Posts Tagged ‘dynamic pricing’

h1

Dynamic pricing and technology in different markets

February 10, 2012

Lynne Kiesling

Dynamic pricing has long been a topic of great interest here, in large part because digital technology is increasingly making it feasible to implement dynamic pricing in retail electricity markets in ways that can be acceptable to consumers. But dynamic pricing is fraught with challenges, and not just in retail electricity markets. Dynamic pricing is a form of price discrimination, and as such can improve efficiency; prices also are knowledge surrogates, communicating diffuse private knowledge about the relative scarcity of that good in that place at that time. Dynamic pricing is also most applicable in markets in which demand varies over time, and if you are going to implement dynamic pricing without annoying and aggravating consumers, consumers have to have access to the prices in advance.

These general principles showed up recently in a kerfuffle over dynamic pricing of taxi services by a new firm called Uber:

On New Year’s Eve, Uber, a start-up in the city, adopted a feature it called “surge pricing,” which increases the price of rides as more people request them.

Although New Year’s Eve was very profitable for Uber, customers were not happy. Many felt the pricing was exorbitant and they took to Twitter and the Web to complain. Some people said that at certain times in the evening, rides had spiked to as high as seven times the usual price, and they called it highway robbery. Uber’s goal is to make the experience as simple as possible, so customers are not shown their fare until the end of the ride, when it is automatically charged to their credit card. While the app does not show the total fare in dollars when customers book a ride, Uber did show a “surge pricing” multiple to customers booking rides for New Year’s Eve.

So what’s the underlying economics here? Jodi Beggs comments on the kerfuffle starting from first principles, pointing out that when demand increases, consumers are not likely to be able to get the quantity they want at the price to which they may have gotten habituated as “the price”. She also points out that the dynamic pricing is what keeps shortages from occurring — think about it: would you rather pay 7 times the base fare to have an immediate ride home after your New Year’s Eve party, or would you rather wait in line for the next available car? Either way, you pay; opportunity cost matters. In other words, as my colleague Jeff Ely observes, variable pricing means that prices go up and down, and generally will be higher when more people want the good (due both to higher and more inelastic demand at that time and to higher relative scarcity). Note that these observations also apply to retail electricity pricing — market demand varies over time, and prices can signal relative scarcity, if regulators allow them to.

The relative scarcity is another aspect of the economics here, because in the immediate run the firm can’t go out and scare up more cars and drivers; in other words, supply is not going to increase. Here we see the analogue to other industries that use dynamic pricing, such as airlines and hotels and car rentals — they have a pretty fixed supply, so as demand rises and falls the price to the consumer will rise and fall accordingly, because the supply response at the time is so limited. Over time profit signals will indicate to them whether or not to invest in more cars, planes, hotels, but if you’re trying to get home on that New Year’s Eve that’s not going to kick in that quickly. Thus prices adjust to communicate relative scarcity.

But notice another aspect of the story of Uber’s pricing: although they told the customer what the “surge multiple” was when they called the car, the customer doesn’t know the fare until after the transaction has occurred. Here I concur entirely with the NY Times blog post, Jodi, and Jeff, that not informing customers ex ante about at least an estimate of the fare is a bad way to implement dynamic pricing! Especially for flesh-and-blood humans who are more than calculating machines, and are likely to be royally ticked off when they are charged 7 times base fare for such a short ride. The NY Times blog post quotes Yale economist Dirk Bergemann, saying that consumers prefer price predictability, which is true as a very broad claim … but if I draw an analogy from regulated retail pricing in electricity (and using a rhetorical trope of Jeff’s), consider the equilibrium. If instead they kept their fares constant, it’s entirely possible that the average fare could be higher in the single fare market design than in the dynamic pricing market design. That’s one of the anxious concerns that regulated electricity firms have about dynamic pricing — what if our revenue falls because a large enough share of demand ends up happening in low price periods (i.e., more demand is more elastic)? In any case, not giving customers at least an estimated fare before they commit to the order is bad business, and it should be easy to communicate that estimate, because customers are all using smart phones to order the cars.

I’d like to suggest a couple of alternatives that my colleagues did not. The first alternative is inspired by time-of-use pricing as used in electricity, or by the types of dynamic pricing contracts used in car rentals. If I know well enough in advance that I want a car at 2AM on New Year’s Eve, why not offer me a contract in which I can make a reservation at a firm price, albeit one that is higher than the base price? Then Uber could, say, take reservations for 50% of their fleet, and leave the other 50% open for spot-market transactions. With that model, those customers who are risk averse and want to make sure to have a car at a particular time at a reasonable price will have an option. But if they can’t commit to a time for a pickup, then they suck it up and deal with the spot market.

The second alternative is less relevant to the Uber example, but in lots of markets that could have dynamic pricing, we can use technology to automate our responses to the price. I’ve gone on ad nauseam about the potential for transactive technology in retail electricity markets, and it’s applicable in other markets too — automated reservation bots for making a flight reservation if the price on your preferred itinerary on your dates goes below a trigger price that you set, or a device in your car or an app on your phone that receives the current toll level and tells you whether or not to take the toll road, wait to go home, etc. Transactive technolgies reduce the cognitive barriers associated with price uncertainty, as well as reducing the transaction costs of using dynamic pricing in the first place.

h1

Faruqui and Toney debate smart meters and dynamic pricing

March 2, 2011

Michael Giberson

Dr. Ahmad Faruqui of The Brattle Group and Dr. Mark Toney of TURN discuss dynamic pricing for retail electric customers in a February 17, 2011 event in San Francisco.

Part 1:

Part 2 Q&A:

I’ve only had time to watch a bit of this, but with Faruqui and Toney the program is self-recommending for anyone interested in electric power prices.

h1

Dynamic pricing of street parking in San Francisco

August 18, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

In all of the discussion this week of Tyler’s NYT column on pricing and constructing lot parking, an innovation in pricing street parking has been overlooked. Under a new pilot project in San Francisco called SFpark, street parking will now be priced using dynamic pricing. According to SFpark’s description,

To help achieve the right level of parking availability, SFpark will periodically adjust meter pricing up and down to match demand. Demand-responsive pricing encourages drivers to park in underused areas and garages, reducing demand in overused areas. With SFpark, real-time data and demand-responsive pricing work together to readjust parking patterns in the City so that parking is easier to find.

The prices will not vary dramatically; as this Wired post notes,

The prices won’t fluctuate wildly during the course of a day. The changes will be slow and self-leveling: the prices will change once a month or less, and then only by 50-cents at a time.

Also, as the commenters on this post about the pilot note, it’s not like the price is going to be determined by a real-time double auction. Still, having both the city and potential parkers using digital technology to assess changing demand for parking and access real-time information on the current hourly parking price is a good first start in introducing dynamic pricing.

The anticipated benefits of dynamic pricing of street parking are numerous: saving time (and reducing the opportunity cost of parking in terms of time spent circling and looking for a space), reduced double parking, better parking space capacity utilization (both for street parking and lot parking), increased safety for cyclists and pedestrians who won’t have as many obstacles in the form of double-parked cars and distracted drivers looking for spaces, and (of course!) reduced fuel consumption and emissions because of the reduction in “inefficient” circling the block.

Certainly some observers will complain that the improved capacity utilization and reduced opportunity cost will, at the margin, increase the probability that some people will drive rather than taking pubic transportation; those same folks typically argue that parking pricing should be used as a social policy tool to induce people to drive less. Obviously, such comments ignore the value to people associated with the flexibility and multi-purpose capability of driving rather than taking public transportation.

Here’s my question (of course): if we can overcome our cultural and institutional barriers to dynamic pricing in street parking, why can’t we do so with electricity?

h1

Dynamic pricing for foodies … and for electricity?

May 10, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

If you like to cook and to eat well in Chicago, you can’t avoid chef Grant Achatz (nor should you want to!). His signature restaurant, Alinea, was recently named the best restaurant in the U.S. and one of the best restaurants in the world, and he is a creative, if controversial, innovator of “molecular gastronomy”.

Achatz, with business partner Nick Kokonas, got the foodie chatterati talking again last week when they announced their new venture, a Chicago restaurant called Next. Next has two novel features: the menu will change every few months and will channel the food and atmosphere of a particular time and place, and the pricing is prix fixe along the lines of a concert ticket. The first time-place that they will feature is Paris 1912, the tail end of the Belle Epoque (one of my favorite artistic and culinary periods!).

The pricing of the experience as a prepaid prix fixe is interesting in and of itself, and other economists have commented on that since the announcement. But the feature that is likely to be of the most interest to KP readers is outlined on the restaurant’s FAQ:

How much?
A meal at Next will represent a great value. Depending on the menu AND what day and time you are dining, food will be $40 to $75 for the entire prix fixe menu. Wine and beverage pairings will begin at a $25 supplement. Next’s goal is to serve 4-star food at 3-star prices.

Tickets?
Yes. Instead of reservations our bookings will be made more like a theater or a sporting event. Your tickets will be fully inclusive of all charges, including service. Ticket price will depend on which seating you buy – Saturday at 8 PM will be more expensive than Wednesday at 9:30 PM. This will allow us to offer an amazing experience at a very reasonable price. We will also offer an annual subscription to all four menus at a discount with preferred seating.
Two walk-in tables will be available every evening.
The tickets will be available via our website, and we are building the reservation system from scratch to ensure the best customer experience. It will be simple to use, efficient, and familiar to anyone who has booked a show or travel online.

This is a pricing system for the foodie economist! Selling tickets in advance signals popularity to the seller, gives the seller more certainty about the number of customers and the amount they will sell, and enables them to optimize their purchases of inputs. They need only procure extra for the two walk-in tables, plus a cushion for mistakes and accidents. That’s one reason why they can expect to deliver “4-star food at 3-star prices”.

But the pricing feature about which I will rhapsodize is, of course, the dynamic pricing: “Saturday at 8 PM will be more expensive than Wednesday at 9:30 PM”. This price discrimination is brilliant but not novel, although its use in restaurant pricing is. It is a decentralized mechanism that enables consumers to sort themselves according to their their willingness to pay, their preferences and their price elasticity of demand while simultaneously enabling the seller to maximize revenue. Combined with the “concert ticket” design, this pricing structure generally looks like a good setup for profit maximization. And given what has driven Achatz’s popularity and the fact that the time-place “Paris 1912″ idea is more like entertainment than any dining experience I know of other than Medieval Times, I think the price discrimination is also a valuable way to allocate dining spaces over which there will probably be excess demand.

Given this innovation in an improbable industry, here’s my challenge to those of you who work in the electricity industry, in electricity policy, or electricity regulation: if a creative innovator can create so much new value for consumers in such an improbable industry by adopting such a contractual form and such a pricing system, why do you reject it so strenuously in electricity? The parallels are striking — potential restaurant customers have a range of preferences, incomes, willingness to pay. We all need to eat. Restaurants have high fixed costs (although of course not in the proportion that we see in infrastructure industries). Customers like me relish the thought of such a choice, and look forward to its availability. Why do you make so many customers worse off relative to the potential value they could achieve from innovation if you removed the barriers to innovation, product differentiation, and competitive choice in retail electricity markets?

h1

Walmart says ISO power markets offer best programs for supporting demand response

September 18, 2009

Michael Giberson

From Walmart’s contribution to a complaint against PJM filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday:

Demand response initiatives can originate with a utility program, an ISO or RTO program, or by the customer for different reasons. Walmart has been one of the pioneers of demand response in addition to being a leading participant in all types of curtailment, and has found that the most successful programs from our experience are the ones offered directly by regional ISOs, which allow and encourage us to make the right choices regarding demand curtailment opportunities. Our broad participation has enabled Walmart to take a leading role in advocating for customer energy policy across the nation, improving existing programs, and helping to form new programs.

The testimony explains a bit how their energy management systems work:

When a demand response event is initiated and our automatic energy management system responds to implement preprogrammed curtailment strategies, the associate can double-check our sub-metering system to verify that the magnitude of the load committed to respond is responding appropriately. The self-monitoring and verification process confirms that we delivered on our load commitment for demand response programs. At the beginning of a demand response event, an associate can quickly verify the potential load response of a particular curtailment strategy by examining the real-time participation through the sub-metering system and make appropriate adjustments to maximize the benefit of the load curtailment to the demand response event and at the same time maximize the revenues that could accrue to Walmart. Our advanced metering systems are used for a variety of other reasons such as measurement and verification, double-checking utility meter malfunction or misbilling, advanced detection of Walmart equipment not operating correctly or optimally, benchmarking, and troubleshooting facilities and electrical systems. Although these sub-meters add an additional investment of capital to our stores, they also add a greater value to our company, other ratepayers, and the ISO.

The testimony is part of a complaint filed with FERC by a coalition of large electric power consumers operating in the PJM market, “Demand Response Supporters,” who are seeking changes to the way PJM pays for demand response participation. The complaint is here and the Walmart testimony is the last six pages in the accompanying appendix (links will open a pdf document. Added bonus in the appendix: testimony by prominent regulatory economist Alfred Kahn.)

The Supporters’ filing takes a gratuitous swipe at dynamic pricing in the complaint, claiming the practice “has not appeared after nearly a century of electricity regulation […] precisely because dynamic pricing does not ‘work’ for so many customers.”  I’d say that technology has changed over the “nearly a century of electricity regulation” in ways in which make most of that history of very limited relevance as to whether we should move to dynamic pricing now.  In any case, I don’t think they really mean it.  All they want to do is dissuade FERC from accepting PJM’s story about the someday-soon bursting out of dynamic pricing as a reason not to adopt Supporters’ pricing ideas now.

The complaint docket number is EL09-68. Documents filed at FERC can be found by searching by docket number on FERC’s eLibrary general search page.

Separately, at yesterday’s FERC open meeting the Commissioners “laid the groundwork for expanding the use of demand response in organized wholesale markets [by proposing] standards for measuring and verifying the performance of demand response services.” (In the words of the FERC press release.  The FERC proposal is here: Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.)

h1

State legislatures and PUCs prefer high annual electricity bills for retail customers

September 1, 2009

Michael Giberson

According to a new paper by Jim Bushnell, Ben Hobbs and Frank Wolak, “the desire of [state] legislatures and state PUCs to protect consumers from wholesale price volatility comes at a cost we believe few consumers would be willing to pay if it were made explicit, higher annual electricity bills.”

And it isn’t just state politicians that come under criticism, the paper is titled, “When it comes to demand response, is FERC its own worst enemy?“  The authors say yes.

(And in related news, Bushnell now holds the Cargill chair in energy economics at Iowa State University.)

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

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

A good NYT smart grid article

May 4, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Here’s a very thoughtful and well-done smart grid article from the New York Times. It focuses on two different cases: the residential real-time pricing product available to ComEd customers in northern Illinois, and the Xcel Energy smart grid project in Boulder. I heartily encourage you to read the whole thing; it’s one of the few articles that has done a good job of articulating the benefits of the transactive capabilities of a smart grid network:

The first “dumb” thing to go may be flat pricing. Today, a kilowatt-hour of electricity, enough to burn a 100-watt bulb for 10 hours, costs the same to most customers at all times, whether it is a sweltering summer afternoon or a balmy spring night. But the cost to the utility swings wildly, and the company may have to spend much more money to supply extra energy at peak times than during slack periods. None of this can be inferred from the bill, even though it eventually turns up there. …

But a full-scale smart grid would multiply the possibilities. The messages might go to a person by e-mail, or more likely to a household thermostat or appliance or industrial equipment. The message might be the equivalent of, “Are you sure you want to run the dishwasher now? You can save money by waiting till tonight.”

The meter could become a participant in the utility’s auction, agreeing to turn off certain equipment at the right price. The customer, either by watching that price or programming the appliances, could decide how much to buy, sometimes forgoing a purchase and sometimes delaying it to an hour when energy would probably be cheaper.

The article then goes on to discuss how some Boulder residents have changed their behavior, once their actual electricity consumption was made more transparent to them because of the timely information that the digital technology affords them.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers