Archive for August, 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.

h1

More on dynamic electric power prices for residential customers in Illinois

August 12, 2009

Michael Giberson

In the comments on yesterday’s post, “Dynamic electric power prices for residential customers in Illinois,” Matthew Scallet, a Power Smart Pricing program administrator, offers a few more details on the savings by customers:

As far as savings are concerned, the average savings for our entire customer base is 13% since the beginning of the program in Jan 2007. Over time the savings levels has fluctuated as power prices change, but we’ve had a very good run lately. In 2009 with the wholesale market price for electricity being so low, the average savings for customers has jumped to 27%. Ameren’s flat rates went down a bit in June which has cut into those savings a bit during the summer but since summer power prices haven’t increased as much as in past summers, the numbers continue to look really good. Not paying a risk premium for a flat rate is what’s making the program attractive to customers.

The comment also addresses concerns about the participation fee and other issues raised in earlier comments.

The 2008 program analysis report provides more details for that year.  Supporting statistical results and older reports are available from this page.

h1

Blog recommendation: Jay Hancock

August 12, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

A reading recommendation, especially for those of you in the mid-Atlantic interested in business and energy commentary: Jay Hancock’s blog at the Baltimore Sun. Jay has lots of trenchant insights into local and national business and economic events.

h1

Share the road …

August 11, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

OK, this comic hits a leeeetle too close to home!

h1

Dynamic electric power prices for residential customers in Illinois

August 11, 2009

Michael Giberson

From the Danville, Illinois Commercial-News, a report of a two-year old dynamic power price program for residential customers of Ameren in Illinois:

The program offers customers the ability to track in real time, via the Web, the day-ending regional commodity price of electricity. And as the rate fluctuates, participants can adjust their usage to avoid peak rates the following day.

“You don’t have to turn everything off and you don’t have to sit around in the dark,” said Stephanie Folk, a spokeswoman for CNT Energy….

She said it’s more a matter of knowing when the prices are high or are going to go higher, and then saving major chores such as laundry for a less-expensive part of the day.

“Maybe you just turn up the air conditioner a couple of degrees at certain times,” she said.

The reporter suggests that customers “can save nearly 15 percent”, but doesn’t indicate if that is a maximum or mean value.

Probably nothing new in the article for regular KP readers, but in a world in which people think such pricing programs are impossible — politically or practically — the mere existence of a two year old program offers a proof.

The next step is to automate the adjustment processes.  For example, if the air conditioner’s thermostat setting was a function of price rather than a fixed number, the power customer could capture savings without needing to check prices nightly.  This kind of thing is already possible, but hampered by the current lack of energy data communication standards to allow thermostats to communicate to other household systems, the power meter, and the consumer’s energy retailer.

Lynne could probably name devices that can already do this kind of thing, and describe the current state of progress on data standards, too.

h1

Anniversary: Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments

August 11, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I am on a plane all day today, flying to England for a few days of holiday before proceeding to Stockholm for the Mont Pelerin Society annual meeting. My main activity for the flight is to work on my course prep for my new freshman seminar this fall, entitled “Adam Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment”. I have a pretty good idea of the schedule, now I just have to plan each class … which means I’ll be spending most of the flight with Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments.

2009 is the 250th anniversary of the publication of TOMS, which I count as one of the most influential works in the social science canon. It truly is impossible to think about questions of how individuals live together in civil society without making great use of Smith’s insights in this work. If you haven’t read TOMS yet, now is a good time, particularly in light of what has happened in the past year and the current federal policy debates surrounding climate change legislation and health care legislation. Much of that policy direction does not draw on Smith’s insights in TOMS, to our great detriment.

At The Technology Liberation Front, Adam Thierer has an outstanding post reflecting on the 250th anniversary of TOMS and the great relevance of Smith’s ideas today. He even excerpts the wonderful “man of system” passage from TOMS, which is even more relevant and urgent to consider today than it was when I wrote these earlier KP posts on the “man of system”.

h1

Import? Export? Which way for LNG in North America?

August 10, 2009

Michael Giberson

Another sign of change in the North American natural gas industry, the Wall Street Journal reports Apache Corp. has agreed to supply gas to the Kitimat LNG terminal in British Columbia for export into the Asian market.  The Kitimat facility was initially conceived of as an import terminal to tap Middle Eastern and Australian LNG supplies, but with the dramatic natural gas supply shift in North America the developers reversed plans.

It seems hard to believe that Russia would sell LNG into the United States if Canadian producers could profitably export LNG to Asia, so I’m discounting that suggestion. Could it possibly be cheaper to ship gas from British Columbia into California as LNG traveling through Mexico than via overland? Perhaps if the overland pipelines become capacity constrained due to increased gas production in Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain states.

Also, a hugely expensive and risky natural gas pipeline from Alaska into central Canada or the U.S. midwest seems much less likely in a world of LNG exports from the Canada. A few years ago the project appeared essential, but now I’d say the market won’t support it for at least another 10 years.  So there is plenty of time for Alaskan state politics to work things out (and plenty of reason to think it won’t be enough time for Alaskan state politics to work things out).  The question for pipeline supporters: how long before new gas supplies, from shale and other recently developed sources, become expensive enough to justify an Alaskan gas pipeline project?

(HT to a former student, thanks David.)

ADDED, from the Financial Times Energy Source blog, a story about the natural gas industry lobby in Washington, DC:

He says senators are listening, and he has hopes they will recognise the growing role natural gas could play in the US, given how new technology has opened unconventional shale gas projects across the country, making the potential role of natural gas far larger than anyone anticipated just three years ago.

The politically useful thing that shale gas technology has done, at least from the point of view of natural gas industry lobbyists, is move several states from the “net consuming” to the “net producing” column.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers