Archive for November 24th, 2009

h1

Have we failed regulation?

November 24, 2009

Michael Giberson

One paper presented at the recent Second Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries in Brussels addressed the topic of regulation as an imperfect institution.

The abstract seemed a bit of a mess, but I’m interested in views of utility regulation as an economic institution (particularly from a new institutional economics approach, but also more broadly) so I thought I’d take a look at the paper.  The abstract suggested I’d see how “regulation may not fail in theory or practice as much as it is failed by us.”  Do we have a duty to the institution? I was intrigued.

Unfortunately, I could only make it to page three before the following paragraph-and-a-half finally stopped me:

Markets emerge from a brew of economic want and political will. Free markets are not free by desire or design. Markets are an artifact of nonmarkets, owing to the political economy because they are allowed to exist under the legitimacy of the state. Market structures (eggs) may call for regulation (chickens) and regulation in turn will shape market structures. Rather ironically, structure and regulation are essential for “liberalized” markets.

Economic exchange begets market structures and rules, which beget markets, which beget market failure, which begets regulation, which begets regulatory failure. Regulatory failure can beget regulatory reform or market reforms leading to changes in the rules that may result in failures of restructuring.

If I’m following the above, because chickens and eggs are allowed to exist under the legitimacy of the state, they are non-market artifacts of political economy.  The eggs call for chickens, but chickens in turn shape the eggs. Then a lot of begetting happens, which seems like the sort of thing that should be involved in the chicken-and-egg relationship, but the connection is a little hazy.

Let’s get to the point: am I getting an omelet or not?

(Maybe it gets better after page three – scanning ahead the rest of the text looks somewhat better – but I think my time is better spent elsewhere.  By the way, other papers presented at the conference appear much more useful.)

h1

Energy information devices start to go mass market

November 24, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Tim Haab helpfully points out an article from Time about EnergyHub, a device for consumers to see more, and more timely, information about their energy consumption. I’ve written about EnergyHub here before, and honestly, they have not been among the most forward-looking or impressive of the products I’ve seen for providing consumers with both the information about their energy consumption and the ability to take action and automate changes in energy consumption behavior. Perhaps EnergyHub’s product has advanced since I last looked at them, but I do think Time christening EnergyHub’s smart thermostat one of the best inventions of 2009 is a bit of hyperbole, as well as being incorrect, since companies like Tendril have been working on more informative and communicative “smart thermostat” technology since 2007.

Still, having a publication like Time draw attention to the ability of homeowners to see better energy information and to respond to dynamic price signals autonomously is a positive step toward a more competitive and efficient retail electricity industry.

However, I have one nit to pick with Tim’s post. He states

Typical consumers get a bill at the end of the month reporting total consumption and the total bill.  But efficient energy pricing requires the consumer to know the marginal cost of the next unit consumed–how much will it cost me to toast this frozen waffle?

Yes … and no. Think about the other products you consume — do you necessarily pay precisely the marginal cost for every single unit of every single product you consume? No. Electricity is no different from, say, your cell phone — do you know the marginal cost to Verizon of the next minute of mobile communication you consume? No, you don’t, and you don’t pay a price that directly reflects that cost. Why not? Because pricing also reflects preferences, not just costs, and there are differentiated products/service contracts.

However, what all other products you consume have that electricity does not is choice and product differentiation. In a competitive retail market, retailers would offer time-differentiated and quality-differentiated products, or bundled services, but these products and services do not necessarily all have to include real-time retail pricing to lead to efficient retail markets. Here’s an example: suppose I am risk-averse, so I do not want real-time prices, but I am willing to pay a peak-off peak time of use price. Suppose I contract with a retailer for a TOU contract. That retailer is essentially engaging in risk management, so the retailer will either buy from the wholesale market on long-term contracts or from the wholesale spot market (probably some combination of the two). In this case I do not observe the marginal cost of the last unit I consume, but I am choosing between peak and off peak. My retailer sees its marginal cost of the last unit I consume, though, in its engagement with the wholesale market. But the contract that I chose voluntarily reflects my willingness to bear price risk.

Put more simply: an efficient retail electricity market does not require that the retail price for all consumers precisely reflects the marginal cost to the supplier of the last unit consumed, but it does require that consumers have choices that enable them to express their diverse preferences over price risk, generation source, etc. It is also enabled by technology that allows consumers to see how much it’s going to cost them to toast that frozen waffle, and to make more sense of what a price per kilowatt-hour means in terms of actual consumption.

Tim is correct that electricity regulation has led to a world in which consumers pay a fixed, averaged price and only know how much they have consumed when they receive their bills at the end of the month. Given how much communication technology is prevalent in our lives, and how inexpensive it has become, that lack of information is appalling.

h1

U.S. Biodiesel continues to need taxpayer support, or else…

November 24, 2009

Michael Giberson

I am mildly amazed that it is possible to take something as simple as, say, palm oil or soybean oil, and – with a few relatively simple chemical tricks – turn it into motor vehicle fuel.  [See it on YouTube.] However, I’m not so amazed that I’m willing to pay you or anyone else a $1 for every gallon of the fuel produced.

The biodiesel business in the United States is hoping that enough people remain amazed at the simple techno-wizardry that they can continue to claim a $1 per gallon federal tax break.  The tax break, which has been around since 2004, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress approves another year of subsidies for the companies.

The Houston Chronicle suggests that several biodiesel companies are having a hard time making money even with the $1 per gallon subsidy.  The story does, briefly, hint that there could be some sort of public benefit involved in the production and consumption of biodiesel (“help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption”), but nowhere else in the article does anyone express concern over anything other than how the loss of the subsidy will hurt the economic fortunes of the subsidized companies.  Instead, the concern is mostly for protecting investors in the biodiesel business (Comments: “[Loss of tax support] would be devastating,” “The tax extension is critical to an industry that is on life support,” “Every day that policy doesn’t get passed hurts us”).

I admit, biodiesel is a neat trick, just not so neat that I want to pay to keep these guys in business.

[As of today, the most current information on biodiesel that I could find on the EIA website only covers through the end of 2008, so it doesn't reveal if U.S. producers have been hard hit by the loss of the European "splash and dash" market.]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers