Archive for March 22nd, 2010

h1

Tres Amigas gets half a loaf from FERC, tips on gaining other half

March 22, 2010

Michael Giberson

On March 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted on the Tres Amigas project’s two regulatory requests submitted last October.  Tres Amigas has proposed to link the large scale power interconnections covering the eastern and western halves of the United States with the ERCOT interconnection in Texas.  The New Mexico-based project would facilitate trading power among the interconnections and aid development of electric power generation resources in all three areas.

In docket ER10-396-000, FERC granted the project’s request for negotiated rate authority subject to conditions intended “to ensure that the goals of open access are protected and that rates for transmission service on the Project remain just and reasonable by limiting Applicant’s ability to withhold the Project’s capacity from the market.”  Haven’t read the order yet, but when I have the chance I’ll let you know if I see something interesting.

In docket EL10-22-000, Tres Amigas requested the Commission agree not to assume federal jurisdiction over the parts of the ERCOT interconnection currently regulated by Texas just because the Tres Amigas project would allow ERCOT market participants to join in interstate commerce.  FERC concluded that the information submitted by Tres Amigas did not warrant a blanket disclaimer of jurisdiction and so denied the request. However, the Commission offered suggestions on how Tres Amigas may go about securing the jurisdictional assurance it wants without the Commission implicitly endorsing the various justifications the project offered in the company’s filing.

MORE: The FERC press release contains more information, and see Chairman Jon Wellinghoff’s statement, Commission Marc Spitzer’s statement, and Commissioner John Norris’s statement.  Mostly these statements say: we like innovative transmission infrastructure projects like this one, we support them as we can, we couldn’t quite swallow the jurisdictional request as presented, but that doesn’t mean we don’t like these kinds of projects.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the ruling, “Power Grid Connection Wins First Approval.” Bloomberg reports, “FERC Slows Tres Amigas Plan to Link U.S. Power Grids.”

h1

I nominate “computational economic systems design”

March 22, 2010

Michael Giberson

At his Oddhead Blog, Yahoo! researcher David Pennock reports several links of interest for folks working at the intersection of the fields of economics and computer science and then asks what this subfield should be called.  He finds several terms in use for projects or at conferences: Algorithmic Economics, Market Algorithms, Electronic Commerce, Economics and Computation, Algorithmic Game Theory, and adds “A fun suggestion is Economatics (or Autonomics), meant to invoke a mashup of economics and automation.”

I suggest “computational economic systems design” as an accurate description, even if a bit awkward even by geek science standards, putting the intersection of computer science and economics Pennock is concerned with within the slightly broader subfield of computational economics.

Pennock notes, “the phrase Computational Economics makes sense but is already in use by a different field.” (Link in source)  In a long comment posted in response to Pennock’s related Facebook note, Duke University computer scientist Vincent Conitzer argues for using a wide definition for Computational Economics and finding room within that definition for this intersection.  Conitzer said in part:

As [Pennock] pointed out, the main downside of “computational economics” is that other people have already started using this phrase. But note that they (comp-econ.org) seem to (correctly, IMO) have a very wide interpretation of this phrase, including topics in finance, macroeconomics, and econometrics — but also things like “computational tools for the design of automated Internet markets.” I think it doesn’t make any sense at all to say that the computer scientists working on economics are not part of computational economics! I think we should politely claim our rightful place under the phrase “computational economics,” and the other community may not mind at all — but perhaps we should engage this other community more, and also think more about whether we can in fact make ourselves useful in topics in macro, econometrics, etc. Actually, this may be more important than our struggles with finding a name.

For me at a personal level, when I came to Duke, there was already a strong sense that I would be working in “computational economics,” doubtlessly encouraged by the fact that we have a strong computational biology presence and the parallel is natural (and now we also have a computational economics minor). I went along with that vision (which I think is a good one), though I have tried to make it clear that I work on computational MICROeconomics — I don’t do any macro or econometrics — and I think this mitigates the issue of a conflict with the existing comp econ people.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers