Archive for April, 2010

h1

Making the most of Spain’s feed-in tariff for solar power

April 19, 2010

Michael Giberson

Bloomberg reports on fraud via Spain’s subsidized feed in tariff rate for solar power:

Preliminary evidence shows some solar stations may have run diesel-burning generators and sold the output as solar power, which earns several times more than electricity from fossil fuels, El Mundo said, citing unidentified people from the energy industry. The power grid received 4,500 megawatt-hours of power from midnight to 7 a.m. in the months audited, El Mundo said.

HT Arizona Economics and Coyote Blog.

h1

Anticipa-a-tion … and more music recs

April 18, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I’m overly eager for the new album from The National, so much so that when I looked at the release date I paid attention to the day and not the month. Doh! So now I have to wait until MAY 11, grrrr. Two other great bands, LCD Soundsystem and Band of Horses, have albums coming out on May 18. Mid-May will be a deluge of great new music! But can I make the two new National tracks I’ve got quell my anticipation?

h1

Will the CFTC allow the newly approved box office futures exchange to actually offer box office futures contracts?

April 17, 2010

Michael Giberson

As just noted, the CFTC has approved Media Derivatives request to establish Trend Exchange, a box office futures exchange.  At Midas Oracle, Chris Masse reacts to the news by drawing attention to remarks by CFTC commissioners suggesting that it may be difficult for Trend Exchange to gain the subsequent CFTC approvals needed for it to actually offer box office futures contracts.

From a Bloomberg story on the exchange approval:

The CFTC must still approve the type of contracts to be dealt before Trend Exchange can begin. The company has said its first product will center on opening-weekend box office.

Product approval is “a very different question” from exchange approval and raises “significant concerns,” Chilton said in an e-mailed statement. He said he had “reluctantly” concurred in today’s vote.

“We have serious concerns regarding the trading of media contracts and we support a very thorough review of all of these first-of-a-kind products,” CFTC Commissioner Scott O’Malia said in an e-mailed statement.

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, today added language banning trade in movie futures to a broader derivatives bill she is writing. Lincoln is chairman of the Agriculture Committee that oversees the commodity commission.

More information from the CFTC here, including links to the order and related.

While the CFTC’s inquiry regarding event contracts seems relevant here, I see no reference to that proceeding from 2008 in the CFTC order or concurring statements issued by commissioners.  Perhaps, too, that is a bad sign.

h1

CFTC approves box office futures market

April 16, 2010

Michael Giberson

Today the CFTC approved Media Derivatives Inc.’s request to create a futures exchange based on box office receipts.  The exchange “is primarily focused on the development of a variety of products to benefit the entertainment industry with one if its initially proposed products being designed to help mitigate risk and enhance the successful financing of motion pictures through trading of opening weekend domestic box office receipts.”

See also reports at Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.

Media Derivatives’s Trend Exchange market is one of two similar proposals that have been submitted to the CFTC for approval.  The other proposal has been submitted by Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street investment and brokerage company, which acquired play-money site Hollywood Stock Exchange a few years ago.

ADDENDUM: Will the CFTC allow the newly approved box office futures exchange to actually offer box office futures contracts?

h1

Libertarian paternalism series at Cato Unbound

April 16, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve been meaning to write about the libertarian paternalism series at Cato Unbound for a week or so, but have been too busy to pull it off. Happily, Ilya Somin has a good post that touches on a couple of the themes I wanted to raise (and I second his recommendation to read the series, and the Whitman posts specifically). In particular, he points out that the libertarian paternalism arguments do have a double standard because they focus on the cognitive biases of individuals in making consumption and investment decisions, but they fail to apply the same behavioral analysis to policymakers and regulators.

It may well be that private citizens acting in markets and civil society often make decisions that they later regret because of cognitive errors. However, regulators and voters are people too. They also might make bad decisions because of cognitive errors. Libertarian paternalist scholars generally ignore this possibility by implicitly comparing perfectly rational regulators with often irrational consumers. But there is no a priori reason to believe that the former are more rational than the latter.

He then goes on to discuss the cognitive biases of regulators, and voters, and their implications for these policy “nudges”. I know that there are several electricity regulators and policymakers who, being naturally attuned to the top-down control culture and history of the industry but also wanting some expansion of individual choice, see the concept of “nudge” as a way to overcome the biases and transaction costs associated with individual consumers paying attention to their electricity consumption. These policymakers should also pay attention to their own biases, though, and the ways that their inclinations to control and manage economic outcomes lead them to focus on outcomes that actually may not be in the best interest of individuals, and may therefore lead to either a decline in economic welfare or a set of unintended consequences as people innovate around the nudges. Or both.

h1

Technology + dynamic pricing conserves water too (duh)

April 16, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I love this story; it’s like Knowledge Problem + Aguanomics = individual choice, efficiency, conservation, and elegance. Water conservation is a large and growing concern, in large part because our public policy does such an abominable job of creating a framework/market design to send good scarcity signals to diverse individual users, and to enable them to trade rights among those uses. But in many places, water use also means electricity use, because of the large pumping demand associated with it.

That combination of water use and electricity use provided the impetus for a recent pilot study in California:

A pilot study conducted last summer in Palm Desert, Calif., suggests that they can.

The study, financed by the California Energy Commission, asked participants — who were paid $25 a month — to reduce their water use at “peak” times. A peak time refers to the hours when electricity use is at or near its daily high, and therefore especially expensive.

For Palm Desert, those hours are noon to 6 p.m.

The participants were given so-called “smart water meters” that recorded their water use at 15-minute intervals. Crucially, the meters also enabled participants to see how much water they were using — information that is unavailable to most households.

The results were striking: at peak times, participating homeowners used less than half the amount of water as those in the control group. The homeowners’ total use also ended up being 17 percent lower than the control group’s.

There are a few interesting aspects of this study. Note first that the payment to the homeowner was a lump sum. There is not a dynamic price per unit of water consumed, nor is there even a time-of-use peak-off-peak price structure, so the main driver of the observed conservation is the improvement in information visibility to the homeowner. The $25 lump sum payment probably contributed to raising their awareness too. A dynamic price or a TOU price is also likely to reinforce this result.

Second, note that the peak time denoted here was the peak electricity price time. The article indicates that the 50% reduction in peak water use did not lead to a commensurate reduction in electricity demand, although there was some reduction. So the relationship between water use and electricity use is quite nonlinear. One thing to consider is that in the desert a lot of people use evaporative cooling, so there is some margin of substitution between cooling using water and cooling using air conditioning.

Finally, the article points out that by making homeowners more informed and aware of their water consumption, the smart water meters helped them and the water authority to identify unknown leaks. This result was an unanticipated outcome, and identifying those unanticipated relationships is something that decentralized, individual incentive systems do best.

h1

New music recommendation: The National-High Violet

April 15, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

It’s been too long since we’ve done any decent music recs here at KP, and last Sunday’s release of The National’s new album High Violet is a good reason to do one now. I’ve heard a couple of songs from it, including “Bloodbuzz Ohio” that they are offering as a free download, and they are great. Lush, layered, sophisticated, interesting. I think I will frequent my local indie record shop tomorrow and get the deluxe CD …

h1

Tim Harford asks about inclining block rates …

April 15, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

… he just doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t know that it’s an established regulatory concept. Recently in his Undercover Economist blog, Tim Harford picked up on an idea floated by another FT columnist:

… we need tariff schemes that encourage conservation.

One option is “reverse pricing”, a simple framework that would increase the marginal cost of energy without introducing new taxes or raising average prices. This is important because marginal prices affect our behaviour, but total expenditure affects our wealth. So if we can increase one but not the other, we will create incentives to consume less without leaving households worse off overall.

Actually, what we need is retail competition, retail choice, and the removal of sclerotic and obsolete entry barriers that prevent motivated suppliers from providing innovative electricity-related products and services to residential retail customers. But I digress.

The pricing structure to which Tim alludes in his post is called “inclining block” pricing. When it emanates from a regulatory procedure, it is an inclining block rate. Inclining block pricing means that you price intervals of consumption, and the price per unit for each interval increases. For example:

  1. Block 1: 0-1000 kilowatt hours  $0.06/kwh
  2. Block 2: 1001-1750 kilowatt hours  $0.10/kwh
  3. Block 3: 1751-  kilowatt hours  $0.15/kwh

A few things to note. First, this logic is similar to that underlying David Zetland’s “some water for free, pay for more” proposals for water pricing. Second, the devil’s in the details when these rates are set by regulatory fiat; where do you draw the dividing lines, and what price per unit do you charge?

One of the best electricity economists, Ahmad Faruqui at the Brattle Group, has written extensively about the economic efficiency and conservation effects of inclining block pricing. In that list of resources I’d also recommend this NRRI report for regulators on how and why to consider “economic rates”, including inclining block pricing.

h1

Levitt and Becker on health care

April 15, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I noticed recently that Steve Levitt opined briefly on the health care bill in ways that are consistent with my earlier argument that unless Congress tackled the third-party payer problem head on they would be wasting our time and money. In his Freakonomics post, Levitt recommends Gary Becker’s analysis to us:

In Becker’s opinion, the health care bill that passed recently is a disaster for at least two reasons.  First, it seems to do little or nothing to deal with the single most important shortcoming of our current system: the fact that people pay very little on the margin for the medical care that they receive.  Imagine that you could show up at a car dealership and have any car you wanted, and as many cars as you wanted, for no marginal cost.  The market for cars would be in complete chaos, and people would have too many cars, and the ones they had would be too nice.

That is more or less the situation we now have with health care.

I second Levitt’s recommendation; Becker’s post provides a thoughtful and careful analysis of the likely unintended consequences of the health care bill, most of them reducing economic welfare. Becker also focuses on the third-party payer problem:

For the most part, however, the bill increases our dependence on employer-based health care by imposing sizable penalties on companies that do not provide their employees with sufficient health insurance. Many companies are already beginning to add to their projected future costs the anticipated increase in the cost to them of insuring their employees. These changes will particularly affect the costs of smaller companies since they are the main ones that do not provide health insurance for their employees. Since smaller companies are responsible for a disproportionate share of additions to employment during recent years, this provision of the bill will tend to reduce the demand for workers and hourly wages.

The US health care market is over-regulated rather than under-regulated. One example is that families in one state are generally not allowed to buy their health insurance from companies located in other states. Another example is the mandates that states impose on insurance companies, such as coverage of the costs of normal birth deliveries. Such coverage has little to do with insurance against unexpected health costs, whereas coverage of extraordinary delivery costs is a desirable protection against unexpected health care risks. The bill generally pushes in the direct of greater regulation, such as the limitations imposed on how much health insurance companies can spend on administrative costs relative to their other costs, the mandated reviews of the premiums charged by health insurance companies, and the mandated provision of health insurance by small companies.

My conclusion matches Levitt’s too: “Ultimately, it is hard to believe that this bill will be a net positive.  It remains to be seen whether it will be a wash, or far worse.”

h1

Grid-connected energy storage taking off

April 15, 2010

Michael Giberson

Yesterday’s announcement by General Compression, Inc. and ConocoPhillips that the companies would cooperate in developing compressed air energy storage systems (CAES) in Texas is yet another indication that grid-connected energy storage is beginning to take-off.

For more background on CAES see the recent article by Alexis Madrigal in WIRED, “Bottled wind could be as constant as coal.” From WIRED:

The nation’s largest energy storage option right now is pumped hydroelectricity. When excess electricity is present in a system, it can be used to pump water up to a reservoir. Then, when that power is needed, the water is sent through a turbine to generate electricity. The U.S. electric system has 2.5 gigawatts of pumped hydro storage capacity, but most of the good, cheap sites are already occupied, and creating new reservoirs is not environmentally benign.

While wind farmers say storage isn’t technically necessary until the amount of wind power on the grid exceeds 20 or 30 percent of the electrical load, private analysts, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Department of Energy have identified grid-scale storage as a key need for the rapidly diversifying electricity system.

And going forward, compressed-air energy storage looks like the cheapest option available. Independent analysts have come to similar conclusions.

No specific projects or development dates were included in the General Compression/ConocoPhillips announcement.

On March 31 of this year Electric Transmission Texas, LLC, energized a 4-MW NaS battery near Presidio, Texas. While a few other such systems are in use – AEP first installed such a system in Ohio in 2002 – the ETT project is the largest grid-connected battery system in the United States.  National Geographic Daily News provides more details on the ETT battery project, “Texas pioneers energy storage in giant battery.”  ETT is owned in part by AEP.

I believe I’ve mentioned before in this space that cheap energy storage will revolutionize the electric power business.  We are not quite to the revolutionary stage yet, but these are signals that the day is coming nearer.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers