270 likes | 492 Views
Principles for Transmission Cost Allocation. James Bushnell University of California, Davis December, 2013. Outline. What ’ s so special about transmission? Cost structure of energy transportation Externalities Spatial markets The derived demand for transportation
E N D
Principles for Transmission Cost Allocation James Bushnell University of California, Davis December, 2013
Outline • What’s so special about transmission? • Cost structure of energy transportation • Externalities • Spatial markets • The derived demand for transportation • Cost recovery vs. efficient pricing • fixed cost pricing vs. marginal cost (congestion) pricing • Investment and cost recovery
Transportation and Spatial Competition • The cost and availability of transportation determines the geographic size of a market • Crude oil markets vs. electricity markets • Cost structure for transportation in energy is unlike most markets • Marginal costs are very low, capital costs are high • Significant economies of scale;‘Lumpy’ investments • Transmission assets are immobile • Captive customers and the hold-up problem • Transportation capacity can be limited • Only matters if storage is costly
Transmission Pricing Policy Fights • Fight 1: How to charge for use or access to lines with periodic congestion? • Fight 2: How to charge for recovery of investmentcosts of constructing lines. • These have often been confused as the same fight. • With the same answer. • But not in New Zealand!
Spatial Markets with Free Transportation DN PN DS PS 12 MCN = 12 MCS = 2 + qs 7 5 QS 11 QN South North
7 Spatial Markets with Free Transportation • With no congestion and no transport cost, we have one combined market DN PN DS PS 12 MCN = 12 MCS = 2 + qs 10 5 QS 11 6 QN South North
What is the Demand for Transportation? Ptransport 5 2 South to North Transport 5 3 Qtransport
MC of S to N Transport 2 .001 3 Congestion as Peak-load Pricing Ptransport 5 Demand for South to North Transport 5 Qtransport
Transmission Investment:Why does it have to be so difficult? • Efficient congestion prices reflect shadow value of a line • Shouldn’t this be a good signal for value of investment? • Yes!, but… • Shadow prices reflect value of a small expansion • Lumpiness (economies of scale) mean that transmission projects are almost never small • Think of a new investment that eliminates all congestion • Network externalities make it difficult to define what “expansion” is • Many projects allow an increase some combinations of injections while reducing others
1 Capacity = 6 2 3 Capacity = 6 Loop Flow? Power flows in inverse proportion to the impedance (resistance) it faces Example: Nodes 1 & 2 supply only, node 3 demand only z13 z23
1 Capacity = 6 Capacity = 1 2 3 Capacity = 6 Loop Flow Power flows in inverse proportion to the impedance (resistance) it faces Example: Nodes 1 & 2 supply only, node 3 demand only z12 z13 z23
Feasible Dispatch Sets z 2 3 • With 2 “radial” lines can send 6 MW from each source • But can’t send 7 from either source • 3rd line “expands” some possibilities but eliminates some others z 1 2 7 z 6 1 2 3 q 2 3 6 4 z 1 3 q 1
Feasible Dispatch Sets z 2 3 • With 2 “radial” lines can send 6 MW from each source • But can’t send 7 from either source • 3rd line “expands” some possibilities but eliminates some others z 1 2 7 z 6 1 2 3 q 2 3 4 6 z 2 3 z 1 3 q 1 z 1 3
Transmission Investment • Market prices can help induce efficient transmission investment • But don’t hold your breath • In most cases transmission looks a lot like a natural monopoly • And we can try to apply the principles of natural monopoly pricing to this context
Cost Recovery Principles • Classic natural monopoly cost-recovery problem • Marginal cost pricing efficient but doesn’t recover costs • Pricing goal should be to minimize deadweight loss • Fixed charges (two-part tariffs)? • Ramsey Pricing? • Is that fair (unfair)?
Average Cost Pricing Creates DWL $ A B PA = PB Fixed Costs to Recover Q
Ramsey Pricing reduces DWL $ A PA Fixed Costs to Recover B PB Q
Beneficiaries Pay • From Wikipedia • From “IntelligentUtility.com” The “beneficiaries pay” theorem adopted by FERC is unaccompanied by a definition of the range of potential transmission benefits or how to calculate them in individual cases. “User pays, or beneficiary pays, is a pricing approach based on the idea that the most efficient allocation of resources occurs when consumers pay the full costs of the goods that they consume.”
Ramsey Pricing reduces DWL $ A PA Fixed Costs to Recover B PB Q
Transmission Chickens and Eggs • For sunk (think unavoidable) transmission costs, this is a monopoly cost allocation issue. • But what if generation location decisions cause transmission to be built? • New transmission not unavoidable • Dispersed cost recover creates ability to partially “free-ride” on the network by off loading costs on other users • Can create incentives to locate in inefficient places • This perspective is one motivation for a “beneficiaries pay” (also “exacerbators”) approach.
Ex-Ante vs. Ex-post Determination of Benefits • Very difficult to predict benefits for the next 20 years • Even the process of prediction can drag out proceedings
Difficulties in Measuring Benefits • Some benefits hard to quantify • Competitive gains - avoiding market power or restrictive regulations • Reliability gains? • Value of insurance against extreme events (e.g. drought, hurricane, national security, natural disasters)
Difficulties in Measuring Benefits • Transmission is extremely long-lived asset • Costs of existing generation may change considerably • New generation difficult to predict • How to incorporate impact of transmission investment on new entry? • Demand growth patterns will evolve • No single entity controls these changes - decisions are amongst diverse market actors • Some benefits hard to quantify • Competitive gains - avoiding market power or restrictive regulations • Reliability gains? • Value of insurance against extreme events (e.g. drought, hurricane, national security, natural disasters)
North QN Flow = QN - QS Line Capacity = k South QS Linking Two Symmetric Markets • When the line has a very small capacity: Two Monopolies • When line has a very large capacity: Duopoly, but no flow on the line • How large is “large” and how small is “small”? • When line has a “medium” capacity: limited competition Inverse demand in each market = P(Q)
Ex-Ante vs. Ex-post Determination of Benefits • Very difficult to predict benefits for the next 20 years • Even the process of prediction can drag out proceedings • Ex-post “tracking” of benefits solves the prediction problem • But it makes the cost allocation endogenous (e.g. driven by) the actions of those using the network • Risks distorting behavior with charges sunk costs
Marginal and Infra-MarginalAllocation • One approach to cost recovery would be to claw back proportional surplus from users of the network • In principle this is first degree price discrimination • Close to Ramsey pricing in principle • If a firm is infra-marginal they would be ineleastic to the proposed charge (e.g. will not change their behavior) • In practice, can a claw-back not change behavior? • The trade-offs between precision and blunting endogenous incentives
Summary • Transmission exhibits many natural monopoly characteristics • Efficient pricing is important but usually insufficient to recover investment costs • Average cost pricing can inefficiently discourage usage of the network • What is the elasticity of the beneficiary? • Choice of pricing paradigm needs to be reconciled with investment approach • If generation leads transmission – beneficiaries pay • If transmission leads generation – ramsey pricing – • How close is that to beneficiaries pay? • How practical is it to recover benefits without disrupting behavior?