HOME / RESEARCH LIBRARY / SEARCH RESOURCE LIBRARY /

Generation

Find papers and presentations on generation generally, or specifically on the topics of coal, distributed energy resources, natural gas, nuclear power, renewable energy, and resource adquacy.

Coal

Hochstetter, Sandra. “The Changing Landscape for Retail Procurement: from Restructured to Re-Regulated, and from Regulated to Government-Controlled.” In, 2007.Abstract
sandy_hochstetter_remarks.pdf

The Year 2007 has brought new legislative and regulatory challenges for all states --- both regulated and restructured --- and some of these challenges are affecting resource evaluation processes, and corresponding resource decisions, for the ultimate load-serving entities. The 2 most challenging legislative and business issues today ---- layered on top of continuing discontent with competitive market design and competitive procurement --- are the looming debates over mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards and mandated CO2 emission reductions. These frenzied discussions have led some policymakers and activists to call for a moratorium on new coal plants and the retirement of existing ones, along with a dogmatic focus on renewables and energy efficiency as the primary sources for new power supply. So --- it’s not just the restructured states that are undergoing political upheaval and second-guessing with respect to how electricity is provided to customers.

 Whether you reside in a vertically integrated, rate-regulated, and cost-of-service ratemaking jurisdiction, OR a "retail competition" state that is undergoing some type of transformation back to a more regulated service obligation and pricing regime, you are facing changes in the way that federal and state legislators, and various activist groups, expect you to manage your electric generation portfolio.

The premise of my remarks today, which is a conclusion that I have reached during the past several months, is that I'm not sure how much of a "competitive market" or even a self-directed future I see for any retail service provider ---- no matter what state you're in or what type of regulatory framework you have.

This new, unilateral focus on environmental issues is obscuring the laws of physics --- with respect to how the electricity grid works and what it takes to keep the lights on --- and the laws of economics --- with respect to what electricity costs, based on the fuel source used. My overall prediction is, if our hands are tied by the passage of very specific government-mandated generation portfolio standards, and laws that impose penalties on the consumption of specific fuels, we will be dealing with reliability problems in all states, a deviation from “least cost purchasing” standards in traditional states, and a significant reduction in market-driven resource decisions in restructured states.

Rosenberg, William. “Workshop on Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle: Financing and Deploying IGCC Technology in this Decade,” 2004. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Concerns about high natural gas prices, environmental emissions, economic growth and future coal production have catalyzed a growing interest in developing and deploying advanced coal gasification technologies both in the United States and abroad. On February 11, 2004, two of the Kennedy School’s centers, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Center for Business and Government, sponsored a workshop on the political and financial challenges to the deployment and commercialization of these technologies. The purpose of the workshop was to identify issues that require additional scrutiny and to build a policy foundation for the commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technologies for power production. Additional sponsors included the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Attendees included senior officials from the energy industries, state regulators, federal officials, senior members of the NGO community and several experts from academia. This report summarizes the major issues and arguments put forth in each of the three panel discussions, a keynote presentation, and a luncheon speech. Since all statements made at the workshop are off-the-record, none of the remarks are directly attributed to any participant. This report is a general summary and does not cover all the issues discussed, but rather focuses on those of the greatest significance or greatest controversy. The arguments and positions described in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School, the workshop sponsors, or any individual participant at the workshop.

  • «
  • 3 of 3
  •  

RP - LOP - Category - Distributed Energy Resources

  • «
  • 3 of 3
  •  

Natural Gas

Rosenberg, William, Dwight Alpern, and Michael Walker. “Financing IGCC - 3 Party Covenant.” In, 2004. Publisher's VersionAbstract
This paper describes a 3 Party Covenant financing and regulatory program aimed at reducing financing costs and providing a risk-tolerant investment structure to stimulate initial deployment of five to ten Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal generation power plants during this decade. The 3 Party Covenant is an arrangement between the federal government, state Public Utility Commission (PUC), and equity investor that serves to lower IGCC cost of capital by reducing the cost of debt, raising the debt/equity ratio, and minimizing construction financing costs. The 3 Party Covenant would reduce the cost of capital component of energy costs from new IGCC facilities by 34 percent and the overall cost of energy about 20 percent, making the technology cost competitive with pulverized coal (PC) and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) generation.
School, Harvard Kennedy. “Workshop on Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle: Financing and Deploying IGCC Technology in this Decade.” In, 2004.Abstract
igcc.rap_.report.0204.pdf

Concerns about high natural gas prices, environmental emissions, economic growth and future coal production have catalyzed a growing interest in developing and deploying advanced coal gasification technologies both in the United States and abroad. On February 11, 2004, two of the Kennedy School’s centers, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Center for Business and Government, sponsored a workshop on the political and financial challenges to the deployment and commercialization of these technologies. The purpose of the workshop was to identify issues that require additional scrutiny and to build a policy foundation for the commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technologies for power production. Additional sponsors included the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Rosenberg, William. “Workshop on Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle: Financing and Deploying IGCC Technology in this Decade,” 2004. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Concerns about high natural gas prices, environmental emissions, economic growth and future coal production have catalyzed a growing interest in developing and deploying advanced coal gasification technologies both in the United States and abroad. On February 11, 2004, two of the Kennedy School’s centers, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Center for Business and Government, sponsored a workshop on the political and financial challenges to the deployment and commercialization of these technologies. The purpose of the workshop was to identify issues that require additional scrutiny and to build a policy foundation for the commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technologies for power production. Additional sponsors included the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Attendees included senior officials from the energy industries, state regulators, federal officials, senior members of the NGO community and several experts from academia. This report summarizes the major issues and arguments put forth in each of the three panel discussions, a keynote presentation, and a luncheon speech. Since all statements made at the workshop are off-the-record, none of the remarks are directly attributed to any participant. This report is a general summary and does not cover all the issues discussed, but rather focuses on those of the greatest significance or greatest controversy. The arguments and positions described in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School, the workshop sponsors, or any individual participant at the workshop.

Coyne, James, and Prescott Hartshorne. “Winners and Losers in Restructuring: Assessing Electric and Gas Company Financial Performance.” In, 2003.Abstract
lexecon_winners.losers.restructuring.pdf

Excerpt from theIntroduction:

The era of electric and natural gas industry restructuring ushered in by Congress and implemented by FERC and state public utility commissions has now been in place for more than five years. In the wake of these momentous shifts in regulatory policy, electric and gas companies have responded with fundamental changes in their business strategies. Some have decidedly “stuck to their knitting,” while others have merged, sold assets, invested overseas and in new businesses, and in some cases completely abandoned their historic business roots. With the economic downturn, the collapse of merchant generators and the decided slowdown in industry restructuring, the time is opportune to examine corporate winners and losers from this unprecedented round of industry restructuring.

Winners and losers in the battle of restructuring can be measured from a variety of perspectives. The major constituents, however, are clearly shareholders and investors on one hand and consumers on the other. The focus of this analysis is the shareholder. In examining the impacts on shareholders, we look to a variety of related metrics that speak to financial performance.

Our analysis focuses on total shareholder return for the group of 64 companies that compose the Fortune 1000 energy companies.2 Within this mix is a combination of utilities, pipelines, energy merchants and independent generators with diverse business strategies. Aligning companies with their returns to shareholders paints a dramatic picture of widely differentiated financial performance. The degree of variation is particularly notable in light of an industry once noted for its stable returns appealing to the most conservative investors.

Joskow, Paul. “UW Energy Policy During the 1990s.” NBER, 2001.Abstract
energypolicy-ceepr-7-11-01withtablesfigure.pdf
This essay discusses U.S. energy policy and the associated evolution of energy supply, energy demand, energy prices and the industrial organization of the domestic energy industries during the period 1991 through 2000. This period covers the last two years of the George H. W. Bush administration and the entire Clinton administration. It begins with an “energy crisis” stimulated by the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War and ends with an “energy crisis” caused by significant increases in oil and, especially, natural gas prices, the collapse of California’s new competitive electricity markets and the threat of electricity shortages throughout the Western U.S. Both “energy crises” led the sitting Presidents’ administrations to develop national energy strategies and to try to convince Congress to enact comprehensive energy legislation to implement them. Neither “energy crisis” had the severe economic impact or led to the kinds of dramatic, and often ill-conceived, policy responses observed following the two oil shocks of the 1970s. The 1990-91 “energy crisis” was short-lived and interest in energy policy soon faded. It would not be surprising if the latest “energy crisis” follows a similar course.
  • «
  • 3 of 3
  •  

Renewable Energy

Resource Adequacy