with the free market for, say, mortgages?

  5. Restructuring: Good Outcomes • Led to cost cutting & greater efficiency • Created transparency in pricing • Better capacity factors on nucs & coal • Opened market to competitors • Encouraged power marketers & ESCOs • Ended some industrial subsidies • Customer choice: Green Power

  6. Restructuring: Bad Outcomes • Incentives for market manipulation: Collusive behavior in power markets => detailed, stringent market monitoring • Shifting risks to investors raised cost of capital, ruling out some projects • Anemic investment in G & T • Little investment in R&D, conservation

  7. Restructuring: Bad Outcomes 6. Continuing to charge customers a price that doesn’t vary with cost • Paying market clearing prices to all • Much greater profits for some generators • Costs of building & operating RTOs • Expensive capacity markets that haven’t increased investment in G & T • Merchant generation, an investor’s right to build a line anywhere, would disrupt the system Restructuring has not benefited most consumers

  8. Grand Issues • What markets can be competitive? • Real time power market • Capacity market • Who sets location of G&T, fuel mix? • Who should bear risks: demand, fuel price, environmental regs, wages, natural disasters, terrorism, • How much politics in these decisions?

  9. Elements of a New Structure • How much improvement is possible in ROR regulation? • Cost of bringing assets back into rate base? • How much improvement is possible in present PJM structure? • What are the costs & risks of a new market design?

  10. Some Suggested Tools:Little r Regulation • Long-term contracts – power price • Long-term contracts- 2-part tariff • Contracts for up to life of plant • Long-term contracts for transmission • Real time pricing • Demand side “regulation” & leveling load-duration curve

  11. Lave-Apt-Blumsack Proposal-1 • Can’t make hourly power market competitive • Long-term contracts react to hourly markets • Need to offer life-of-plant contracts • 2-part tariffs: fixed & variable cost • Pay accepted bid price, not market price • RTO dispatches contracted plants • RTO determines need for G & T investment & location of plants and lines

  12. Lave-Apt-Blumsack Proposal-2 • Customer pays real-time price (PLC) • “Large” customers have automatic energy manager device to carry out their orders • Use demand side for regulation, lowering peak demand, preventing blackouts

  13. LAB Proposal Problems • Competitive market for new generation? Sufficient sites for competition? • Fuel price, environmental, other cost escalators? Inducing efficiency? • Can RTO forecast demand & location? • RTO becomes regional monopoly – same old problems? • Role of state PUCs?

More Related