Archive for May, 2009

h1

Auctions as tools to limit government discretion

May 26, 2009

Michael Giberson

Auctions, especially auctions of government property, are not a tool of the rich…  As principles of market design become more thoroughly articulated and widely understood, the sphere of governmental discretion will shrink. More and more, politicians will be forced to play by the rules.

That’s David Warsh writing on the relationship between the economics of auctions and government. His main point is that when government property (anything from radio spectrum licenses to surplus office furniture) is sold by auction rather than disposed of in other ways, the tendency is for rules to limit discretion. Lobbying and personal relationships become less important, and cash deposited into government accounts becomes more important.

It might be objected that the current lobbying frenzy occasioned by the Waxman-Markey carbon emission cap-and-trade bill is a counter example. For example, from the New York Times:

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee….

Yes, a lot of lobbying is going on. Regulation of carbon emissions will occasion a substantial increase in the influence of the government over the economy, and the consequences of that potential regulation provide significant motivation for firms to invest in lobbying.

But observe carefully, this isn’t a case in which auction tools enhance the granting of political favors. Instead it is an example of how, if you want an advantage in an auction system, your best bet is to get your advantage placed in the rules in writing up front. No CEO is saying to his board, “Don’t worry, I went to school with the guy at the EPA (or DOE or wherever) who will be in charge of the auction; he owes me a few favors, he’ll take care of us.” Instead, they are lobbying like crazy.

When the rules are in place (and the subsequent narrower lobbying over the implementing regulations, and the subsequent lawsuits roll through the courts), the ability of wealth to buy political favors will be constrained.

h1

Price gouging policy as rendered in everyday politics

May 25, 2009

Michael Giberson

Way to go, Sen. Goss. Now grandma in Wilmington is gonna go three days without a flashlight ‘cuz you don’t understand basic economics.

That is the conclusion of a post on Carolina Politics Online about a proposal by North Carolina state senator Steve Goss to not limit the state’s price gouging law to periods of declared emergencies. According to an article in the Asheville Citizen-Times (no longer online) the proposal would turn the “state authorities who scrutinized gas prices during the shortage following Hurricane Ike [into] year-round watchdogs.”

Meanwhile, in neighboring Georgia, the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs took time out of a press release detailing progress on price gouging investigations to emphasize, “Absent a declared state of emergency, competition and demand drive prices in our free-market economy.”

(Of “more than 2,000 complaints or inquiries about price gouging or gas shortages,” arising during the post-Hurricane Ike supply problems, the office said, “as of May 15th, 91 cases have been resolved – 26 with a finding of no price gouging and 65 with a finding of price gouging.” Note that not all of the 2,000 “complaints or inquiries” necessarily resulted in an investigation.)

SEARCH: More price gouging posts at Knowledge Problem.

h1

LNG possibilities keeping natural gas prices down in U.S.

May 23, 2009

Michael Giberson

“Our feeling is that natural gas prices have some challenges because of the LNG that may be coming this way due to our storage capability in the United States and the reduced industrial demand overseas,” Hackett said…

Gas futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange have dropped about 30 percent this year, compared with oil’s 33 percent increase.

From a brief story reporting Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett’s assessment of conditions in the natural gas market.

Trends noted earlier here (see LNG and the future of natural gas prices in the U.S.) appear to be continuing.

h1

Arizona commissioners’ views on a non-jurisdictional utility’s cost-cutting plan

May 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

The Salt River Project is, among other things, a fairly substantial electric utility serving customers in the state of Arizona. As it is a state-chartered entity, not an investor-owned utility, it is not subject to regulation by the Arizona Corporation Commission. But that didn’t stop a couple of Arizona state commissioners from opining against the SRP’s consideration of a plan to outsource 40 or 50 computer services positions.

Commission Chairwoman Kris Mayes said that because SRP doesn’t have to report to her commission like other state utilities, the company faces less scrutiny over such decisions.

She would be concerned if one of the utilities under her oversight outsourced, “particularly in this down economy,” she said.

… when the commission approved an emergency rate increase for [regulated utility Arizona Public Service] in December, commissioners directed the utility to cut at least $20 million in expenses and do it without layoffs.

“I would be very concerned about (outsourcing) at APS, TEP or UniSource (Energy Services),” Commissioner Gary Pierce said. “There would be quite a grilling over that. It would be very hard for the folks we regulate to outsource.”

Pierce, at least, was quoted as being willing to first consider if a state law or commission policy could be changed to reduce cost and eliminate the need for the company to outsource, and added that he felt a duty to ratepayers to ensure that the rates they pay are as low as possible.

Mayes is not quoted as admitting of any tradeoffs or other limits to her “concern” about outsourcing.

HT to Scott Gustafson at Arizona Economics; quote is from the Arizona Republic.

(And what’s this about an emergency rate increase? Fuel costs are down all over, right?, and demand is down as well. And rates are going up??? What sort of crazy regulatory logic justifies… Oh never mind.)

h1

Bootleggers and Baptists and carbon policy

May 21, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg has one of the clearest articulations of the bootleggers and Baptists dynamic in carbon policy, and nails one of the fundamental reasons why the Waxman-Markey bill is bad policy:

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is “rent-seeking.” …

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities — including Duke — spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. …

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

That pretty much sums up why I think that Congress can’t be trusted to design an economically beneficial carbon policy.

h1

Flywheel technology now ready for takeoff? NYISO tariff changes accomodate energy storage technology

May 20, 2009

Michael Giberson

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved NYISO tariff changes intended to accommodate participation of flywheel and similar energy storage devices in markets to supply frequency regulation services.  Flywheel developer Beacon Power applauded the change.

The FERC order, linked above, describes a number of changes to the NYISO tariff and operating procedures needed for flywheel technology to work economically in the ISO’s markets. Interestingly, some of the changes reflect ways in which flywheel-based services are superior to traditional generator-based provision of frequency regulation service (much faster response, much more finely controlable), some of the changes reflect limitations in flywheel capabilities relative to other suppliers (resources under consideration could sustain service for only 15 minutes), and some of the changes just reflect ways in which flywheels are different (operators want to bid in the regulation market without also bidding in the energy supply market).

In the NYISO, much of the frequency regulation services needed have been provided by hydro units, but some of it is provided by thermal generating units. The rapid small ups-and-downs in generator output necessary to supply frequency regulation from thermal units typically cause the units to use more fuel and emit more pollutants than otherwise. The addition of flywheel technologies to the mix should lead to a small environmental benefit, too, in addition to reducing the overall costs of frequency regulation.

h1

Consequences of dynamic transmission line rating for renewable power

May 20, 2009

Michael Giberson

I think the implication of this article are good for wind power, but not as good for solar power.

Some of the discussion borders on being over my head, but the main point is that many transmission line capability ratings are static while the actual transmission line capability is dynamic. Dynamic line ratings – ratings which reflect current weather data – can increase the amount of power that can be reliably carried on existing transmission infrastructure.

Generally speaking a transmission line’s carrying capability is limited by the danger of overheating. To be safe, transmission operators will compute a rating for a line under possible adverse conditions.  A line is more likely to overheat during hotter, calmer times and less likely to overheat at colder, windier times, so transmission operators will base ratings on assumptions of high temperature and low wind. The result is that transmission line limits are probably too conservative most of the time.

The consequences for wind power and solar power generation are fairly obvious: Wind power output is higher when it is windy, and so is transmission capability, so use of dynamic line ratings would ease transmission constraints associated with large wind power output.  Wind power also tends to be higher at night and during cooler periods of the year, so again dynamic line rates would allow more transmission capacity to be used. (This approach is already in use in a few places.)  Solar power output, on the other hand, tends to be higher during hotter times of day, when transmission capability is lower. Still, it is likely that dynamic line ratings would benefit solar too, since most of the time transmission lines limits are likely too conservative.

I should also point out that dynamic line ratings should be good for consumers, too, since the more efficient use of transmission capability reduces congestion, meaning it is easier for consumers to reach any available low cost power on the system.

h1

Origins of state electric utility regulation: Was it protection of quasi-rents not creation of monopoly rents?

May 20, 2009

Michael Giberson

There is by now a fairly established body of economic history work that challenges what might be called the mainstream view of the origins of state regulation of electric utilities and offers as an alternative a nakedly public choice view that state regulation was all about creation of monopoly rents. The mainstream view asserts that electric utilities were natural monopolies – therefore competition was wasteful – and state-level rate regulation was desirable to limit the economic harms that would otherwise accompany monopolization.

A contrary view drawing on public choice and new institutional economics asserts that state utility regulation was a special interest effort in the creation of monopoly rents. This line of thinking may start with Stigler and Friedlander and Demsetz and culminate in the work of Jarrell, who found that the advent of regulation in states was associated with higher electric power prices and slower growth compared to the periods before state regulation. A central implication of this line of work is that state regulation is a negative-sum game in which powerful concentrated interests are able to capture political benefits through regulatory processes at the expense of dispersed, unorganized consumer interests.

In the December 2008 Journal of Economic History, John Neufeld presents an alternative explanation for the emergence of state regulation, which also draws on insights from public choice and new institutional economics. A key point of his article is that state regulation can be seen as a positive sum activity instead of a purely negative-sum rent-seeking exercise. (You might say that the earlier line of thinking emphasizes public choice concerns, while Neufeld’s alternative emphasizes new institutional issues.) In the abstract for “Corruption, Quasi-Rents, and the Regulation of Electric Utilities,” he says:

Was the adoption of state utility regulation the result of a negative-sum competition among special interest groups vying for the monopoly rents created by regulation or a positive-sum elimination of corruption arising from appropriable quasi-rents? Previous empirical studies of the adoption of regulation have assumed the former. Using discrete hazard analysis, this study considers the latter and finds the data more consistent with the positive-sum protection of quasi-rents than the negative-sum creation and appropriation of monopoly rents.

In Neufeld’s telling, the problem with municipal franchising with private utilities – the dominant practice prior to state utility regulation – was that post-contractual investments by the utility created appropriable quasi-rents, and it was difficult to prevent the municipality from reneging on contractual commitments in pursuit of those rents. In this environment, utilities preferred the relatively stability promised by state regulation.

I like Neufeld’s view, but it doesn’t seem to address one very important issue: Why did state regulation seem to necessarily entail imposition of a state-enforced monopoly? Couldn’t the state offer effective protection from municipal predation to competing electric utilities? Also, what features of state-level regulation protected utilities from state government appropriation of the quasi-rents?

Maybe Neufeld addressed these points and I just missed them.* In any case, he presents a good case for considering the role of appropriable quasi-rents in the story of electric utility regulation.

CITATION: John L. Neufeld (2008). Corruption, Quasi-Rents, and the Regulation of Electric Utilities. The Journal of Economic History, 68, pp 1059-1097. doi:10.1017/S0022050708000818

*I don’t have an electronic version of the document handy for reference, the article is only available online to subscribers. I’m working from memory from yesterday’s trip to the library. (Yes, I actually had to bike over to the library to read a journal article! It felt so old fashioned.)

h1

Independence Pass!

May 20, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve been out in Colorado since Friday teaching at this year’s Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics annual workshop for state regulators. Yesterday we had a free afternoon and today we wrap up and travel home, so my post for the day is this picture from yesterday’s free afternoon: three of us rode from Aspen up to the top of Independence Pass. 20.5 miles out and up, a 4000-foot elevation gain … and 2000 of those feet of elevation gain come in the last two miles before the summit. Ouch!

It was breathtaking in many ways — lack of oxygen at 12,000 feet, gorgeous scenery, riding on a road that’s little more than a paved mountain goat trail clinging to the side of a mountain in some places — and it was a good challenge and good fun. I wouldn’t have stuck with it without my riding buddies Ray and Brian, so thanks to them I got to have this spectacular experience!

h1

Jazz at the Village Vanguard on NPR

May 19, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

A serious shout out to Orin Kerr at Volokh for pointing out NPR’s live broadcasts from the Village Vanguard. I think the KP Spouse and I may have to listen to the Ravi Coltrane Quartet recording over Memorial Day weekend!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers