Archive for February, 2009

h1

Luminant to idle 15 natural gas fired generators in Texas

February 14, 2009

Michael Giberson

Just reinforcing the view that power prices in Texas will be much lower in the upcoming year, and perhaps beyond, last week Luminant filed notice with ERCOT of the company’s intention to mothball 4 and retire 11 natural gas generators in the Texas power system.

Luminant spokesman Allan Koenig said many of the units are steam-driven and date to the 1950s and 1960s, although some are newer combustion turbines dating to the 1980s. As opposed to so-called “base-load” units that run constantly, the affected units are “peakers,” which run to meet peak demand, usually in the summer.

The article notes that Luminant and other companies also have new generating capacity coming online. Luminant’s new construction consists of three coal-fired base-load units, while they are retiring older natural gas-fired peakers. The combination of moves by Luminant should say something about the economics of power generation and expected price patterns for the next few years in ERCOT.

h1

Negative power prices in ERCOT West – 2009 so far

February 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

If you thought power prices in ERCOT’s West region were interesting in 2008, keep an eye on the prices in 2009. (For background see my earlier post on negative prices in ERCOT West for 2008. Note on updated data here.)

Late 2008 saw a few developments of note for the region:

  • Almost 2000 MW of wind power capacity was added to ERCOT from September to December, most of it in ERCOT West.
  • When ERCOT updated its zonal boundaries last Fall, a few dispatchable generators – coal and gas units – were moved from ERCOT West to the ERCOT North region.*
  • Natural gas prices, which ranged above $10 per MMBTU last Summer, are now below $5 per MMBTU.
  • The recession, and particularly the drop in oil and gas prices, will tend to reduce electric power demand throughout the state.

(*There are technical reasons justifying the change in zone boundaries, which wasn’t without controversy, but combined with the first bullet point the practical effect is that the West region prices will be even more reliant on intermittent wind power output.  ERCOT reviews zonal boundaries every year.)

How does this all shake out?  Safe to say that electric power prices in ERCOT generally, and ERCOT West especially, will be much lower this year. Peak prices will be kept down by lower demand and low natural gas prices.  Offpeak prices will be lower and more volatile because of the confluence of all four factors.

The key to producing negative power prices is subsidized wind power output in ERCOT West net of local load, compared to the transmission system’s capability to deliver the excess power out of the area.  Lower load combined with more wind power capacity indicates a more volatile price situation.

Will ERCOT West see more frequent negative prices this year?

Yes.  In fact they already have.

In January 2008, ERCOT West was faced with negative prices about 8.3 percent of the time; in January 2009 the region faced negative prices 12.5 percent of the time.  This increase in the number of negative priced periods resulted despite a drop in average wind speed in the area.  (At the Abilene Regional Airport, near the heart of the wind power in the area, the average wind speed in January 2008 was 12.1 mph, while in January 2009 it was 10.7 mph.)  Less wind, but more frequent negative power prices.  Not surprising given the substantial increase in wind power capacity, and not yet a comparable increase in transmission capacity.

So far, February 2009 has been a little windier than February 2008 at the Abilene Regional Airport.  While I haven’t examined February price data yet, I wouldn’t be at all suprised to see that February 2009 shows even more frequent negative prices than those of February 2008 (negative prices 18.8 percent of the time).

h1

Google enters smart grid; will they pass the transactive test?

February 10, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Just a quick note because I am teaching at a workshop for judges … Google announced today that it is entering the smart grid space, as discussed in this CNet article:

The driving idea behind the Google PowerMeter iGoogle gadget–and nearly all smart-grid companies–is that giving consumers access to more detailed home energy data will lead to lower usage. There are dozens of smart-grid trial programs now going on, offered through utilities.

Engineer Russ Mirov, one of the Google employees testing the software, was able to reduce his electricity use 64 percent over the past year, saving $3,000, by replacing inefficient refrigerators and running his pool pump at scheduled intervals.

Google cites figures showing that regularly viewing real-time energy use will prod people to cut electricity by 5 percent to 15 percent on average through behavioral changes. The product is now in private beta.

It’s no surprise to hear this news from Google, nor is it a surprise that Google is pursuing a different, innovative business model:

With its smart-grid push, Google is seeking to appeal directly to consumers, rather than working through utility-sponsored programs. Typically, smart-grid companies sell to utilities, giving them smart meters and software to help them operate the power grid more efficiently. As part of those programs, consumers can often get real-time information on energy use.

This is a welcome change.

But will Google’s PowerMeter pass my transactive test?

Is your device transactive? Can it be programmed to respond autonomously to price signals? Can it be programmed to respond to some other type of communication that the consumer can receive under his/her contract with his/her retailer? Can the consumer access the device remotely to change its settings?

h1

The wind power ‘chicken and egg’ problem in the Eastern Interconnection

February 9, 2009

Michael Giberson

Utility-scale renewable power is sometimes said to suffer from a “chicken and egg” problem when the high quality renewable resources are far from existing customer load or suitable long-distance transmission lines. The asserted problem is that no one would develop the renewable resource unless they have a means to move the power to market, but no one would develop the transmission to move the resource to market until the generation resources were there (or at least under construction).

Development of new, ordinary, non-renewable generation faces the same need to  deliver its product to market, but a number of factors make the problem much smaller.  In vertically integrated utility systems, the same utility is making transmission and generation plans, and so the chickens and eggs can emerge simultaneously (and no one has to argue whether the chicken or egg must come first).

With merchant generation, the problem is sometimes significant, but generator sites are often selected so as to minimize the amount of transmission building that needs to be done.  In addition, interconnection to federally-regulated transmission lines is done via carefully orchestrated processes.  While the slow and sometimes awkward interconnection queuing processes present their own problems, the requisite step-by-step movement can help pace generation additions and transmission additions.  Development of large merchant generators is also a slow process, allowing transmission additions plenty of time to keep up.  On the other hand, if you have the materials in hand then wind power projects can be developed relatively quickly.

The PUC of Texas, with its “Competitive Renewable Energy Zone” (CREZ) process for developing transmission plans in advance of extensive renewable power growth, has been lauded by renewable power advocates for solving the “chicken and egg” problem.  As noted here two weeks back, the PUC has recently selected the companies to build transmission lines deemed needed to accommodate existing and forthcoming wind power development.  California is developing with a similar effort.

In the broad-scale Eastern Interconnection, which covers most of the U.S. and Canada east of the Rocky Mountain states (excepting the 85 percent of Texas in ERCOT), probably the effort most similar to that pursued by the PUC of Texas is the Joint Coordinated System Planning effort orchestrated by several regional grid operators and related parties. Today, the JCSP folks issued their most recent analysis, estimates of the transmission grid and renewable power investments required under a 5-percent wind power “reference scenario” and a 20-percent wind energy scenario based on the DOE’s Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study.

The JCSP 20-percent map looks like this:

JCSP_20_percent_wind_energy_scenario

The “short answer” is that reaching a 20-percent wind energy scenario is “estimated to require 15,000 miles of new extra-high voltage lines, at an estimated cost of $80 billion, in addition to $1.1 trillion in total generation capital costs by 2024.” The JCSP press release notes, helpfully, “Under both scenarios, the generation capital costs would be borne by developers, while the funding source for the needed transmission is not known at this time.”

Actually, the generation costs are partly borne by taxpayers, via various state and local subsidies, though the bulk of the costs likely fall on project investors in states with restructured wholesale markets. While the funding source of the transmission is “not known at this time,” we know the answer is almost certainly to be transmission rate payers. What is not known is which rate payers will pay how much.

One of the differences between, say, the PUC of Texas and the JCSP effort is that the latter effort is a planning process with no regulatory or ratemaking authority.

  • That difference is one reason the funding source of the transmission is “not known.”
  • Another reason is that the effort is still in a relatively early stage, much too soon to pin down costs and plan for rates.
  • A final reason is that until you start trying to assign cost shares to individual customers, everyone can look at the pretty pictures and smile.

Only later will the sharp knives come out.

h1

Lower prices for electric power

February 6, 2009

Michael Giberson

Platts reports on statements made by Compete Coalition counsel William Massey:

A sharp reduction in US power prices that was tied to lower fuel costs “should put to rest the shallow arguments suggesting that competitive markets aren’t working because electricity prices increase,” the Compete Coalition said Wednesday.

Compete, which represents customers, suppliers, generators and others, pointed to recent reports of falling power prices in organized markets around the country: a 54% drop in New York Independent System Operator’s footprint since June, a 28% drop in Electric Reliability Council of Texas since July and price cuts from 10% to 14.6% for customers in parts of ISO-New England and PJM Interconnection.

“The thing about markets is that prices go up and prices go down, and the prices are tied in large part to the cost of generation fuel,” William Massey, counsel to Compete, said Thursday. “I suppose the opponents of markets just thought that prices would go up and stay up regardless of the cost of fuel, but it doesn’t work that way.”

As it turns out, the most recent EIA data supports the conclusion that electric power prices have dropped since fuel costs peaked last July.  Unfortunately, the only EIA data I can turn up quickly provides monthly averages for the nation as a whole, not state-by-state numbers.   And while that data does show prices falling through October 2008 (the latest readily available data), electric power prices typically peak in Summer and drop through Fall and Winter.  Layer on top of that the macroeconomic conditions that worsened over September and October, and you get another reason to expect prices to fall.  So, Compete should marshal up some detailed data to demonstrate their point, or keep their powder dry until such data is available. (One suggestive bit of information Compete links to in its news release comes from the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, which reports that retail offer prices have dropped by over 28 percent since July.)

Still, I’m looking forward to watching the data come in as fuel costs remain low, to see which retail customers capture the most in the way of lower prices. Advocates for a more competitive industry, and I am one, tend to expect restructured states to show lower prices faster, while defenders of the traditional regulated utility have an opposing view.

I just can’t wait for the next Power in the Public Interest report on electric prices.

h1

Current status of bio-diesel from algae: “Your fishtank is not a goldmine.”

February 5, 2009

Michael Giberson

Reporting from the National Biodiesel Conference this week in San Fransisco, Michael Kanellos writes:

You can grow algae with carbon dioxide and sunlight, but that doesn’t mean it’s free.

Although many believe that algae will become one of the chief feedstocks for diesel and even hydrocarbon-like fuels, growing large amounts of algae and then converting the single-celled creatures remains expensive, said experts at the National Biodiesel Conference taking place in San Francisco on Tuesday.

Algae biofuel startup Solix, for instance, can produce biofuel from algae right now, but it costs about $32.81 a gallon, said Bryan Wilson, a co-founder of the company and a professor at Colorado State University.

Various refinements in the production process are projected to reduce the cost to about $3.50 a gallon, but as the article observes, that is still the equivalent of $150 a barrel of oil.  Or, as the story subtitle has it, “Drying, breeding and growing algae – particularly in large quantities – isn’t there yet, which means your fishtank is not a gold mine.”

While many biodiesel analysts see algae at the ultimate base for generating large quantities of biofuel, at least until the technological wrinkles are worked out, other feedstocks are also being pursued.  From Texas Tech University (where I teach), plant science professor Dick Auld was promoting use of castor at the biodiesel conference.

Closer to home, last night at the Tech Renewable Energy Society meeting chemical engineering professor Nazmul Karim discussed his research on cellulosic ethanol, which promises ways to reduce costs and increase productivity.  (Algae biofuel researchers take note: Karim has an opening for a post doc in his research group to work on algae issues.)

h1

Poetry in Traffic

February 5, 2009

Michael Giberson

I’ve been reading and enjoying Tom Vanderbilt’s book, Traffic, subtitled “Why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us).”  The book appeals to the “amateur traffic engineer” in me.  Maybe you have one too, a little voice in your head that clicks on when you are stuck in traffic and says, “We could all be moving much faster if you guys just learned how to drive.”

I found a sentence (p. 126) to read nicely as a bit of traffic poetry (I’ve broken the prose sentence into three lines, in the manner of most poetry):

Or the hiccup in heavy traffic that passes through you

might be the echo of someone who, forward in space

and backward in time, did something as simple as change lanes.

I particularly like the way the meter has a sort of pulsing flow through the lines until you reach the last two words, which to my ear must both be stressed.  A spondee, in poetic terms, that brings the flow of the sentence to a halt, while echoing the “hiccup” at the beginning of the first line.

You might also note the manner in which the syntactic unit “forward in space and backward in time” is broken over two lines, a poetic device called enjambment, which seems appropriate for this found poem about a hiccup in heavy traffic.

h1

I can haz bailout?

February 5, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

And while we’re on the combined where’s my bailout/stimulus skeptic/i can has cheezeburger memes, here’s my favorite custom Obamicon:

I’m assuming you’ve all seen these, but in case you haven’t … Paste Magazine (a really good music magazine, BTW) started a site a while ago where you can make your own Fairey-style poster. The bailout one above is one of my favorites, and I also like Virginia’s. I’ve been thinking about making one for myself, but haven’t quite nailed down what I want yet …

h1

Is Matt Welch my alter ego? I can haz wit?

February 5, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Tyler Cowen has Tyrone, his alter ego. Lately I’ve really been wanting to claim Matt Welch as mine. Whether it’s economic policy by metaphor, the trillion-dollar stimulus, good news and bad news on trade, or his hilariously witty I CAN HAZ BEEMER?, Matt has been putting words to my thoughts.

And he’s done so again this morning with his post debunking all of the straw men that the political elites are using to rush us through to a consensus on large amounts of debt-financed government spending. Keep bringin’ it, Matt.

h1

Knowledge, uncertainty, and government spending links for today

February 5, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve read a few very striking things this morning. On Tuesday at Econlog David Henderson made some comments about Russ Roberts’ commentary in Monday’s Boston Globe. Both are very good reads. David’s concise comment here reflects my thoughts:

And the best two sentences:

“But maybe we simply don’t have the knowledge to repair the economy from Washington. The economy is complex and the interaction between the financial sector and the real economy – between Wall Street and Main Street – is not well understood.”

In other words, if you don’t know what you’re doing, don’t do it. Hayek’s argument in two sentences.

Another discussion that has caught my attention over the past week is the Olivier Blanchard roundtable at the Economist; scroll down to the 29-30 January to read the comments from all of the roundtable participants, including Alberto Alesina, Robert Shiller, Tyler Cowen, and Mark Thoma. In addition to their analyses, I particularly appreciated the Free Exchange post on Knightian uncertainty, and how/why economists don’t really factor in Knightian uncertainty, which can lead to inaccurate analyses and poor policy recommendations:

Economists do not, in fact, follow Knight’s work very much. The discipline shys away from his concept of uncertainty (as distinct from risk), because it is, by definition, so hard to model. If economists could model it, then so could firms and investors. The future would be calculable, if not knowable, and there would be less excuse for bewildered inaction.

Paul Samuelson once went so far as to argue that economics must surrender its pretensions to science if it cannot assume the economy is “ergodic”, which is a fancy way of saying that Fortune’s wheel will spin tomorrow much as it did today (and that tomorrow’s turn of the wheel is independent of today’s). To relax that assumption, Mr Samuelson has argued, is to take the subject “out of the realm of science into the realm of genuine history”.

The scientific pose has great appeal. But this crisis is reminding us again of its intellectual costs. Knightian uncertainty may be fiendishly hard to fathom, but ignoring it, as economists tend to do, makes other phenomena devilishly hard to explain.

I always, always mention Knight and the distinction between risk and uncertainty when I teach, especially when I teach environmental economics, because of the importance of approaching economic policy analysis with humility and skepticism. Little did I know how much of an apostate I truly am …

Speaking of apostasy, the final thing that I found really striking this morning was Georgetown Law professor John Hasnas’ brief essay on what it feels like to be a libertarian right now. His words reflect much of what I have thought, and felt, for the past several months.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

My frustration is perhaps not as palpable as John’s, because his work lies more directly in the areas that have been the focus of attention for the past several months than mine does. But I share his frustration, and will think of his words and vow to be less silent here.

I have not wanted to write here much for the past few months, because of my frustration, and because KP is not about politics or ideology. John’s essay inspires me to self-censor less. Thanks to Ed Lopez for the link.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers