electricity restructuring whatwhat s’s gone right? …
TRANSCRIPT
ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURINGWHAT’S GONE RIGHT?WHAT S GONE RIGHT?
WHAT’S GONE WRONG?WHY DO WE CARE?WHY DO WE CARE?
Paul L. JoskowAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
andMITMIT
October 1, 2008,
The views expressed in this presentation are my own and do not represent the viewsof the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation or MIT
SOME BASIC FACTS ABOUT ELECTRICITY SECTORELECTRICITY SECTOR
• Accounts for 42% of primary U.S. energy % p y gyconsumption
• Accounts for 35% of U.S. fossil fuel consumption• Accounts for 40% of U.S. CO2 emissions and
this share projected to grow in BAUU l t t l Oil t d f• Uses almost no petroleum: Oil accounted for 17% of generation in 1973 and only 1.5% today
• Relies primarily on North America for fuel• Relies primarily on North America for fuel• Consumption projected to grow faster than total
energy consumptiongy p
Distribution lines
66-115 kV lines
Distribution subs
Transmission subs
Transmission lines230-500 kV
Networkswitchyard
GeneratorStep-up
Generator
ConsumersVertical Integration + Monopoly + COS Regulation
NetworkGenerating
UnitsTransmission
Network Distribution
NetworkOperationsandDispatch
Other Control Areas
Wholesale Market
U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utility Holding Companiesas of January 2004
PSD
PSD
AVA
ENE
SPI
AVA
SPI
NOR
MDU MDU
XEL OTTR
MDUNGG
CVNU UTL
EMA
MAP
EAS
EAS
WECEAS
SPICZN
OTTR
OTTRALE
XELWPS
UPENWEC
WPS
LNT
GMP
UGI
NORIDASPI
SPI IDA
IDA
SPI
IDA
SRP
SPI
SPI
SPI
SPI
NOR MDU
BKHCMS
DTE
AEP
AEP
AEPDPL
AYE
AYEPPL
PPL
AYE
AYE PEG
NMKNMK
EAS
NGG
NGG
CHG
ED
NU
UIL
NGG
NUNGG
NST
NU UTL
EXC
DQE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FEFE
AYE
AYE
AEP
XEL
LNTBRKBRK
BRK
XELXEL
WEC
WEC
MGE
DYNDYN
EXC
NI
AEE
LNT
LNT
LNT
PCG
EIX
SRP
SPI
UNS
XEL
ILA
PNM
GXP
EDE
WR
AEP
AEP
EDE
AEE DYN
D
PGNDUK
AESVVC
AEP AEP
DAEP
AYECIN
POM
CEG
POMEXC
AEE
AYE
AYE
XEL
GXP
CIN
AEEAEE
PWG
PWG
PWG
EON
EON
AEPEON
PGN
EON
ILA
ILA
ILA
ILA
SRE
PNW
PNW
UNS
PNW
PNM
PNM
TNP
AEPTNPETR
AEP
ETR
ETR
AEP
AEP
OGE
AEPAEP
OGE
ETR
SO
SO
SO
SCG PGN
XEL
TXU TXU
DUK
SCG
Alaska
MAPP
WSCCMAIN ECAR MAAC
NPCC
NERC Regions of North America
EE
TNP
AEP
AEPETR
HOU
TNP
CNL
CNLETR ETR
SO
FPU
TEFPL
CNP PGN
CNL
+ 2 000+ municipal and
The service boundaries on this map are a general representation of individual utility regions and do not necessarily depict the exact legal boundaries of the regions. Information on this map is believed to be accurate but is not guaranteed.© 2004 PA Knowledge Ltd. Unauthorized duplication or dissemination
prohibited.
HE
Hawaii
SERC
SPP
ERCOT
FRCC
+ 2,000+ municipal and800 rural coops
Source: NERC
THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF REGULATED MONOPOLYREGULATED MONOPOLY
• Construction cost overruns and poor generating plant ti foperating performance
• Inefficient retail pricing• Wide price variations within regionsp g• Costly fragmentation and wide variations in performance• Productivity and innovation lags• Growing adverse environmental impacts• Growing adverse environmental impacts• But it worked from the “big picture” perspective and was
particularly good at mobilizing capital• Only energy or infrastructure sector that has escaped• Only energy or infrastructure sector that has escaped
mandatory national “liberalization” reforms• Partially reformed 1935 industrial organization and
regulatory framework for a 21st century technology andregulatory framework for a 21st century technology and policy challenges, especially GHG mitigation
REFORM GOALSREFORM GOALS• Efficient and reliable supplies of electricity to pp y
support valuable services and economic growth• Efficient prices that provide good signals for wise
use of electricity and sufficient revenues touse of electricity and sufficient revenues to support efficient operation of and investment in the supply systemE d t k it d li bilit• Energy and network security and reliability
• Key platform for meeting GHG mitigation goals• Stimulate innovation on the supply and demand• Stimulate innovation on the supply and demand
sides• Do better than just “work”
VISION FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFORMCOMPETITIVE WHOLESALE RETAIL MARKETSCOMPETITIVE WHOLESALE + RETAIL MARKETS
GENCO GENCO GENCO GENCO GENCO GENCO
MARKETERMARKETER
NETWORKOPERATOR
ORGANIZED SPOT MARKETS FOR ENERGY AND
OPERATING RESERVES
TRANSMISSIONOWNER + OPERATOR
DISTCODISTCODISTCO ESPESP DISTCODISTCOESP
RETAIL CONSUMERS
ISO/RTOs in the United States 2006
ISO NEMISO ISO NENYISO
PJM
MISO
SPPCAISO
ERCOT
CAISO
Source: State of the Markets Report 2004, FERC Office of Market Oversight andInvestigations (2005, page 53).
Source: FERC 2006 State of the Markets Report
STATUS OF RETAIL COMPETITIONAND RESTRUCTURING REFORMSAND RESTRUCTURING REFORMS
2007
AVERAGE PRE-REFORM INDUSTRIAL PRICES19961996
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
Plants operated by IOUs in restructuring states experienced the greatest improvement in nonfuel
e to
198
1p g p
operating expenses (similar results for employment)
0
0.1
0.2
wth
Rel
ativ
e
0 3
-0.2
-0.1
pens
e G
row
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
Non
fuel
Exp
-0.6
N
MUNI PlantsIOU: Non-restructured StatesIOU: Restructured States
Frabrizio, Rose and Wolfram (AER, 2007)
Capacity factors increased for nuclear plants facing restructuring activity g g y
(Zhang, 2007)
Courtesy of Nancy Rose
Quantities traded: Day-ahead net t Mid t E texports, Midwest East
White and Mansur (2008)
CHALLENGESCHALLENGES• Markets must produce adequate revenues to stimulate p q
efficient investment– Capacity obligations– Scarcity pricingy p g
• Better integrate demand side into short-term wholesale markets
• Improve efficiencies of interregional trades of power• Improve efficiencies of interregional trades of power• Retail competition and retail procurement• Investment in transmission facilities, especially inter-p y
regional transmission facilities• Living with a mixed system with no comprehensive
national electricity policy frameworknational electricity policy framework
IDEALIZED WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKETWITH DEMAND RESPONSE
D3Price
D1
D2 D4
MC
P3
MC
P2P1
P2
QuantityKmax
MCDemandPrice
Infra-marginal rentshelp to pay for capital costs
Pc
QuantityKmax
MC
PriceScarcity rationed by Demand and system
t ’ d
R
Pcoperator’s procedures
R
Additional “scarcity rents” help pay capital costsAdditional “scarcity rents” help pay capital costs of all units and are especially important for “reserves” that run infrequently
Dp
Capacity constraint
Kmax Quantity
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
PJM (2008)
SCARCITY RENTS PRODUCED DURINGOP 4 CONDITIONS ($1000 Price Cap)OP-4 CONDITIONS ($1000 Price Cap)
($/Mw-Year)YEAR ENERGY OPERATING OP-4 HOURS/
MC=50 MC=100 RESERVES (Price Cap Hit)
2002 $ 5,070 $ 4,153 $ 4,723 21 (3)
2001 $15 818 $14 147 $11 411 41 (15)2001 $15,818 $14,147 $11,411 41 (15)
2000 $ 6,528 $ 4,241 $ 4,894 25 (5)
1999 $18,874 $14,741 $19,839 98 (1)
Mean $ 11,573 $ 9,574 $10,217 46 (6)
Peaker Fixed-Cost Target: $ $70,000 - $95,000/Mw-year
PJM (2008)
●
Market price without OOM
Source: ISO NE
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
ISO New England (2008)
NY ISO (2008)
RETAIL COMPETITION IN MASSACHUSETTSMASSACHUSETTS
Retail Choice Began March 1998Retail Choice Began March 1998Regulated Basic Charge ended ~ April 2005Replaced with default wholesale market procurement
Customer Type % of Load Served by ESPS
February May May2004 2005 20082004 2005 2008
Residential 2.6 6.1 11.7Small Commercial 10.8 19.3 33.9Medium C&I 17.0 22.2 49.8Large C&I 48.3 63.3 87.3
TOTAL 22.6 34.0 53.0TOTAL 22.6 34.0 53.0
EFFECTS OF REGULATED BASIC SERVICEBASIC SERVICE
RETAIL CHOICE IN TEXASRETAIL CHOICE IN TEXASResidential Megawatt-hours switched to Competitive g p
REP
60.00%70.00%
10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%
0.00%
Jan-0
2Ju
l-02
Jan-0
3Ju
l-03
Jan-0
4Ju
l-04
Jan-0
5Ju
l-05
Jan-0
6Ju
l-06
Jan-0
7Ju
l-07
TXU ED Centerpoint AEP CentralAEP North TNMP Total
RETAIL CHOICE IN TEXASRETAIL CHOICE IN TEXAS
Non-AREP Share of Secondary Voltage Megawatt-hours
40 00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
Jan-0
2Apr-
02Ju
l-02
Oct-02
Jan-0
3Apr-
03Ju
l-03
Oct-03
Jan-0
4Apr-
04Ju
l-04
Oct-04
Jan-0
5Apr-
05Ju
l-05
Oct-05
Jan-0
6Apr-
06Ju
l-06
Oct-06
Jan-0
7Apr-
07Ju
l-07
Oct-07
J A O J A O J A O J A O J A O J A O
TXU ED Centerpoint AEP CentralAEP North TNMP Total
MAJOR CONGESTED INTERFACES
Source: Platts
CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGESCHALLENGES
• The electric power sector must play anThe electric power sector must play an important role in GHG mitigation– Energy efficiencygy y– Nuclear Power– CCS– Renewable energy
• But the industry is in an unstable “partial y preform” equilibrium with “regulated,” “deregulated,” and “mixed” states
CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGESCHALLENGES
• Assume a cap and trade program with primarily free ll ti i iti llallocation initially
• Assume supplementary renewable energy portfolio standards
• Issues– Mobilizing adequate capital in deregulated states– Controlling construction costs and getting good operating
performance in reg lated statesperformance in regulated states– Getting the price of CO2 into retail prices in regulated states to
stimulate conservation and energy efficiency– Transmission investment to reach most favorable locations forTransmission investment to reach most favorable locations for
large scale wind and solar initiatives– Squabbling over differences in effects between regulated and
deregulated states delaying actionPlethora of individual state programs reducing efficiency of a– Plethora of individual state programs reducing efficiency of a national program with international linkage