Archive for January, 2011

h1

BPA won’t pay negative prices to get wind power producers to curtail

January 18, 2011

Michael Giberson

At a December 2010 meeting, the federal Bonneville Power Agency announced that it would not pay wind power producers in its area to curtail during overgeneration events that sometimes result from the way the agency manages water flow through hydropower facilities to comply with environmental regulations.

When reservoirs are full, the BPA’s dams can either generate power or spill any excess water. High water conditions common during late spring in the Pacific Northwest sometimes put the BPA up against environmental limits on how much water it can spill, so driving it to want to produce and distribute as much power as possible. (Spilling too much water leads to high concentrations of dissolved gas in the water, a hazard to fish.)  In the past, BPA would essentially give away power in order to maximize power generation, and utilities in the area were happy to take the cheap power and shut down their thermal power plants which were costly to run.

Over the past few years, however, the growth of wind power in the BPA’s area has presented the agency with a new problem. Wind power producers who can obtain from $20 to $40 per MWh in federal and state subsidies while they are producing power don’t want to shut down for nothing. If the BPA wants to curtail them, they’d like to be compensated for their losses. The BPA says it will not pay; in a statement it explains why:

While one possible outcome would be for BPA to compensate wind generators the value of the foregone incentives, BPA does not believe that is an appropriate consequence of actions taken to protect fish. …  Currently, qualifying renewable energy receives PTCs and/or RECs when it generates, and the cost is shared broadly by taxpayers. If BPA were to pay negative prices to comply with ESA and the Clean Water Act during high runoff events, the cost burden would shift and would be narrowly focused on BPA preference customers. We do not think the law was designed to place this cost burden on a narrow class of utility ratepayers, and we are not prepared to initiate this change.

The BPA claims it has sufficient legal authority under existing generator interconnection agreements to implement its new policy of “environmental dispatch,” but to clearly articulate the authority it will unilaterally amend provisions of its standard generation interconnection agreements to reflect the policy.

In areas with RTO/ISO power markets, negative prices are now the conventional way for coordinating resource supplies during periods of potential overgenation (mostly also involving high wind power among other contributing factors).

NOTES:

h1

Please state the nature of the economic emergency: a note on price gouging laws

January 17, 2011

Michael Giberson

The moral intuition that undergirds price gouging laws may be described as “it is wrong to take advantage of people in distress for personal economic gain.” In states with price gouging laws, the laws are typically in force only during officially declared emergencies. This limitation – that they are enforced only during declared emergencies – is intended to tailor application of the law to just the kinds of price increases that seem most objectionable morally*, while otherwise allowing markets to function normally. This link to official declarations is also intended to make clear to merchants and consumers just when the state government may decide to penalize a merchant for a price which seems unfairly high.

But there is a bit of slippage between the concepts “officially declared emergencies” and “periods during which people are in distress,” meaning that the laws are not as well tailored as you might think.  For example, North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue declared an emergency on January 10, 2011 “due to the expected impact of an approaching winter storm.” The storm came and went, closing schools for a day or two and a few thousand people were without power for a while, and also until February 8 it is illegal in North Carolina to charge a price which is “unreasonably excessive under the circumstances” for any good or service covered by the law.  Is anyone still imperiled by the storm? Probably not, but the price gouging law remains in effect. (Sometimes the declaration is even less connected to immediate peril – in July 2006 the Governor of North Carolina declared an emergency in response to a December 2005 ice storm that hit the western part of the state. The declaration was needed to access federal disaster relief funds.)

Similarly, on December 21, 2010 Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared an extreme fire hazard emergency covering most of the state, so the state’s price gouging law will be in effect until later this week. The absence of much rain means the fire hazard remains and may lead the declaration to be renewed for another 30 days. No people are actually in distress because of this emergency, so the moral considerations that undergird price gouging laws are not activated, but the law itself has been activated.

My point here is a rather small one: just that linking price gouging laws to declared disasters leads the price gouging laws to be in effect many times during which there is no real distress.  So far as I know, no price gouging complaints have been initiated in either North Carolina or Texas during these not-too-distressful emergencies. In fact, state attorneys general appear to have a great deal of discretion over how and when they will pursue price gouging complaints, so perhaps they use that discretion to more completely tailor application of price gouging laws to their moral intuitions. But this “discretionary tailoring” means that merchants and consumers don’t have completely clear information about when the state may prosecute a merchant for too-high prices.

NOTES:

North Carolina Retail Merchants Association, “How do I comply with North Carolina’s revised price gouging law?

For much more on price gouging, click here to search the KP archives.

*Note that my characterization of moral views here is intended to be descriptive of commonly held moral views, not an endorsement of the described view.

CORRECTION: The misspelling of a governor’s first name has been corrected above.

h1

Julian Simon and John Tierney were just lucky, he guesses

January 14, 2011

Michael Giberson

Cornucopian views on resources are back in the news a bit due to John Tierney’s column at the New York Times in which he reports the settling of a wager on oil prices entered into in 2005 with oil industry analyst/peak oil proponent Matt Simmons. In brief, Simmons bet Tierney oil prices would average $200 bbl (in 2005$) during 2010, oil prices were substantially lower than that in 2010, and Tierney won the bet.

But of course that bet, and the results of the more famous related bet between Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich, don’t settle arguments. Money may change hands, but there is no end to disputation.

At The Oil Drum, David Murphy writes: “Lucky Economists, Unlucky Scientists?”  Murphy makes a number of useful points as he stumbles toward some sort of conclusion that will help him protect his preexisting pessimistic views.  Curiously, the conclusion he comes to is that Ehrlich and Simmons and Simon and Tierney must all be foolish idiots, or at least that is the implication:

The bets made by Ehrlich and Simon as well as Simmons and Tierney were faulty because they assumed ceteris paribus conditions; that all other conditions aside from the one on which the bet is made (depletion in these cases) will not influence prices. In the real world, however, there are a number of factors that influence price. As a result, it is incorrect for Tierney to claim that his victory, or that of Simon, is a validation of the economists’ viewpoint on the price of commodities. The economists were lucky, and the scientists unlucky.

Murphy wants us to believe that these four gentlemen assumed that nothing else in the world would change over the five (Simmons-Tierney) or ten (Simon-Ehrlich) years of the wagers? C’mon, these aren’t a bunch of schoolboys betting their lunch money. Somehow I think we need to give them a little more credit than that.

Sure, two guys settling a public bet doesn’t establish what understanding of the nature of the world and society is most reflective of reality. But claiming that folks with opposing views are “just lucky” doesn’t seem like a useful way to advance understanding of the world, either.

h1

Technological developments useful in eventually producing the equivalent of Neal Stephenson’s “Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer”

January 14, 2011

Michael Giberson

As any reader of Neal Stephenson’s book The Diamond Age knows, a Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer would be quite handy to have. Unfortunately, technology hasn’t quite advanced to the point necessary to actually produce such a thing.

A recently published research report seems like one small step in the right direction. From a summary:

Researchers report that they can predict “with unprecedented accuracy” how well you will do on a complex task such as a strategic video game simply by analyzing activity in a specific region of your brain.

The findings, published in the online journal , offer detailed insights into the brain structures that facilitate learning, and may lead to the development of training strategies tailored to individual strengths and weaknesses.

The new approach used established brain imaging techniques in a new way. Instead of measuring how brain activity differs before and after subjects learn a complex task, the researchers analyzed background activity in the basal ganglia, a group of brain structures known to be important for procedural learning, coordinated movement and feelings of reward.

Using magnetic resonance imaging and a method known as multivoxel pattern analysis, the researchers found significant differences in patterns of a particular type of MRI signal, called T2*, in the basal ganglia of study subjects. These differences enabled researchers to predict between 55 and 68 percent of the variance (differences in performance) among the 34 people who later learned to play the game.

More from Chris Kohler at WIRED.

The article, “Predicting Individual’s Learning Success From Patterns of Pre-Learning MRI Activity,” will be published in the journal PLoS One (but I couldn’t find a link to the article there this morning).

HT to Mark Thoma.

h1

First, kill all the subsidies

January 13, 2011

Michael Giberson

In the Washington Monthly, Jeffrey Leonard argues that the president and Congress should join together to kill all energy subsidies. While sorting out what is and isn’t an energy subsidy can be tricky (the U.S. tax code isn’t exactly transparent in all respects), and I doubt a political majority can actually stomach the thought of pulling the plug on everything, still it is an appealing idea.

Here’s Leonard on the political moment that makes the idea at least conceivable:

So we find ourselves in a new political moment when for the first time it is possible to imagine an alliance of GOP libertarians, disaffected environmentalists, and budget hawks coming together for a grand deal that would sweep away sixty years of bad energy policy. Obama should seize the moment to bring this coalition together in support of a single objective: to eliminate all government subsidies and tax credits on production of allprimary sources of energy. Of course, he’d have to abandon his own long-held support for ethanol (the tax deal his administration brokered with the GOP in December included a twelve-month extension of the VEETC).

Yes, I’d object to several parts of the article. I’m not a fan of energy efficiency for energy efficiency’s sake – after all, it isn’t as if energy resources are the only thing to care about. But sundry points aside, the article contributes to a necessary discussion about getting the government out of the business of picking winners in the energy supply industry.

h1

Ronald Coase interview

January 12, 2011

Michael Giberson

Interview with Ronald Coase, on the occasion of the establishment of the Coase China Society, an effort to stimulate study and application of Coase’s ideas in China. Interview conducted by Wang Ning, a student of Coase’s now teaching at Arizona State University and co-author with Coase of the book How China Became Capitalist.

HT to Paul Walker of Anti-Dismal.

A few selections illustrating Coase’s views on Coasean economics, experimentation and institutional reform, and where Hayek had a good point:

WN: You mentioned many times that you do not like the term, “Coasean economics”, and prefer to call it simply the “right economics” or “good economics”.  What separates the good from bad, the right from wrong?

RC: The bad or wrong economics is what I called the “blackboard economics”. It does not study the real world economy. Instead, its efforts are on an imaginary world that exists only in the mind of economists, for example, the zero-transaction cost world.

Ideas and imaginations are terribly important in economic research or any pursuit of science. But the subject of study has to be real.

[...]

WN: The second question many Chinese have in mind for you is, what you think other countries can learn from the Chinese experience of market transformation? Is there any general lesson to be learned from the China model?

RC: I don’t know. You don’t know what you can learn until you try to learn.

WN: I think this point is critically important. If I understood correctly, you are saying that learning from China or any other example is not like learning from a book or cooking recipe, but more like learning by doing. If the Chinese economic reform is an experiment, learning from China remains an experiment. Different countries will learn different things even if they learn from the same model.

RC: Exactly. What we do is all experiment.

[...]

RC: Nothing guarantees success. Given human fallibility, we are bound to make mistakes all the time.

WN: So the question is how we can learn from experiments at minimal cost. Or, how could we structure our economy and society in such a way that collective learning can be facilitated at a bearable price?

RC: That’s right. Hayek made a good point that knowledge was diffused in society and that made central planning impossible.

WN: The diffusion of knowledge creates another social problem: conflict between competing ideas. To my knowledge, only people fight for ideas (religious or ideological), only people are willing to die for their ideas. The animal world might be bloody and uncivilized. But animals, as far as we know, do not fight over ideas.

RC:  That’s probably right. That’s why we need a market for ideas. Ideas can compete; people with different ideas do not need to slaughter each other.

h1

In which the author explains the likely origin of the idea for a professional code of ethics among economists

January 11, 2011

Michael Giberson

For more economists caught in the act of navel gazing, check out The Economist‘s forum on the question of whether economists need a professional code of ethics.

If you want some background, the urge for a code of ethics came about something like this:

Since the end of 2008, economists have been professionally embarrassed by the financial crisis and associated recession, and didn’t people expect us to have answers, and by-the-way why didn’t we predict this in advance and prevent it from happening and stuff.  So now economists are having low esteem which is bad for us, and we know it is bad which makes us feel worse.  Anyway, us economists were all sitting around feeling sorry for our sorry state, and down in the dumps.

Suddenly one of us economists jumps up and says, “Hey, let’s put on a show!” And then another one jumps up and says, “Yeah, we’ve gotta have a great show, with a million laughs… and color… and a lot of lights to make it sparkle. And songs – wonderful songs. And after we get the people in that hall, we’ve gotta start em in laughing right away.”

And then all of us economists were getting excited and exuberant and feeling our animal spirits again until one guy calls out, “But what are we gonna call our show?” And for a moment we was stumped, but then  came the answer from the crowd, ringing  forth clear as the “The Opening BellSM” at the start of trading at the NYSE: “A professional code of ethics for economists.”

So there you have it. And you’ve got to admit, it is a title that will start em laughing right away.

(Among views expressed in the forum, I favor the Lant Pritchett and Giles Saint-Paul’s responses.)

h1

A revival of interest in the history of economic thought?

January 11, 2011

Michael Giberson

David Warsh, at Economic Principals, sees signs of a revival of interest in the history of economic thought emerge from the recent meetings of the American Economic Association in Denver.

 

h1

Netflix streaming

January 10, 2011

Michael Giberson

I like to watch good movies, and particularly for someone who now lives outside a major metropolitan area, Netflix has been unbelievably useful.  Netflix really has been amazing. Return one disk by mail and get another a day or two later. Incredible selection.

Recently Netflix raised the price on their DVD/Blu-ray rental packages which lead us to switch to the online streaming-only option to save a few bucks.  Really, however, for all practical purposes we’d already switched.

Today I’m mailing back “The Hurt Locker,” the last of the physical disks we received from Netflix, which we’ve had around for nearly six weeks without watching it. In the meantime we’ve viewed about 20 movies via streaming. In fact, I was going to watch it last night before sending it back, but wound up watching the German comedy “Soul Kitchen” instead.

Not every movie is on Netflix, and not every movie on Netflix is available via streaming, but since my Netflix instant queue is up above 100 it hardly seems to matter. It’s “kids with the keys to the candy store” overwhelmingly good. In fact, if it weren’t for the HBO Series Treme, I’d pull the plug on our HBO subscription.

I meant to do some serious damage to the instant queue during the break between semesters, but despite viewing several good movies the queue is longer than ever. Tyler Cowan’s post this morning, ”Important 2010 movies that weren’t released in most of the USA,” added three more.  Seems like no matter how much candy you eat, there is still more candy to eat!

For the holiday season I’ve rated the following movies “Really Liked It”: Soul Kitchen, Shutter Island, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Life and Debt, Ip Man, and The Girl Who Played with Fire. Rated “Liked It” were: I am Trying to Break Your Heart, Flame and Citron, Let the Right One In and Youssou N’Dour: I Bring What I Love.

 

h1

Randomized testing for online fundraising appeals

January 10, 2011

Michael Giberson

Following up yesterday’s note on randomized testing in free legal aid, here is another kind of applied experimental work: The recently ended Wikipedia fundraising campaign made extensive use of randomized testing to explore just which appeals generated the most revenue. “If everyone reading this donated $5″ vs. “If everyone reading this donated $10″ (about the same). “Only 4 days left” vs. “4 days left” (“Only” seemed to increase donations slightly).  Many variations tried.  Links and some data here.

HT to Al Roth at Market Design.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers