Regulation and Policy

Brown, Ashley. Confusing Means and Ends: Framework of Restructuring, Not Privatization, Matters Most. January 2002. Paper, 14 pages.

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 49. 13 March 2001.

Brown, Ashley. Transparency in Regulated Industries: Elements and Importance. Draft. 20 May 1996.

Excerpt form the Introduction:
The regulatory framework for electricity in the United States has evolved in two tiers, on both
a horizontal and a vertical basis. Horizontally, the two tiers are de jure and voluntary, or de facto.
Vertically, of course, the two tiers are state and federal, subsets of the de jure tier. De jure regulation
has, as might be expected evolved along political or policy or even legal fiction boundary lines. The
voluntary regulatory scheme, perhaps best illustrated by the regional reliability councils, has tended
to evolve along market or physical characteristics and bear, with the possible exception of ERCOT,
at best, little resemblance to any political or jurisdictional boundaries Not surprisingly, as the
electricity market has evolved, the de facto regulatory system, in a geographic, perhaps even geo-
political sense, more accurately reflects the realities of the marketplace. Simply stated, the markets
evolving are neither state specific nor national in scope, rather they are, at one and the same time,
both regional and international.

Brown, Ashley. Regulatory Risk: Is the Subject Still Relevant or Do Markets Govern?" Yale Journal of Regulation 13, no 1 (Winter 1996)."

Foremost among a number of legislative reforms imposed upon state utility and regulatory commissions in recent years have been sunshine laws. The intent of sunshine laws is laudable and the idea simple: the public's business ought to be conducted in the open for the public to observe. Decision making should be transparent, with a clearly articulated rationale available for all who seek it. Not only the decision, but its evolution and the decision makers' thought processes, should be fully revealed. Few backroom deals can withstand such scrutiny. Should the level of accountability vary for an appointed or elected public official? In theory, no, but that only addresses questions about the appearance of accountability and openness. Does such a requirement improve the quality of decision
making; or, more importantly, does it improve the quality of decision? There is a strong case that it does not?

There is a fundamental contradiction between the substantive task regulatory bodies, such as public utility commissions, are charged with performing and the process imposed upon them for doing it. This contradiction, often reinforced by the nature of judicial review, constitutes a severe hindrance to the effectiveness of regulation

Hogan, William. Electricity Market Design: Financial Transmission Rights." Presentation to the CIDE Electricity Policy Group. Mexico, April 14, 2016.

Curran, Jennifer. Beyond Order 1000: Seams Operations and Congestion Management." Presentation to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group's 83rd Plenary Session. Cambridge, MA, June 2, 2016."

Edelston, Bruce. FERC Order 1000: A Solution Looking for a Problem?" Presentation to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group's 81st Plenary Session, Palm Beach, FL, December 2015."

Excerpt from the Introduction:

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this technical conference. My comments here and during the conference are my own and do not represent the opinions of anyone else. The focus of my remarks will be on carbon pricing and the interactions with short-term electricity markets as found in the organized wholesale markets in the United States. I do not address the design and implementation questions focused on investments and resource adequacy that underpin capacity markets.

Electricity market manipulation enforcement actions have moved from conventional analysis of generator market power in real-time physical markets to material allegations of sustained crossproduct price manipulation in forward financial markets. A major challenge is to develop and apply forward market analytical frameworks and models. This task is more difficult than for the real-time market. An adaptation of cross-product manipulation models from cash-settled financial markets provides an existence demonstration under uncertainty and asymmetric information. The implications of this analysis include strong empirical predictions about necessary randomized strategies that are not likely to be observed or sustainable in electricity markets. Absent these randomized strategies and other market imperfections, the means for achieving sustained forward market price manipulation remains unexplained.

Keywords: market manipulation; electricity markets; limits to arbitrage; asymmetric information

McBride Johnson, Philip. Financial Reform: A Rough View. Distributed to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, Fifty-Ninth Plenary Session. Cambridge, MA. May 20, 2010. 6 pages.

McBride Johnson, Philip. Turf Wars" - an Essay. Distributed to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, Fifty-Ninth Plenary Session. Cambridge, MA. May 20, 2010. 4 pages."

Coscia, Carl. Constellation Energy: Comments on Proposed OTC Reforms. Presentation to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, Fifty-Ninth Plenary Session. Cambridge, MA. May 20, 2010. 10 pages.

This paper presents a generation expansion model for the power sector which incorporates several features that make it very interesting for application to current electricity markets: it considers the possible oligopolistic behavior of firms, and incorporates relevant policy instruments, carbon emissions trading and tradable green certificates. It combines powerful traditional tools related to the detailed system operation with techniques for modeling the economic market equilibrium and a formulation for the resolution of the emissions permit and tradable green certificates market equilibrium. The model is formulated as a Linear Complementarity Problem (LCP) which allows the optimization problem for each firm considering the power, carbon and green certificate markets to be solved simultaneously. The model has been implemented in GAMS. An application to the Spanish power system is also presented.

Joskow, Paul. Regulating Markets. 22 September 2006. Presentation, 22 pages.

The Climate Leadership Council's proposal for Carbon Dividends

This paper examines how carbon pricing would reduce emissions in the electricity sector. We show how both carbon prices and cheap natural gas reduce, in a nearly identical manner, the historic cost advantage of coal-fired power plants. The shale revolution has resulted in unprecedented variation in natural gas prices that we use to estimate the potential effect of a carbon price. Our estimates imply that a price of $20 ($70) per ton of carbon dioxide would reduce emissions by 5% (10%). Furthermore, carbon prices are much more effective at reducing emissions when natural gas prices are low. In contrast, modest carbon prices have negligible effects when gas prices are at levels seen prior to the shale revolution.

We study potential equilibria in California’s 2013-2020 cap-and- trade market for greenhouse gasses (GHGs) based on information available before the market started. We find large ex ante uncer- tainty in business-as-usual emissions, and in the abatement that might result from non-market policies, compared to the market- based variation that could plausibly result from changes in al- lowance prices within a politically acceptable range. This implies that the market price is very likely to be determined by an admin- istrative price floor or ceiling. Comparable analysis seems likely to reach similar conclusions in most cap-and-trade markets for GHGs, consistent with outcomes to date in such markets.

Executive summary

On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Clean Power Plan (CPP) under Clean Air Act 111(d). The CPP limits carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants by providing state specific goals for carbon dioxide emissions from affected electric generating units. As part of the CPP, EPA considered the potential impacts of the CPP on electric system reliability. Specifically, the CPP requires each state to demonstrate in its final state plan submittal that it has considered reliability issues in developing its plan. Separately, on August 3, 2015, EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Commission agreed to coordinate certain activities to help ensure continued reliable electricity generation and transmission during the implementation of the CPP. 

While the CPP assigns no direct role to the Commission, it is possible that the Commission may be called upon, through the EPA-DOE-FERC Coordination Document or for other reasons, to address concerns about reliability as the CPP is implemented. In that case, the use of appropriate modeling tools and techniques will be helpful to the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities for reliability.

 This white paper identifies four guiding principles that may assist transmission planning entities, which may include regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs), electric utilities, or other interested stakeholders, in conducting effective analysis of the CPP and associated state plans, federal plans or multi-state plans (compliance plans). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the regional electric reliability organizations may also benefit from following these guiding principles as they perform CPP-related analyses. These guiding principles address four areas: (1) transparency and stakeholder engagement; (2) study methodology and interactions between studies; (3) study inputs, sensitivities and probabilistic analysis; and (4) tools and techniques.

Incorporating these guiding principles in the modeling of the CPP compliance plans is one way to promote a robust analysis of the reliability impacts of the CPP. The guiding principles discussed herein may form the basis for additional action by staff, such as industry outreach or technical conferences, or future action by the Commission.

Electricity, supplied reliably and affordably, is foundational to the U.S. economy and is utterly indispensable to modern society. The National Academy of Engineering has called electrification the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century (Constable and Somerville, 2003). Generating electricity also creates pollution, however, especially emissions of air pollutants. While the most severe and life-threatening pollution from electric power plants is largely a thing of the past in America, power plant emissions of particulates as well as oxides of nitrogen and sulfur (NOx and SOx) 1 still cause harms and contribute to increases in morbidity and mortality (Bell et al., 2008; Laden et al., 2006; Pope et al., 2009). Those harms include premature deaths, contributions to illnesses such as asthma, and increased hospitalizations, and electricity prices do not fully incorporate the costs of those harms (NRC, 2010b). Harms from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to which the power sector is an important contributor, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all domestic emissions (EPA, 2016)— remain almost completely unpriced and thus above the level they would be if market prices reflected their full costs.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule that defines a broad and complicated set of standards for controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from affected electricity generating units. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015b) The proposed national average reduction by 2030 is 32% from the 2005 level of emissions, about half of which has already occurred. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015j) The rules for new power plants are relatively straightforward and imply little more than reinforcing the current economic choice of natural gas over coal fired generation, given current projections for the price of natural gas. The Clean Power Plan rules for existing power plants arise under a different section of the Clean Air Act and present a more complicated picture. The result has implications for the nature and degree of future limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector. In addition, some versions of the possible implementation plans could have material implications for the operations of Regional Transmission Organizations under the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The purpose here is to highlight some of the possible directions for relevant policies of electricity system operators.

American Public Power Association. Power Supply Procurement in Retail Choice States. June 2007. Paper, 35 pages.

Kelly, Susan. Restructuring at the Crossroads: The APPA White Paper. 4 March 2005. Presentation, 22 pages.

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.

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.

Regulatory Conference 

BRASILIA, DF, BRAZIL

June 18, 2018

Ashley C. Brown

Executive Director, Harvard Electricity Policy Group

Harvard Kennedy School

Harvard University

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association et al., Supreme Court Decision (2016).

By confining regulators to judicial constraints when they are acting in a legislative capacity, the Herculean task of directing the path of electricity restructuring is being undertaken under rules that require decision-makers to be utterly passive and only minimally inquisitive. Regulators should be free, when acting in their quasi-legislative capacities, to act like legislators and not like judges.

Raskin, Dave. Jurisdiction Over Net Metering." Presentation to the Harvard Electricity Policy Group 75th Plenary Session, Cambridge, MA, June 2014."

Clark, Tony. The DC Circuit Court Decision on Order No. 745." FERC: Media, June 11, 2014."

Hogan, William. Western Energy Imbalance Market: an Efficient Market with Conflicting Carbon Policies (January 8, 2018)