The Double-Edged Sword of Equating Supply and Demand by Chris Trayhorn, Publisher of mThink Blue Book, January 15, 2002 Electric system reliability is a political necessity. The reverberations from California’s rolling black-outs have stalled the trend towards generation market deregulation, which seemed so inevitable just two years ago. The seismic waves even threaten to cause states which have initiated deregulation to reverse that process. After California’s recent experience, the many investment opportunities that were created by the utility industry deregulation are now in jeopardy. Most of the North American electric industrybusiness opportunities depend upon continuing the process of electric generation deregulation, and a trend toward stability and predictability in the electric markets. State legislatures and Congress need to facilitate such market deregulation with legislation. However, they also need to exercise discipline by keeping their hands off the competitive markets and let them work efficiently. Unless public policies are adopted which ensure that electric reliability will co-exist with competitive markets, competitive markets will be the political victims. This article discusses a policy initiative which would allow electric system reliability and substantially unfettered competition in the generation market to cohabit. Policy answers to this reliability issue will be necessary to sustain, for the long run, the restructured industry’s investment opportunities. Supply equals demand in a competitive market equilibrium. This is the formula for an efficient market mechanism, but is it also the formula for an unreliable electric energy market? When supply just equals an electric market’s coincident peak demand, there is no room for error in the marketplace. If the coincident market peak demand exceeds projections, or if generating plants are not available, electric shortage results. Such events are absolutely likely to occur, and in a large, regionally interconnected electric grid, it is difficult to isolate the effect of electric shortage just to the piggies who build their houses out of twigs or straw. The voltage drops that occur when use exceeds supply at a material level affects the entire grid. Saving the grid from rolling blackouts has more to do with controlling loads than it does with the firmness of service contracted for the retail providers. Reliability Based on System Reserves In each of the state jurisdictions regulating electric utilities and in the nation’s several reliability councils, this problem was solved by requiring firm, system electric generating supply reserves ranging from 15 to 20 percent above the forecast, coincident, non-interruptible demand peak for the portion of the electric grid served by each retail electricity supplier. The cost for this reserve capacity — which, if maintained, reduced the risk of actual shortage to a near zero probability — was borne as an insurance premium against interruption in the rates paid by retail customers. Through paternalistic regulation, electric shortage became a theoretical, latent risk. Reliability an Externality As the nation came to count on and even expect excess generating capacity, the political dynamic in some jurisdictions began to focus on the relative cost of electricity — and, of course, carrying reserve capacity to insure against shortage exerts upward pressure on costs. When the political world (and the regulatory world under its thumb), began to take the excess generating capacity of the 1990s for granted, the standard short political attention span turned to its normal inquiry, “What have you done for me lately?” The answer to that question in a number of states (at least New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania — not insignificant jurisdictions) was disproportionately high rates in a generation market with excessive system reserves. Supply exceeded demand, and prices were high. Unlocking that generation market — which was no longer an apparent natural monopoly — to competition seemed the logical and all-too-simple answer. Competition is efficient. It drives the market to the cheapest marginal cost solutions. It equates supply and demand it equates supply and demand … it equates supply and demand. … Equating supply and demand is a double-edged sword. It removes the latency of electric shortage and creates a shortage risk that is allocated by the marketplace. The participants in the marketplace operate in an interconnected electric grid. The piggies build separate houses of brick, twigs and straw, with each to his own fate. But in the interconnected electric grid, the piggies build a condominium, and the piggy using straw would build the foundation. Decisions by separate consumers cannot necessarily be insulated from having a collateral affect on other consumers served by that grid — an externality of the competitive generation market, in economic parlance. So, is reliability an externality to the competitive market? If it is, even Adam Smith might urge its regulation. But can you regulate the system reserves without ruining the efficiency of the marketplace? Following is a proposal to deal with system reserves as a market externality by assuring its existence extrinsic to the generation supply provided by the competitive market. These system reserves are assumed to be the necessary bedrock of reliability. The need to keep the system reserves outside the supply that is perceived to exist in the competitive marketplace is driven by the efficiency of the market’s ability to equate its perceived supply with demand. Perceived capacity in excess of demand will beg the reserve supplies to be sold, possibly twice (if they are available to the market). Suppliers will gamble with shortage, and the market will be left with economic sanctions — and economic sanctions cannot be delivered at 120 or 220 volts. Utility Regulation’s Darwinian Evolution What many legislators seem to have forgotten is that utility regulation evolved in a Darwinian manner, adjusting to cope with the Great Depression, World War driven shortages, runaway inflation, and the constant specter of political tinkering in response to populist or Wall Street pressures. The regulation evolved to compensate for the famous populist, Huey “the Kingfish” Long, who ruled the Louisiana utility regulation from the Governor’s mansion — and also to avoid the machinations of Wall Street illustrated by the likes of Insul. In this evolution, utility commissions became quasi-judicial bodies subject to restraints on ex parte communications and staffed by civil servants. Politicians grew wary of “tampering” with utility regulatory commissions, based on the flak they might get from civil servants for political meddling — and out of their recognition that the decisions they made were mostly political no-wins. The three “R’s” — rates, reliability and (financial) ratings — all had to be balanced, and politicians were better off taking neither credit nor blame for the outcome. That was the situation until 1995. Then, blinded to the risks of tinkering with excess electric generating capacity, and seduced by the political pressure to reduce high electric rates (or otherwise punish the unpopular utilities), legislatures and political leaders in California and elsewhere jumped into the utility regulation pool. The changes they made demonstrated the short institutional memory of legislatures and their short institutional planning horizon. Having legislatures rewrite utility regulation in one term is like handing a platinum credit card to a teenager — instant gratification wins out over long-term planning. The legislatures forgot why certain provisions in the regulatory schemes had existed at all. For instance, purchased power adjustment clauses or periodic rate cases are important financial pressure release valves. When they are eliminated, financial explosions can occur (i.e., PG&E’s bankruptcy). Basic Changes of Incentives The old regime rewarded investors only for building so-called “rate-based” generation, transmission and distribution assets — so the equity owners had incentives to build reliability-enhancing assets. Utility regulatory commissions were charged with ensuring adequate service, but spent as much time ensuring that utilities did not overbuild or unnecessarily gild the reliability lily. When legislatures changed the regulatory game from rate-based returns to performance-based rates, the owner’s incentives were turned upside down — but the regulatory process was not ready to become the police force for adequate electric supply and electricity service reliability. Frequently, an organism doesn’t understand why it evolved all of its parts — but the spleen and appendix can seem awfully important when they are damaged. The sophistication and effectiveness of the old regulatory processes (at least from a system reliability standpoint) is much more obvious in retrospect, now that the system that was perceived to be broken has not been properly “fixed.” Now that the legislatures and politicians seem to be in charge of regulation and we can again understand the problems created by giving them the credit cards, maybe the strategy to follow is the one that minimizes the amount of state regulation needed. This could be accomplished with an authentically competitive and robust generation market, coupled with a situation in which the 15 to 18 percent generation reserve is controlled and operated by a regional transmission organization outside of the generation market — deployed in a disciplined manner simply to avoid shortage and support reliability in the RTO’s grid. Another Job for the RTO Will a competitive wholesale market that includes a robust spot market provide 15 to 18 percent system capacity reserves? Will the electric retail service providers selling firm service be required to have term, firm contracts covering a full 115 percent of their firm service capacity requirement, 100 percent of the time? If not, the market will not provide that 15 percent reserve. And even if there is a regulatory process which sets a 115 percent of firm service capacity control requirement, if the players in the electric grid in which the market is located do not all play by the rules of the game, the 15 percent reserves will not exist. Assume Oregon and Nevada have assured 15 percent system reserves in their service areas, but California has not. A collapse of the electric grid due to a substantial supply shortage in California will not easily be isolated to the retail suppliers without firm contracts covering 100 percent of their capacity requirement. In order for there to be system reserves, either the market — or regulation as a market surrogate — must demand and be willing to pay for and maintain as ready 15-18 percent more capacity than is likely to be used at any time. If all firm service suppliers were required to have 115 percent of their firm service demand covered by long-term capacity contracts, this would help support adequate capacity reserves, but probably would not ensure them. Who would regulate this requirement? Effective regulation requires watching both the retail sales contracts and the underlying wholesale market. Would all of the players play by the rules? Such a regime would minimize the value of the spot market, and would substantially limit its use to interruptible service users and providers. Is there electric system infrastructure switching capabilities that can restrict the effects of system shortages to just those customers whose electric supply purchasing decisions failed to assure against shortage? Probably not for a long time, and these electric circuits/markets are frequently interstate. Experience and intuition suggests system reserves in the range of 15 to 18 percent are an externality to a competitive market. In the competitive market, attention to costs will cause all participants to test just how thinly they can cut the size of fixed carrying costs attributable to reserving firm generation capacity. Suppliers will attempt to sell a given unit of capacity as many times as possible. Suppliers will make dispassionate, economic decisions about the risk of shortage to their customers. If there is only a competitive wholesale market, or if that wholesale market is dominant in the generation market, the wholesale buyer with an absolute supply obligation that suffers the supply shortfall becomes a desperate market participant on the demand side. California, here we come. If adequate system reserves are an externality, they need to be provided for the electric system by a supplier, and with costs borne, outside the market. How could this be done? The RTO Solution An RTO scaled to the geographic size of the electric circuit (grid) defining the generation market, is in a position to: 1. Know the system demand requirements, and to reasonably forecast that electric system’s demand and capacity requirements 2. Collect transmission tariffs from all participants in that electricity market who benefit from the existence of a competitive market and the reliability afforded by 15-18 percent system capacity reserves 3. Own, and withhold from the market except only as necessary to support system reliability, 15-18 percent generating reserves in excess of that system’s forecast peak — which a competitive market would be expected to supply, and 4. Ensure that the cost of assuring reliability with such system reserves could be borne by the beneficiaries of that reliability for that electric circuit grid/market through inclusion in trans mission tariffs. Will policymakers focus upon the need for system reserves, conclude that this is best treated as a market externality, and put the job of assembling, carrying the costs, and levying charges into the hands of the RTO? The RTO is currently charged with providing the electric transmission infrastructure necessary to support that competitive generation market. Who else has a jurisdiction, and interest, and a “taxing” method, which is co-extensive with the electricity circuit and marketplace? Another job for the RTO! Without the RTO doing this job, there is an inherent disconnect between the regulation of firm capacity sales from the generator (as done, say, by Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland requiring that capacity reserves be added into and paid for in that sale) and the sale of firm power at retail (by a regulated or a direct access provider). An unregulated market might replace actual physical capacity reserves with economic sanctions and contract remedies as the answer to the risk of shortage. Will the political will tolerate actual shortage, albeit offset by economic remedies? Or will the longevity of competitive generation markets be better sustained by actual physical system generating reserves of 15 to 18 percent above the demand and supply as equalized by the competitive marketplace, who are financed through RTO tariffs levied upon the market participants realizing the benefits of that reliability insurance against shortage? As states now implement policies which foster competitive electric generation markets, and as those markets become efficient, supply will rather quickly match demand. But the interconnected electric grids typically span several state jurisdictions. The grid might be comprised of various institutional electric market outcomes — ranging from true open access, to traditional regulation. It is hodge podge of brick, twig and straw solutions to the reliability issue. The overall result is that electric demand will not include a 15 percent excess capacity reserve, the electric market will operate continuously at the ragged edge of shortage, and shortage will remain a real (and not merely latent) risk for the whole grid — even those portions that do not contribute to the problem. If the wholesale purchasers themselves operate in competitive markets (and are not required by regulation to maintain 15 percent capacity reserves), they will cut costs and test the market’s willingness to endure shortage. Even normal commercial sanctions applicable to suppliers who fail to meet their contractual supply obligations will replace the necessity — electricity — with dollars of liquidated damages. And dollars can’t run computers or escalators or surgical rooms. So, can a robust, competitive electric market achieve reliability for an inter connected electric grid with a hodgepodge of institutional policies regarding competition? Probably not. At least, not without a very intrusive level of regulation of both wholesale suppliers, wholesale purchasers, and retail providers — regulation which is likely to severely compromise the benefits of competition. Absent policing the whole supply chain throughout the grid (the reliability region) to assure 15 percent reserves up and down the supply line — the free market will push the system towards zero reserves. What system could avoid continuing, pervasive regulation to assure reliability creating system reserves? If the RTO, co-extensive with the electric grid which constitutes the market, owned or otherwise controlled generating capacity equaling 15 percent of the coincident peak for the market covered by the RTO — and reserved in a disciplined manner that capacity outside the competitive market for use only in time of shortage — reliability might be assured. Filed under: White Papers Tagged under: Utilities About the Author Chris Trayhorn, Publisher of mThink Blue Book Chris Trayhorn is the Chairman of the Performance Marketing Industry Blue Ribbon Panel and the CEO of mThink.com, a leading online and content marketing agency. He has founded four successful marketing companies in London and San Francisco in the last 15 years, and is currently the founder and publisher of Revenue+Performance magazine, the magazine of the performance marketing industry since 2002.