Archive for August 13th, 2009

h1

Feed-in tariffs waste resources and make it harder to meet Europe’s renewable energy goals

August 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

Feed-in tariffs waste resources and make it harder to meet Europe’s renewable energy goals according to a guest post by Omar Abbosh on the Financial Times Energysource blog, at least in the absence of a single, integrated electric power market in Europe.  Abbosh, a managing director at Accenture, notes that generous feed-in tariffs have led Germany to build a lot of solar and wind power capacity, but renewable energy output would be significantly higher had those wind power turbines been built in the U.K. and the solar power systems installed in Spain.

I’m putting a slightly more negative spin on the feed-in tariff issue than Abbosh himself does (in part as a reaction to the “unequivocally superior” comment discussed earlier), so I’ll give Abbosh the final word:

To reach our renewable targets more cost effectively, Europe must implement a consistent policy framework to drive renewable generation to those areas with greatest natural advantage. Options include centrally coordinated carbon contracts and feed in tariffs.

Options include a feed in tariff? Well, he is right that a Europe-wide feed in tariff would likely do a better job than more localized feed in tariffs of locating renewable energy resources where they would produce more output.

Of course, one goal of renewable power policy in Europe is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and locating wind and solar where they produce the most output doesn’t necessarily imply the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  It is possible, for example, that solar power generation in Germany offsets mostly coal-fired plant output while in Spain it would offset natural gas fired generation.  I’m speculating, so my illustration may be in-apt, but the point remains.  Apparently it is harder to distort the market in just the right way than it looks.

(Oh, I forgot that I was giving Abbosh the last word.

Sorry.

Now back to his post:)

However, we advocate the introduction of European Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).

Under a European RECs system, each nation would agree to levels of electricity generation from renewables, based on the availability of the natural resource in question.  Certificates would be allocated to renewables generators, who would then sell them on an EU-wide trading platform to suppliers unable to meet their obligations. …  As a market-based approach, European RECs would be compatible with the EU’s existing Energy Trading System (ETS).

… Only by replacing distorting national subsides with a coordinated and consistent policy can Europe achieve its renewables targets and continue to lead the climate change debate.

h1

Does “putting your money where your mouth is” make betting a free speech issue?

August 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

Miriam Cherry and Robert Rogers explore the interaction of “Prediction Markets and the First Amendment.”  If prediction markets are “expressive,” does that mean that U.S. government actions that constrain prediction market development potentially raise First Amendment issues on free speech grounds? The authors propose a way forward in which courts, at least until the legislative and administrative branches clarify policy, apply a Miller v. California-like test for identifying permissible prediction markets.

Miller v. California established a three-part test for regulating obscenity, and it is the third part of that test is key for Cherry and Rogers: “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”  On these grounds Cherry and Rogers suggest the first amendment may offer protection for prediction markets directed at political, economic, cultural, or scientific topics, but perhaps not for prediction markets for sporting or entertainment events.

I’m not sure First Amendment law is the best protection for prediction markets, but it might be better than nothing.

HT to Chris Masse at Midas Oracle.

h1

Who controls access to consumer power consumption data?

August 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

In Pennsylvania, a debate over how non-utility electricity retailers get access to a customer’s power use data.  The new rule allows an energy retailer to gain consumer data based only on oral assurance to the PUC that the customer wants their utility to release it, even if the customer had previously requested that the information not be released.

Access to the data helps a non-utility supplier to better price an offer to a potential customer, so it should tend to promote competition.  But consumer privacy issues are raised by the change, and some businesses may see their energy consumptions patterns as commercially-sensitive information they would not want disclosed.

Concerns about access to data and consumer privacy arise each time former-monopoly retail markets move toward more competitive conditions.  Ten years ago, these issues popped up all of the time.  But surely, by now, there has been enough experience across the states that have restructured.  What rules have worked well in other markets?

h1

The unequivocal superiority of the feed-in tariffs for renewable power?

August 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

At the IEEE Spectrum’s EnergyWise blog, Bill Sweet discusses one implication of current low power prices: even with generous subsidies, a potential wind or solar power plant project may not be profitable if power prices are expected to stay low.

Sweet seems to believe this is a problem that requires a solution.  In a parenthetical remark, he says:

(Note in this connection, however, the unequivocal superiority of the “feed-in” tariffs that countries like Germany and Spain have adopted to encourage investment in wind and solar. In those countries, investors are guaranteed prices for electricity generated by renewables over time, regardless of what happens to general electricity rates.)

If the goal of public policy is to encourage continued building of wind and solar power plants with no regard for whether anyone really needs or wants to pay for the output of those plants, then a feed-in tariff is just the thing.  (For background, see Wikipedia on feed-in tariff).

On the other hand, and maybe this is just the economist in me coming out, it seems rather sensible to have policies that provide larger inducements to build new power plants when more power plants are needed and smaller inducements to build new power plants when we already seem to have plenty of power plants available.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers