Archive for September, 2007

h1

Nuclear Power and the Death of Regulation (and the Rebirth of Nuclear Power)

September 29, 2007

Michael Giberson

Earlier this week, NRG Energy filed an application to build two new nuclear power plants adjacent to the existing South Texas Project (STP) plants. It is the first such application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in nearly 30 years. Loren Steffy, business columnist at the Houston Chronicle, appreciates the subtle irony in the story.

STP, of course, is a monument to the nuclear fiasco of the 1970s, a steel-reinforced tribute to cost overruns, construction delays and a kaleidoscope of federal regulations that made the idea of building a new nuke, well, radioactive.

The deregulation we have today was born, in part, from the outrage over the runaway costs of STP and its North Texas counterpart, Comanche Peak. Frustrated lawmakers argued that ratepayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for the confluence of poor project management and cumbersome regulation…. Houston-area customers paid dearly — and are still paying — for STP.

Back when STP was built, the old Houston Lighting and Power expected to recoup its cost from customers. But the bill for STP grew so huge that HL&P realized it would never earn back its investment.

These “stranded costs,” as the industry called them, presented a conundrum under deregulation…. Ultimately, those costs were included in the more than $2 billion that CenterPoint was allowed to recover from ratepayers as part of deregulation.

They are now factored into the costs retailers pay for electricity transmission and then, in turn, pass on to us. The stranded costs have helped make Houston’s electric rates the state’s highest and among the highest in the nation.

(If I may interrupt to make a point. When you see comparisons between prices in “regulated” and “deregulated” states, ask whether stranded costs left over from the pre-deregulatory days are still being recovered from consumers. -MG)

This time, though, it will be different.

NRG’s investors, not ratepayers, will assume the risk for the new nukes. If they’re a flop, if construction falls behind schedule, if the government meddles, it’s not our problem.

“We don’t have ratepayers paying for plants anymore,” said Brett Perlman, a power industry consultant and a former member of the Public Utility Commission. “That’s one of the benefits of the market.”

… NRG is building the new plants adjacent to STP, that monument to everything that didn’t work in the old days.

“Here you have two regulated units that ratepayers paid for — and are still paying for — and right next to it you will have two units that shareholders paid for,” Perlman said.

By the way, Steffy’s column is a bit more nuanced than the extracted portions suggest. You should read the original.

Not everyone is thrilled about the resurgence of nuclear energy. As this Scientific American story notes, some see it as part of a response to global warming but others prefer other technologies and worry about waste disposal and other safety issues. But the practical alternative to building nuclear plants is probably building coal plants, and coal comes with its own waste disposal and safety concerns.

For the moment, though, leave the cost-benefit analysis aside, and just enjoy the historical irony. Nuclear power helped bring down old-style regulation — in fact the mis-management and cost overruns epitomized exactly what many economists said was wrong with the regulatory model. And now, phoenix-like, we have nuclear energy rising from the ashes.

A final note: The only thing spoiling the pureness of the irony is awareness that the resurgence of nuclear power is not limited to deregulated companies risking only shareholder money. Federal power entity TVA, and companies operating under more-or-less traditional regulatory models like Duke Energy and Progress Energy also are expanding or planning to expand their nuclear power output. The resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States can’t be tied exclusively to changing retail rate regulation. A Baltimore Sun story suggests that a convenient regulatory re-interpretation of the word “construction” by the NRC has been a big help in Maryland. But that’s another story.

h1

Adler On Regulatory Barriers To Renewable Energy

September 28, 2007

Lynne Kiesling

Today sees a good article from the aforementioned Jonathan Adler on regulatory barriers to innovation and implementation of renewable energy. His conclusion:

To promote alternative energy development, there’s no need for more handouts. Instead the government should get out of the way. If the goal is to increase actual alternative energy production, and increase the proportion of renewable energy that supplies electricity to American consumers, the best thing the federal government can do is reduce or remove regulatory obstacles to energy entrepreneurship and innovation. If renewable energies are to capture a sizable share of the energy market, what they need, more than anything else, is regulatory room to compete.

h1

Adler On Morriss On Energy Regulation

September 27, 2007

Lynne Kiesling

Jonathan Adler has a Volokh post on energy regulation linking to Andy Morriss’s article about regulatory sclerosis in energy.

America’s energy markets, including the infrastructure that makes trading in energy possible (made up of pipelines, oil and gas terminals, and refineries), are clogged with the debris of almost a hundred years of state and federal regulation. This “regulatory cholesterol” is as damaging to our economy as the “cholesterol” analogy suggests. Remaining within the analogy, the proposals that have been made by politicians are the equivalent of recommending that a heart patient in need of a triple bypass eat more steak instead of undergoing surgery. If we are going to meet our future energy needs, we need to unleash entrepreneurs on the problem. And that means politicians need to get out of the way, not add another layer of regulation.

Needless to say, since I wish I had written that, and Andy is saying things that resonate with the arguments I’ve been making here for years, this is highly recommended reading.

h1

Where I’ve Been Lately

September 27, 2007

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve not been the diligent writer here lately, for three primary reasons: I’ve been working on a book manuscript, we’ve started our house renovation and moved to a temporary apartment, and I’ve been spending a lot of time on a new course prep for a new job. But I’m slowly crawling out from under these things … and will be doing things here like more writing and upgrading the guts of KP (including fixing that pesky Google RSS feed that stubbornly refuses to work).

A little more detail below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

The New Demand For The Stylish Urban Bike

September 27, 2007

Lynne Kiesling

Here’s a new example of dynamic, creative capitalism: shifts in relative prices of urban transportation (i.e., high gasoline prices) have increased the number of urban residents who use bicycles for transportation instead of/in addition to sport and fitness. This shift in relative prices and previously-untapped demand has led to a new product market: the urban bike. I’ve noticed this phenomenon over the past couple of years (it’s obvious at every bike shop in Chicago), and today Wired reports on the phenomenon from Interbike 2007, one of the largest bicycle trade shows.

Traffic snarls, soaring gas prices and worries about global warming have prompted a big boost in cycling, affecting even places like Los Angeles — America’s freeway capital — that have traditionally given bicycles the cold shoulder. …

At Interbike 2007, the bicycle industry’s giant annual trade show, the shift toward the urban rider is loudly evident. Fancy road and mountain bikes are clearly no longer king of the roost — or road. It’s the scads of fixed-gear, town, single-speed and other urban bicycles that are drawing the crowds.

The rise of the urban biker is reflected in Specialized’s 2008 catalog, which lists 34 different models of city bike to choose from.

My informal data support this observation; I’ve noticed lots more bikers on the streets, especially this summer, and they’re riding fixies and urban cruisers that have hip style (Me? I stick with my trusty steed, my tri-customized Felt F70, or my mountain bike for cruising around town).

This is a great example of changing economics and changing values leading to new product markets, and in this particular case, markets with lots of attention to design. Virginia Postrel, call your office!

h1

Good Climate Change Article From Ron Bailey

September 27, 2007

Lynne Kiesling

Ron Bailey has a thorough and thoughtful article about climate change at Reason that is well worth a read. Part of the article focuses on the crucial role that technological change plays in affecting future resource use and climate conditions, and points out that such technological change is the main way that progress happens, but it can’t arise out of a dirigiste policy:

But how to spark an energy tech revolution? If replacing fossil fuels was easy and cheap to do, then clever inventors would already have done it. The fact is that while the costs of alternative energy sources have been falling they remain more expensive and cumbersome than fossil fuels for most uses. In addition, federal government spending on energy research and demonstration projects does not have a great track record. Consider the case of the North Dakota synfuels plant, built in response to the oil “crises” of the 1970s and backed by federal loan guarantees. The plant was once the largest construction project in the U.S. and cost $2.1 billion ($4.1 billion in today’s dollars) to build. In 1984, the price of natural gas plummeted and the plant went into bankruptcy. It was sold in 1988 to a local electric cooperative for $85 million; a little over 4 cents on the dollar. That $2.1 billion would have grown to about $6.5 billion at 5 percent compounded interest since 1984.

Relying on the wisdom of federal bureaucrats to pick the right research projects as a way to jumpstart an energy revolution is a chancy strategy. The fact that carbon-emitting fuels are so cheap that it doesn’t pay for researchers to develop low carbon energy sources suggests a solution—make carbon more expensive. There are two ways to do this: either create a carbon market or impose a carbon tax. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages, but by making fossil fuels more expensive, researchers would have a strong incentive to find and commercialize low carbon technology breakthroughs.

The springboard for Ron’s article is a 1-day climate summit at the U.N. on Monday and a 2-day summit in Washington today and Friday. I’ll be interested to see if policymakers can restrain themselves from imposing top-down solutions, including technology mandates, that would stifle the type of distributed, diverse innovation that is most likely to lead to new technologies that economize on the use of carbon.

h1

Cowen on Prizes vs. Grants

September 26, 2007

Michael Giberson

As a follow-up to yesterday’s note on prizes vs. grants, George Mason University economist and MarginalRevolution.com blogger Tyler Cowen spoke on the topic at Google’s New York City office. Cowen was speaking the day after the “Google Lunar X Prize” was announced, and carried into the lecture a clipping of the story from the New York Times.

(HT to Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution, of course.)

h1

Adler: Government-Sponsored Prizes would be Better than Subsidies

September 25, 2007

Michael Giberson

“Direct government subsidies are a particularly poor way to encourage innovation,” writes Jonathan Adler in an article asserting that government-sponsored prizes would be better than subsidies at encouraging the development of low-carbon-emission energy technologies.

Government subsidies tend to be dispersed on political criteria, rewarding large, politically connected incumbent firms, rather than innovative upstarts. Failing industrial dinosaurs with lobbyists on the payroll are in much better position to snatch up government goodies than revolutionary thinkers toiling in garages or private labs.

Offering substantial financial rewards for those who develop particular innovations or solve specific problems is a far better way to spur technological innovation and practical scientific research. As the patent system demonstrates, the hope of a large financial windfall is a powerful inducement for innovation, and can encourage many different people with different strategies or insights to tackle a given problem.

I’m sympathetic to the position advanced — government prizes are probably more consistent with individual liberty (of which I’m a fan) than government subsidies. But, as a technical complaint, this claim would be better assessed systematically rather than anecdotally. In particular, this claim troubles me:

Whereas direct government subsidies often yield a zero, if not negative, return, prizes tend to unleash research investment and returns far greater than the amount of the actual award.

I suspect the core audience for the article will snicker at the “zero, if not negative, return” claim, but we have had a hundred plus years of experience with government subsidies, so what is the yield? And how do we know that prizes are better?

One important structural difference is that subsidies usually pay for inputs, while prizes just pay for results. That is an attractive difference from the point of view of those folks paying the taxes to support research. But, from the narrow taxpayer point of view, paying for nothing is cheaper than paying for prizes. Advocate for prizes and you have to compare the costs and benefits of prizes over paying for nothing. But subsidies as an approach to funding research also have costs and benefits. The article raises the issue of the relative merits of prizes and subsidies, but doesn’t answer the question.

Of course, Adler set out to write an article, not a treatise. He highlights several interesting examples of prizes being used to successfully motivate scientific discovery. There are a number of related developments among philanthropists seeking cures for disease or advancements in knowledge. There is a growing sub-field of economics trying to discover how best to support research. Adler does a useful task by drawing attention to some of the cases.

(HT to Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy.)

h1

Capacity Market Costs Drive Utility to Want to Leave PJM, Join Midwest ISO

September 25, 2007

Michael Giberson

Duquesne Light has announced it wants to drop out of PJM and join the neighboring Midwest ISO, citing the high costs emerging from PJM’s capacity market as their motivation. The capacity market is called the “RPM” market after the “reliability pricing model” which serves as the underlying pricing mechanism. Duquesne has filed a request with FERC seeking a Commission order directing PJM to exclude the utility from the next running of the RPM auction, scheduled to begin next week. The Energy Legal Blog presents a few more details, and notes a few other cases in which utilities are eying the exits.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review made brief mention of the request in a column of energy-related notes:

The Downtown-based utility joined PJM in 2005, but said the organization’s price changes since then would increase its costs in coming years. “We don’t feel that is what is best for customers,” spokesman Joe Vallarian said. … The company said it may join another grid operator based in Indiana; it wants to avoid costs related to the PJM auctions.

The Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) responded in the filing at FERC requesting the agency to deny Duquesne’s request. In a news release, EPSA stated:

“FERC should deny Duquesne’s complaint on the grounds that Duquesne remains a signatory to PJM’s reliability agreement and, contrary to what Duquesne has claimed, there is no credible information that the utility will not be in PJM in 2009,” said John E. Shelk, President and CEO of EPSA.

EPSA is the trade association representing the “competitive power supply industry,” i.e. non-utility generators, and its members will be net recipients of payments from the PJM’s RPM markets. Duquesne Light, on the other hand, as predominantly a wires-and-retail power services company will be net payers into the RPM markets.

h1

Sean Casten Counters “Backlash Against Competitive Markets”

September 24, 2007

Michael Giberson

Writing at environmental commentary site Grist, Sean Casten (CEO of Recycled Energy Development) takes on a few of the critics of deregulation:

In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi advises that “It is good to know karate. It is good not to know karate. It is not good to know a little karate.” With the price caps now coming off in the few states that partially deregulated their electricity grids, there is a rising backlash against competitive markets, with some of that backlash even coming from normally pro-market groups like The Cato Institute. This backlashers generally argue that partial deregulation has taught us that deregulation doesn’t work in the electric sector. But we ought to remember Mr. Miyagi’s advice, lest we draw the wrong lessons from our little bit of karate.

Casten takes on claims concerning high prices in deregulated states and the supposed greater efficiency of vertically integrated utilities, and he argues for overcoming state laws that act as barriers to cogeneration businesses.

Casten concludes with a rousing, “What the world needs now is more deregulation, not less.” Which is, of course, just the sort of thing that the Cato Institute almost always advocates (even if they don’t always articulate the point explicitly).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers