DOCSLIB.ORG

Retail Competition in Electricity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Retail Competition in Electricity 33% RETAIL COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN 20 YEARS? July 23, 2019 Authored by: Lisa M. Quilici, Danielle S. Powers, Gregg H. Therrien, Benjamin O. Davis, and Olivia A. Prieto CEADVISORS.COM © 2019 Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. 1 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Regulation and Restructuring ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. Survey of U.S. States .................................................................................................................................................. 1 C. Retail Rates for Residential Customers ............................................................................................................. 3 D. The Need for a Fully Functioning Wholesale Market .................................................................................. 4 E. Resource Planning and Reliability....................................................................................................................... 4 F. Generation Divestiture and Stranded Costs .................................................................................................... 5 G. Transition in Generation Fleet .............................................................................................................................. 5 H. Innovation in the Electric Industry ..................................................................................................................... 6 II. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Background and Purpose of Report.................................................................................................................... 7 B. Arizona Energy Policy Group ................................................................................................................................ 7 C. Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 7 D. Report Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 7 E. Report Organization .................................................................................................................................................. 7 III. Arizona’s Electric Market ........................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 B. Generation ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 C. History of Electric Restructuring in Arizona ................................................................................................. 13 D. Arizona Independent Scheduling Administrator Association ............................................................... 14 E. Municipalities, Cooperatives, and Tribal Systems ...................................................................................... 14 IV. Regulation and Restructuring ................................................................................................................................. 15 A. Regulated v. Restructured Electric Markets .................................................................................................. 15 B. The Role of State Regulators ................................................................................................................................ 16 C. Role of Federal Regulators ................................................................................................................................... 17 V. Survey of U.S. States .................................................................................................................................................... 18 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 I Concentric Energy Advisors B. States with Full Retail Competition .................................................................................................................. 18 C. States with Partial Retail Competition ............................................................................................................ 20 1. California ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 2. Georgia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 3. Michigan .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 4. Nevada ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 5. Oregon ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 6. Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 7. Montana ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 D. States that Considered but Rejected Restructuring ................................................................................... 23 1. Alaska........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 2. Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 3. Hawaii ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4. New Mexico ............................................................................................................................................................ 24 E. Active Restructuring Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 25 VI. Wholesale Market Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 26 A. Wholesale Market Elements ................................................................................................................................ 26 B. Establishment of RTOs/ISOs ............................................................................................................................... 26 1. History ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 C. Timing and Steps to Create an ISO/RTO ......................................................................................................... 27 D. Cost of Implementing an ISO-RTO ..................................................................................................................... 29 E. Other Annual Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 31 F. Arizona Specifics ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 G. Resource Planning ................................................................................................................................................... 33 H. Fuel Diversity and Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 34 I. System Reliability ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 J. Price Volatility ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 VII. Retail Market Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 40 A. Impact of Restructuring on Retail Electric Rates ........................................................................................ 40 1. Residential
Load more

Recommended publications
  • U.S. Energy in the 21St Century: a Primer
    U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46723 SUMMARY R46723 U.S. Energy in the 21st Century: A Primer March 16, 2021 Since the start of the 21st century, the U.S. energy system has changed tremendously. Technological advances in energy production have driven changes in energy consumption, and Melissa N. Diaz, the United States has moved from being a net importer of most forms of energy to a declining Coordinator importer—and a net exporter in 2019. The United States remains the second largest producer and Analyst in Energy Policy consumer of energy in the world, behind China. Overall energy consumption in the United States has held relatively steady since 2000, while the mix of energy sources has changed. Between 2000 and 2019, consumption of natural gas and renewable energy increased, while oil and nuclear power were relatively flat and coal decreased. In the same period, production of oil, natural gas, and renewables increased, while nuclear power was relatively flat and coal decreased. Overall energy production increased by 42% over the same period. Increases in the production of oil and natural gas are due in part to technological improvements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that have facilitated access to resources in unconventional formations (e.g., shale). U.S. oil production (including natural gas liquids and crude oil) and natural gas production hit record highs in 2019. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas, a net exporter, and the largest consumer. Oil, natural gas, and other liquid fuels depend on a network of over three million miles of pipeline infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing to Overcharge Consumers: the Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts
    Why Competing to Overcharge Consumers: The Competitive Electric Supplier Market in Massachusetts April 2018 By Jenifer Bosco National Consumer Law Center® © Copyright 2018, National Consumer Law Center, Inc. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jenifer Bosco is a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) with a focus on energy and utility issues that affect low-income consumers. Prior to joining NCLC, she was the first director of the Office of Patient Protection at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. Previously, Jen advocated for low-income clients at Health Law Advocates, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and Merrimack Valley Legal Services. She also served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General and began her legal career as a law clerk for the Massachusetts Superior Court. Jen holds a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. from Boston College. She is a co-author of Access to Utility Services and a contributing author to Collection Actions and Consumer Banking and Payments Law. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks NCLC Senior Attorney Charlie Harak and NCLC Deputy Director Carolyn Carter for their insightful reviews and comments, and Ana Girón-Vives of NCLC for her research and data analysis. Barbara Alexander generously shared her extensive knowledge of competitive supply markets and provided invaluable support and insight. The author also thanks Elizabeth Berube of Citizens for Citizens, Inc., Darlene Gallant of Lynn Economic Opportunity, Richard Berkley of the Public Utility Law Project of New York, and NCLC colleagues Olivia Wein, John Howat, Jan Kruse, Svetlana Ladan, and Cleef Milien for their invaluable assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Auto Retailing: Why the Franchise System Works Best
    AUTO RETAILING: WHY THE FRANCHISE SYSTEM WORKS BEST Q Executive Summary or manufacturers and consumers alike, the automotive and communities—were much more highly motivated and franchise system is the best method for distributing and successful retailers than factory employees or contractors. F selling new cars and trucks. For consumers, new-car That’s still true today, as evidenced by some key findings franchises create intra-brand competition that lowers prices; of this study: generate extra accountability for consumers in warranty and • Today, the average dealership requires an investment of safety recall situations; and provide enormous local eco- $11.3 million, including physical facilities, land, inventory nomic benefits, from well-paying jobs to billions in local taxes. and working capital. For manufacturers, the franchise system is simply the • Nationwide, dealers have invested nearly $200 billion in most efficient and effective way to distribute and sell automo- dealership facilities. biles nationwide. Franchised dealers invest millions of dollars Annual operating costs totaled $81.5 billion in 2013, of private capital in their retail outlets to provide top sales and • an average of $4.6 million per dealership. These service experiences, allowing auto manufacturers to concen- costs include personnel, utilities, advertising and trate their capital in their core areas: designing, building and regulatory compliance. marketing vehicles. Throughout the history of the auto industry, manufactur- • The vast majority—95.6 percent—of the 17,663 ers have experimented with selling directly to consumers. In individual franchised retail automotive outlets are locally fact, in the early years of the industry, manufacturers used and privately owned.
    [Show full text]
  • Digitalisation and Intermediaries in the Music Industry
    CREATe Working Paper 2017/07 (June 2017) Digitalisation and intermediaries in the Music Industry Authors Morten Hviid Sabine Jacques Sofia Izquierdo Sanchez Centre for Competition Policy, Centre for Competition Policy, Department of Accountancy, Finance, University of East Anglia University of East Anglia and Economics, University of Huddersfield [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CREATe Working Paper Series DOI:10.5281/zenodo.809949 This release was supported by the RCUK funded Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe), AHRC Grant Number AH/K000179/1. Abstract Prior to digitalisation, the vertical structure of the market for recorded music could be described as a large number of artists [composers, lyricists and musicians] supplying creative expressions to a small number of larger record labels and publishers who funded, produced, and marketed the resulting recorded music to subsequently sell these works to consumers through a fragmented retail sector. We argue that digitalisation has led to a new structure in which the retail segment has also become concentrated. Such a structure, with successive oligopolistic segments, can lead to higher consumer prices through double marginalisation. We further question whether a combination of disintermediation of the record labels function combined with “self- publishing” by artists, will lead to the demise of powerful firms in the record label segment, thus shifting market power from the record label and publisher segment to the retail segment, rather than increasing the number of segments with market power. i Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. How the advancement of technologies shapes the music industry .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource
    INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric Power -- what is it? It=s a form of energy … a renewable resource. Hydropower provides about 96 percent of the renewable energy in the United States. Other renewable resources include geothermal, wave power, tidal power, wind power, and solar power. Hydroelectric powerplants do not use up resources to create electricity nor do they pollute the air, land, or water, as other powerplants may. Hydroelectric power has played an important part in the development of this Nation's electric power industry. Both small and large hydroelectric power developments were instrumental in the early expansion of the electric power industry. Hydroelectric power comes from flowing water … winter and spring runoff from mountain streams and clear lakes. Water, when it is falling by the force of gravity, can be used to turn turbines and generators that produce electricity. Hydroelectric power is important to our Nation. Growing populations and modern technologies require vast amounts of electricity for creating, building, and expanding. In the 1920's, hydroelectric plants supplied as much as 40 percent of the electric energy produced. Although the amount of energy produced by this means has steadily increased, the amount produced by other types of powerplants has increased at a faster rate and hydroelectric power presently supplies about 10 percent of the electrical generating capacity of the United States. Hydropower is an essential contributor in the national power grid because of its ability to respond quickly to rapidly varying loads or system disturbances, which base load plants with steam systems powered by combustion or nuclear processes cannot accommodate. Reclamation=s 58 powerplants throughout the Western United States produce an average of 42 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year, enough to meet the residential needs of more than 14 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Electronics for Distributed Energy Systems and Transmission and Distribution Applications
    ORNL/TM-2005/230 POWER ELECTRONICS FOR DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS L. M. Tolbert T. J. King B. Ozpineci J. B. Campbell G. Muralidharan D. T. Rizy A. S. Sabau H. Zhang* W. Zhang* Y. Xu* H. F. Huq* H. Liu* December 2005 *The University of Tennessee-Knoxville ORNL/TM-2005/230 Engineering Science and Technology Division POWER ELECTRONICS FOR DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS L. M. Tolbert T. J. King B. Ozpineci J. B. Campbell G. Muralidharan D. T. Rizy A. S. Sabau H. Zhang W. Zhang Y. Xu H. F. Huq H. Liu Publication Date: December 2005 Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Not available externally. Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-EPIRA Impacts of Electric Power Industry Competition Policies
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Navarro, Adoracion M.; Detros, Keith C.; Dela Cruz, Kirsten J. Working Paper Post-EPIRA impacts of electric power industry competition policies PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-15 Provided in Cooperation with: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Philippines Suggested Citation: Navarro, Adoracion M.; Detros, Keith C.; Dela Cruz, Kirsten J. (2016) : Post-EPIRA impacts of electric power industry competition policies, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-15, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Quezon City This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/173536 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas Post-EPIRA Impacts of Electric Power Industry Competition Policies Adoracion M.
    [Show full text]
  • Value Growth and the Music Industry: the Untold Story of Digital Success by Maud Sacquet October 2017
    RESEARCH PAPER Value Growth and the Music Industry: The Untold Story of Digital Success By Maud Sacquet October 2017 Executive Summary societies’ collections increased 26% globally between 2007 and 2015. Meanwhile, European consumers and For music listeners, digitisation and the internet tell a businesses are the highest contributors globally to story of increased consumer welfare1. Today, consumers collecting societies’ revenues. have access to a greater choice of music than ever before and can listen to music anywhere, anytime, on a broad range of devices. And with all these increased These figures undermine the case for an alleged “value choices has come an explosion of sharing and creativity. gap”, showing instead healthy rises in revenue. These figures demonstrate that digital’s efficiency savings are From the creative industry side, the internet has also passed on to both consumers and record labels — and enabled new business models for creators and the hence that digital streaming services enable massive emergence of new artists and music intermediaries. It value growth. has also allowed independent labels to thrive — in Adele’s producer’s own words, digital music is a “more level playing field”2. The supply side of music is more Introduction diverse and competitive than ever. The current debate in the European Union on copyright Have these gains been achieved at the expense of reform is in part focused on an alleged “value gap”, legacy music players, such as major labels and defined in May 2016 by the International Federation collecting societies? of the Phonographic Industry (“IFPI”) as “the dramatic contrast between the proportionate revenues In this paper, we look at data from major record labels generated by user upload services and by paid and from collecting societies to answer this question.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Electric Power -- the U.S. Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap
    CONTRIBUTORS U.S. Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap Steering Committee • Allen Barnett, AstroPower, Inc. • Larry Crowley (retired), formerly with Idaho Power • J. Michael Davis, Avista Labs • Chet Farris, Siemens Solar Industries • Harvey Forest (retired), formerly with Solarex Corp. • Glenn Hamer, Solar Energy Industries Association • Lionel Kimerling, Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Roger Little, Spire Corporation • Michael Paranzino, Solar Energy Industries Association • William Roppenecker (retired), formerly with Trace Engineering • Richard Schwartz, Purdue University • Harry Shimp, BP Solar • Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.; formerly with SEIA Roadmap Workshop Participants • National Center for Photovoltaics: Workshop on PV Program Strategic Direction, July 14-15, 1997 (Golden, Colorado) • U.S. Photovoltaics Industry PV Technology Roadmap Workshop, June 23-25, 1999 (Chicago, Illinois) • PV Roadmap Conference, December 13-14, 2000 (Dallas, Texas) SOLAR-ELECTRIC POWER THE U.S. PHOTOVOLTAIC INDUSTRY ROADMAP “…providing the electricity consumer with competitive and environmentally friendly energy products and services from a thriving United States-based solar-electric power industry.” Reprinted January 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1. Introducing the Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap … Full Speed Ahead........................5 Chapter 2. PV's Value to Customers and the Nation … Why Travel the
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure
    U.S. Electric Power Industry - Context and Structure Authored by Analysis Group for Advanced Energy Economy November 2011 Industry Organization The electric industry across the United States contains Figure 1 significant variations from the perspectives of structure, A History of the U.S. Electric Industry organization, physical infrastructure characteristics, 1870 cost/price drivers, and regulatory oversight. The variation stems from a mix of geographical influences, population Thomas Edison demonstrates the electric light bulb and generator and industry make up, and the evolution of federal and 1880 state energy law and policy. Edison launches Pearl Street station, the first modern electricity generation station th In the early part of the 20 century, the electric industry 1890 evolved quickly through the creation, growth and Development begins on the Niagra Falls hydroelectric project consolidation of vertically-integrated utilities – that is, Samuel Insull suggests the utility industry is a natural companies that own and operate all of the power plants, 1900 monopoly - electric industry starts to become vertically transmission lines, and distribution systems that generate integrated and deliver power to ultimate customers. At the same Wisconsin enacts first private utility regulation and 30 states time, efficiency of electricity generation dramatically follow suit shortly thereafter 1910 improved, encouraging growth, consolidation of the industry, and expansion into more and more cities, and The Federal Power Act created the Federal Power Commission across a wider geographic area. Over time, consolidated (now FERC) utilities were granted monopoly franchises with exclusive 1920 service territories by states, in exchange for an obligation to serve customers within that territory at rates for service 1 1930 based on state-regulated, cost-of-service ratemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of On-Site Power Opportunities in the Industrial Sector
    ORNL/TM-2001/169 Assessment of On-Site Power Opportunities in the Industrial Sector September 2001 Prepared by: Onsite Energy Corporation Under contract No. 85X-TA008V 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92009 Teresa Bryson William Major Ken Darrow ORNL/TM-2001/169 ASSESSMENT OF ON-SITE POWER OPPORTUNITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR Energy Division September 2001 Prepared by OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285 managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC-00OR22725 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................. ix ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................................... xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................ES-1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... ES-1 EXISTING ON-SITE GENERATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR................................ ES-1 REMAINING POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE GENERATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the True Impacts of Champlain Hudson Power Express
    UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE IMPACTS OF CHAMPLAIN HUDSON POWER EXPRESS Prepared by: Energyzt Advisors, LLC Prepared for: Independent Power Producers of New York January 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ES-1 1. OVERVIEW OF CHPE ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Evolution of CHPE ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2. 2017 Assessment of Carbon Reductions – Grossly Overstates Benefits ................... 4 1.3. 2019 Climate Mobilization Act – CHPE does not help New York State goals ......... 6 2. SOURCE OF CHPE ENERGY SUPPLY ................................................................................ 11 2.1 Quebec is short capacity and long on energy........................................................... 11 2.2 Hydro-Québec’s excess energy available for exports is limited ............................. 14 2.3 Hydro-Québec firm energy is very expensive ......................................................... 18 3. HYDRO-QUÉBEC WOULD DIVERT ENERGY TO SUPPLY CHPE ................................. 22 3.1. Quebec is interconnected with multiple markets .................................................... 23 3.2. Hydro-Québec has enough transmission capacity to sell its excess energy .......... 26 3.3. Hydro-Québec is motivated to maximize profits ...................................................
    [Show full text]