Archive for April 22nd, 2009

h1

Oil shocker: Energy economist bids to get back on the front page

April 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

I don’t know about the rest of you university energy economists, but life in the classroom got a little tougher for me this Spring. Last Fall energy economics was on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers every week, nearly every day. Anytime I wandered into class a minute or two early, I could strike up a casual conversation with the gathering students over “energy in the news.” It offered me a relaxed, but frequently spot-on topical approach to initiating class discussions on oil and gas markets and alternative energy. Students saw immediate, external validation of the importance of issues we were going to be discussing in class that very day. Energy was hot, hot, hot.

Not this Spring. Banking and finance and the Federal Reserve are all over the headlines, and much more modest energy news is relegated to the inside pages.

So on behalf of all teaching energy economists who found themselves in this situation, I’m offering thanks to James Hamilton of UCSD for his brave bid to get economics back into the news. Hamilton has put together an analysis pointing to 2008′s oil price shocks as a sufficient explanation for the economy’s turn to recession. If Hamilton is right, it wasn’t AIG or Lehman or the real estate bubble or any of that stuff that has been monopolizing the front pages all semester. Or, at most, those were just dominoes, while oil prices were the prime mover.

All Hamilton has done is assembled some evidence that supports this viewpoint; he warns it is suggestive, not conclusive. Still, it is an interesting hypothesis, one worth additional exploration and perhaps even worthy of a front-page story in the newspaper, or two.

And it isn’t just “interesting,” it is potentially very important. If Hamilton is right, then the policy responses coming out of Congress and the current administration may be wildly off track.

(HT to Derek Thompson at The Atlantic Business blog and Keith Johnson at WSJ’s Environmental Capital. Hamilton’s paper, Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08, was recently presented at the Brookings Institution.)

h1

Wind power and bird deaths and Frederic Bastiat

April 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

Wind power gets a lot of criticism for contributing to bird deaths. Reports of bird-turbine collisions lead some environmentalists to withhold support from wind power. You sometimes see free market advocates, who otherwise seem not to get much concerned over the effects of economic activity on wildlife, suddenly quite concerned about wind power’s avian mortality problem. (I haven’t linked to particular stories, but they are widely available. Start here, read all you like.)

It seems a bit like Bastiat’s point about the seen and unseen effects of a policy. It is easy to see the link between wind power and dead birds at the foot of a wind turbine tower, and hard to see the link between fossil fueled generation and dead birds in places far from the coal mines and smokestacks. (If you prefer your literary references to be to current science rather than 18th-century French pamphleteers, imagine that I invoked cognitive biases instead of Bastiat.)

But, if recent analysis of the relationships between electric power generation and bird deaths holds up to further scrutiny, wind power should be celebrated as promoting bird life.  The linked study, just published in the June 2009 issue of Energy Policy, concluded that wind power and nuclear power cause about 0.3 to 0.4 bird deaths per GWh of power generated while fossil fuel-based generation leads to more than 5 bird fatalities per GWh. On average, then, each GWh of wind power displacing fossil fuel power eliminates 4.6 bird fatalities.

To be sure, this conclusion should come with a host of footnotes. First, as author Benjamin Sovacool clearly states in the article, his results should be seen as a preliminary assessment. Limited data was available, and several simplifying assumptions were necessary to arrive at his conclusions. Second, bird mortality effects vary dramatically by site for wind power, so assessment of averages obscures localized differences. Third, assessments of averages also obscures the more-relevant-for-action assessment of marginal effects. Overall, there is much still to be learned about the evironmental impacts of wind turbines. Sovacool’s paper seems a good contribution toward this learning.

h1

GE-FPL smart grid investments in Florida

April 22, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

GE and Silver Springs Network will work with FPL to implement smart grid investments for 1 million Miami customers (here’s GE’s press release). This is an exciting and promising investment, and its open architecture holds a lot of promise for the development of customer-facing applications. GE and Silver Springs have great technology.

So why am I not doing cartwheels in the streets about this? Two reasons. Take this quote from the WSJ Environmental Capital post linked above:

What will Miami’s smart grid do, exactly? The whole power grid, from power plants to wall sockets, will be put on an Internet footing. That will let the power company—FPL—get a better handle on how electricity flows through its system and better manage supply and demand. Consumers will get an idea how much power they really use—and when. And companies like GE, Cisco, and Silver Springs will get a new market to sell their smart meters and wireless networking equipment.

The Miami project is a result of the stimulus package—roughly half the $200 million cost will come from federal smart grid incentives, while FPL will pick up the rest, figuring the new-and-improved network will soon pay for itself. Consumers won’t have to pay anything, says Mr. Gilligan, but he expects households to see savings of between 10% and 20% on their power bills. That’s because consumers who are aware of how much they are using, tend to use less electricity.

This is a utility-centric value proposition, not a consumer-centric one; as has been the case for the past century, the customer is an afterthought, is load that has to be centrally managed and served. The focus remains on the utility, the utility’s investments, the utility’s benefits. Yes, those benefits can ultimately redound to customers through lower operating costs. But Florida’s regulatory institutions remain in the 20th century, and the firms in its electricity industry remain vertically integrated. Its retail consumers do not have any choice; there is no competition for their business. Florida does not have a regulatory environment that enables the possible innovations in retail products and services that would create new value beyond the distribution automation and the provision of electricity consumption information to consumers.

And that’s my second reason to be cautiously optimistic about this investment. If you approach the retail electricity market from a regulated, utility-centric perspective, not only will you view consumers as load to be centrally managed and served, you will think of “enabling the consumer” as nothing more than providing them with technology to increase their information on their electricity use. Information is a start, but a truly consumer-focused smart grid strategy must involve pricing, must involve allowing entrepreneurs to develop new products and services around the technology, and must be transactive.

In other words, a truly value-creating smart grid industry model requires not just the technology, but also the regulatory institutions that enable retail innovation, retail competition, and retail choice. Without that combination of technology and institutions, we will fail to create all of the potential benefits from smart grid investments.

The next paragraph in the post indicates some prospect for a truly transactive smart grid in Miami, though:

Most of the area will see the basic infrastructure of the next-generation power grid, such as the smart meters that wirelessly transmit information on electricity use back to the power company. The really intelligent part of the smart grid will be limited to about 1,000 households in the Miami demonstration. Those homes will be outfitted with smart-energy gadgets to use electricity more wisely. “Eco-panels,” for instance, will help manage power use when electricity is most expensive; smart appliances will reschedule themselves to run when it’s cheapest.

Although no mention is made of it in the post, in order for price-responsive transactive “gadgets” and a home energy management portal to create value for consumers and save them money, the regulatory institutions have to allow dynamic pricing. Smart grids and smart appliances and dumb pricing squander the opportunities that the technology creates.

h1

Estimates of net cost of Waxman-Markey bill

April 22, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

If you are interested in following the Waxman-Markey energy-climate bill as it wends its way through Congress, John at Environmental Economics alerts us to the EPA’s analysis of the bill’s cost. The EPA estimates that it will cost less than $150/year, contrary to other, higher estimates. I’m not convinced by the EPA estimates, either; I’d like to see an independent benefit-cost analysis.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers