Electricity

Liu Institute for Global Issues
6476 NW Marine Dr.
Vancouver BC V6T 1Z2

(604) 827-4468 (604) 822-6966
0
Affiliated Faculty
zerriffi.jpg

Hisham Zerriffi is an Assistant Professor and the Ivan Head South/North Research Chair in the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining the UBC Faculty, Dr. Zerriffi was a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. At PESD, he led a new project on the role of institutions in the deployment and diffusion of small-scale energy technologies. The centerpiece of this on-going study is a comparative analysis of different organizational and business models used to provide rural electricity on a local level.

Dr. Zerriffi received his Ph.D. from the Engineering and Public Policy Department at Carnegie Mellon University. His dissertation, "Electric Power Systems Under Stress: An Evaluation of Centralized Versus Distributed System Architectures" examined the reliability and economic implications of implementing large-scale distributed energy systems as a way to mitigate the effects of persistent stress on electric power systems. He has a B.A. in Physics (with minors in Political Science and Religion) from Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH and a Masters of Applied Science in Chemistry from McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Before joining CMU he was a Senior Scientist at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Anton Eberhard writes that South Africa will experience routine electricity blackouts in a few years unless new electricity policy and investment decisions are formulated and implemented this year.

South Africa will experience routine electricity blackouts in a few years unless new electricity policy and investment decisions are formulated and implemented this year.

This is the inexorable conclusion that emerges from scenario and modelling exercises undertaken separately by the National Electricity Regulator, Eskom and large energy-intensive industries.

Growing electricity demand will outstrip existing national supply capacity next year or the year thereafter, assuming a prudent reserve margin to allow for maintenance and unscheduled plant shutdowns.

Hydro-electricity imports, mainly Cahora Bassa in Mozambique, will provide respite for about another year. Thereafter, we need further generation capacity or significant energy savings and demand-side measures.

Eskom has started re-commissioning old moth-balled coal-fired power stations to meet this challenge. Camden, the first plant, will be relatively easy to re-commission and work has commenced. Grootvlei will be more difficult and Komati, the last plant that Eskom plans to re-commission, will be the most uncertain and expensive.

If successful, these old generating stations will give us a breather until around 2008. And then we need new generation capacity.

2008 might seem years away, but investment decisions, environmental impact assessments, plant construction and commissioning take many years. For a hydro-electric or pumped storage scheme, this could take ten years. A coal-fired power station could take six years or more, and gas turbines - two to four years.

If our economy grows faster, or we are not able to implement effective demand-side measures, new power generation capacity might be needed even earlier.

Government is aware of this situation. The President confirmed, in his state of the nation address in parliament in May, that a tender for new capacity will be awarded early in 2005.

The Department of Minerals and Energy has appointed technical advisors to prepare and manage this tender. However, their work schedule indicates that the contract with a new Independent Power Producer will only be concluded early in 2006, and this will only happen if the bid manages to comply with National Treasury's Public Private Partnership regulations. The DME will have to show that Eskom cannot build a new plant more cheaply - an interesting possibility given Eskom's competitive cost of capital and the potential for transfer-pricing with its current portfolio of extremely low-cost generating plant.

Given these tight time constraints, it is not unlikely that we shall have to resort to buying, on an emergency basis, a series of highly expensive, paraffin-burning open-cycle gas turbines.

There is a dangerous assumption that the current tender process for new generation capacity answers concerns about supply security. It does not.

The challenge is not only to manage the current tender process within tight time-constraints. We need to make decisions this year about procuring much more capacity than the approximately 1000 MW anticipated in the current tender.

A likely planning scenario indicates that this year, 2004, we need to make investment decisions on a new pumped-storage scheme, a new pulverised coal-fired plant and a green-field coal fluidized-bed combustor or a combined-cycle gas turbine. In short, we need to start placing orders for a range of new power plant. In ensuing years we shall need to continue to order new plant.

These challenges raise the question of whether a part-time committee of government officials, assisted by consultants, is the most appropriate and sustainable mechanism to continue to procure new power? It also provokes debate about what market structure is appropriate to encourage the most efficient and cost-effective investment decisions?

Following the 1998 While Paper on Energy Policy, and a number of subsequent studies, Cabinet decided, in May 2001, to restructure the power sector by unbundling Eskom's electricity transmission division into an independent company and selling-off 30% of Eskom's generation plants. New capacity would be provided by private investors and an electricity trading market would be established comprising a power exchange and a parallel market for bilateral power contracts and financial hedges. None of this happened.

What is emerging is a quite different market model. In her budget speech, the Minister of Minerals and Energy stated that "the state has to put security of supply above all and above competition especially". The Minister of Public Enterprises has indicated that Eskom will not be privatised and that a strong state-owned utility is important for social and economic development.

Eskom is thus likely to continue to dominate the market. It may even be permitted to build new generation plant. Private sector investment will be permitted only on the margins in the form of Independent Power Producers. They will sign long-term power purchase agreements with Eskom (or with an independent transmission company or system operator, if these are eventually separated form Eskom).

Government will now need to clarify whether the emerging market model for the electricity sector is its preferred model or is merely a temporary measure to secure emergency supplied. This is not a trivial question - for it strikes at the heart of the cost and efficiency issues in the power sector, and will have long-term consequences for electricity prices in this country.

Few remember the controversial electricity price-hikes by Eskom in the late 1970s and 1980s when it made investment mistakes that resulted in huge unused power generation capacity. History demonstrates the potential weaknesses of the old industry model where state-owned monopoly utilities simply pass the costs of poor investment decisions to consumers.

The current tender process is also full of risk. A small number of officials and technical advisors will decide how much new power is needed, using which fuel sources, when and where. While a degree of (once-off) competition might be possible through the tender bids, long-term power purchase agreements could tie-up non-competitive electricity prices for decades.

Plans for a new market structure, where investors have to compete to sell their power in a power exchange or a contract market, have been sacrificed in the face of security of supply concerns.

Periods of supply uncertainty and shortages are never a good time to design and implement new competitive market structures. The long period of large capacity surpluses that provided a window of opportunity for major reform has disappeared. Now we have to patch the current system and prepare for the future.

The default IPP/ single-buyer model that is emerging now requires the establishment of a robust and sustainable institutional structure (probably best attached to the power system operator) that will be responsible for long term planning, security of supply and procurement of generation capacity.

We can avoid future black-outs. But we need to act now.

All News button
1

PESD
Stanford University
616 Serra Street
Encina Hall East, Rm. 420
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 724-1714 (650) 724-1717
1

Ale Núñez was a Research Fellow at the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. At PESD, her research focused on foreign investment in independent power projects in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Her academic interests include privatization and regulation of water and electricity infrastructure in Latin American countries, as well as economic history, sociology and legal theory.

Ale holds a Master of Laws (LL.M, 2003) from Harvard University, where she was research assistant to Duncan Kennedy, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence. She graduated with honors from ITAM (LL.B, 2001), after having been research assistant to the Dean of the Law School, Dr. José Ramón Cossío Díaz, now an Associate Justice at the Mexican Supreme Court. She also worked in the litigation department of Morrison & Foerster LLP in Palo Alto, California, on patent infringement claims and political asylum cases, and was an active member of the firmwide Latin America Practice Group on Finance and Infrastructure.

In her spare time, Ale directs travel videos featuring Mexico, her native country. Her work is available at public libraries and retail stores throughout the US, and at www.alexandratravel.com.

PESD Research Fellow

Encina Hall E313
Stanford, CA 94305-6165

(650) 725 2703
0
zhang.jpg PhD

Dr. Chi Zhang joined PESD in April 2002. He heads up the Program's studies of the Chinese electricity industry reforms. Dr. Zhang has been with IIS since 1998. He was a member of the China Energy and Global Environment Project under CISAC before joining PESD. Previously, he taught at Monterey Institute of International Studies, and was research associate with the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C. and fellow with Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, China.

Chi Zhang received his Ph.D. in economics from the Johns Hopkins University and MA in international economics from the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He also attended Beijing Normal University.

Research Associate
-

Large scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and by modifying turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We explored the climatic impacts of extracting 3-20 TW of electricity with a suite of numerical experiments using two independent atmospheric GCMs and to parameterizations of the wind-turbine arrays. Wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, but at continental scales, the average magnitude of climatic change due to wind power can be significant in comparison to the reduction in climatic change achieved by the substitution of wind or fossil-fuels.

Goldman Conference Room, Forth Floor Encina Hall East

David Keith Associate Professor of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University

School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
UC San Diego
San Diego, CA

(858) 534-3254
0
Professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and Director of the School’s new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation
dvictoronline2.jpg
David G. Victor Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Moderator Center for Environmental Science and Policy
Seminars
Authors
Date
Paragraphs
%people1%, CESP Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development is quoted in New York Times, September 6, 2003 article.

The United States needs natural gas. Developing countries many thousands of miles away are willing to supply it. This sleepy beachfront town and other communities along the Gulf of Mexico are likely to become the links between producers and consumers.

Altogether, energy companies are planning to spend more than $100 billion in the next decade to bring gas from developing countries to rich nations, according to PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. The only way to do it is to supercool the gas so that it condenses into a liquid, which is then compact enough to load onto tankers and send across oceans.

For years, this process was too costly to compete with relatively cheap domestic supplies of natural gas and with imports from Canada. But those supplies are tightening just as the demand for clean-burning gas is soaring. That has led to the most severe gas shortage in the last 25 years and caused domestic gas prices to double this year.

The gap between domestic supply and total demand is forecast to grow significantly over the next 20 years. That has made liquefied natural gas competitive, if only companies can find places that are willing to accept having L.N.G. terminals built nearby. "We've entered the gas age, and there's no turning back if we want a firm supply of a strategically crucial fuel," said Michael S. Smith, an investor who controls Freeport LNG, a Houston company that plans to build a receiving terminal on Quintana Island.

Mr. Smith and his partners, Cheniere Energy and Contango Oil and Gas, both of Houston, expect to begin construction of the terminal early next year on this tiny island about 70 miles south of Houston. The $400 million operation will be able to receive ships full of liquefied natural gas, warming the gas and piping it to a nearby plant owned by the Dow Chemical Company.

Quintana Island's attraction lies not only in its proximity to a plant that uses natural gas as a raw material but also in its location near the center of the nation's energy industry. That, it is hoped, will make political resistance to such projects tepid compared with the safety, aesthetic and environmental concerns in places like Northern California and Massachusetts.

Despite such concerns and worries that large, potentially explosive gas terminals could become terrorist targets, energy companies are eager to import liquefied natural gas. It is a shift that could avoid gas shortages forecast for the future, but could also increase the nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies.

"Just as we're debating the need to diversify our oil supplies, we're faced with an array of challenges to secure reliable and politically stable sources of gas," said David G. Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.

More than a dozen projects like the one here are seeking approval from regulators in North America, including several on the Gulf Coast and in the northern Mexican state of Baja California.

The United States is already the world's largest natural gas producer, and domestic production is expected to increase to 28.5 trillion cubic feet in 2020 from 19.1 trillion cubic feet in 2000, according to the Energy Information Administration. Still, demand is expected to far outstrip production, growing to 33.8 trillion cubic feet by 2020 from 22.8 trillion cubic feet in 2000.

The gas to close that gap - more than five trillion cubic feet, a 40 percent increase in 20 years - will have to come largely from outside the United States.

Almost all of America's imported natural gas currently comes by pipeline from Canada. But a growing market for gas within Canada and rapidly depleting Canadian wells are expected to weaken that country's ability to increase exports. Mexico, though believed to have large untapped gas reserves, is mired in nationalist debate over making it easier for foreign financiers and companies to explore for gas.

As a result, Mexico, a power in crude oil, is a growing importer of natural gas - and an attractive base for liquefied natural gas receiving terminals, which cost as much as $700 million to build. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently forecast that the percentage of North America's gas from imports would climb to 26 percent by 2030 from just 1 percent today.

Those imports will come mostly from developing nations like Equatorial Guinea, a former Spanish colony in West Africa where Marathon Oil of Houston plans to build an L.N.G. plant able to serve gas fields throughout the Gulf of Guinea.

Ambitious ventures are also under way in other West African countries, including Angola and Nigeria, where energy companies were recently burning gas escaping from oil drilling operations because there was no ready market for it. In the Middle East, small countries like Oman, a sultanate on the Strait of Hormuz, and Qatar, are emerging as important gas powers.

In South America, Trinidad and Tobago has become an early leader in exporting liquefied natural gas, although companies in Bolivia and Peru have had difficulties advancing efforts to export L.N.G. to California. Producers in Indonesia, Malaysia and Russia could step in to supply the West Coast, pushing the Andean countries to the margins of the business.

In some ways, the scramble for natural gas projects resembles the heady early days of the oil industry a century ago. Then, British, Dutch and American investors raced around the world to stake out interests in remote oil fields in the Middle East, Central Asia and the archipelagoes of the Java Sea.

Some regions are considered more promising than others. Industry executives point out that just three countries  Iran, Qatar and Russia  hold more than half of the world's natural gas reserves, inevitably focusing attention on the delicate interplay between politics and commerce in these places.

Russia, with the largest proven reserves, plans to start exporting liquefied natural gas in 2007 with deliveries to Japan. Iran, while off limits to American companies because of trade restrictions by the United States, has attracted Japanese, French, British, Indian and South Korean concerns interested in mounting gas ventures.

There are important differences, however, between past oil booms and the current interest in natural gas. For one thing, studies show the world will be swimming in natural gas supplies while oil reserves are expected to dwindle in the decades ahead. Just one area in Qatar, a monarchy near Saudi Arabia with fewer than a million people, is thought to have enough gas to supply the United States for 40 years, according to a study by Deutsche Bank.

The natural gas industry has to overcome several obstacles before evolving into a vibrant global market. Even with ample supplies there is no market for trading liquefied natural gas, as there is for crude oil. Instead, producers and customers sign long-term contracts, sometimes resulting in significant price differences from one year to the next or from one country to another.

One reason the natural gas market has remained fragmented is because the fuel is difficult and expensive to extract and transport. But these costs are declining, adding to the appeal of gas projects. Lord Browne, the chief executive of BP, said the cost of developing gas liquefaction plants had halved since the 1980's, while shipping costs had also fallen.

Shipbuilders are seeking to meet demand for tankers, with the global gas fleet expected to grow to 193 ships by 2006 from 136 in 2002, according to LNG One World, a gas- shipping information service operated by Drewry International of Britain and Nissho Iwai of Japan.

Natural gas is still not considered as crucial as oil for overall energy security since oil's main use is for transportation and there is no short-term alternative. Natural gas has a variety of important industrial uses, like serving as a raw material for fertilizer and generating electricity.

Still, the growth in demand for liquefied natural gas in the United States is expected to outstrip other parts of the world. It is likely to grow 35 percent in the next five years, compared with 20 percent in other North Atlantic countries and 12 percent worldwide, according to Deutsche Bank. Hence the rush to proceed with projects that supply liquefied natural gas to the United States.

"The world could be consuming more gas than oil by 2025," Philip Watts, the chairman of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, the large British-Dutch energy company, said in a recent address to industry executives in Tokyo. "We must be prepared for growing geopolitical turbulence and volatility in an increasingly interdependent world."

The United States has only five terminals capable of receiving L.N.G., including one in Puerto Rico. Almost 20 are on the drawing board, but opposition to the terminals has already prevented the start of work on several of them. Earlier this year, for instance, Shell and Bechtel Enterprises shelved a plan to build a terminal about 30 miles north of San Francisco because of stiff public opposition.

California remains perhaps the most difficult place in the country to gain approval for gas-receiving terminals. This has encouraged imaginative proposals like one last month from BHP Billiton, Australia's largest energy company, for a $600 million floating terminal 20 miles off the coast of Oxnard in the southern part of the state. It remains to be seen whether any of the California projects will be built.

An air of resignation hangs over even the critics of the plan to build the terminal on Quintana, which is scheduled to start operating by 2007. Officials from Freeport LNG have told residents that they expect to make more than $1 million a year in tax payments to the city, a substantial sum for a community of 40 homes that is the smallest municipality in Texas.

At the Jetties, a restaurant on the island's edge overlooking the brown water of the Gulf of Mexico, the walls are plastered with warnings of the perceived dangers of receiving tankers full of potentially combustible gas from far-flung parts of the world. But the restaurant's employees seem to believe that the terminal will be built, inevitably changing the island's easygoing atmosphere.

"People come out here to drink beer on the beach and look at the birds and the gulf," said Dana Difatta, a cook at the restaurant. "Imagine what they'll think when they're staring at some huge vats holding natural gas. Will they be horrified or relieved?"

All News button
1
Paragraphs

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this paper is to present a general framework for electricity market design in Latin American Countries (LACs) that addresses the current problems facing electricity supply industries (ESIs) in this region. The major issue addressed is what market rules, market structures, and legal and regulatory institutions are necessary to establish a competitive wholesale market that provides the maximum possible benefits to consumers consistent with the long-term financial viability of the ESI.

The paper first presents a theoretical foundation for analyzing the electricity market design problem. A generic principal-agent model is presented and its applicability to the electricity market design problem explained. It is then applied to illustrate the incentives for firm behavior under regulation versus market environments. The impact of government versus private ownership on firm behavior in both market and regulated environments is also addressed using this model. This discussion is used to guide our choices for the important lessons for electricity market design in developed countries and LACs.  Using the experiences from ESI reform in developed countries, the paper presents five essential features of a successful wholesale electricity market. The first is the need for a sufficient number of independent suppliers for a competitive market to be possible. Merely declaring the market open to competition will not result in new entry unless no single supplier is able to dominate the market. Second is a forward market for electricity where privately-owned firms are able to sell long-term commitments to supply lectricity. This report argues that the conventional wisdom of establishing a competitive spot market first leading to a competitive forward market is an extremely expensive process in developed countries and is prohibitively expensive in developing countries. Third is the need for the active involvement of as many consumers of electricity as is economically feasible in the operation of the wholesale market.  This involvement should occur both in the long-term and short-term market. In the short-term market, there must be a number of buyers willing to alter their consumption of electricity in response to short-term price signals. Fourth is the importance of a transmission network to facilitate commerce, meaning that the transmission network must have sufficient capacity so that all suppliers face significant competition. This implies a dramatically different approach to determining the quantity and magnitude of transmission network expansions in a market regime.  The final lesson is the need to establish a credible regulatory mechanism as early as possible in the restructuring process. An important lesson from developed countries around the world is that the initial market design will have flaws. This implies the need for ongoing market monitoring to correct these flaws before they develop into disasters.

The paper then takes on the issue of the specific challenges to LAC restructuring. Rather than focus on the details of specific markets, the paper instead identifies a number of problems common to LACs and provides recommended solutions to each of these problems. A major theme of this section is a warning that short-term solutions to market design flaws can have longterm market efficiency costs. The paper identifies seven major challenges to Latin American ESI restructuring. The first is related to the problem of introducing wholesale markets in systems dominated by hydroelectric capacity. This section also deals with the related issue of using cheap hydroelectric power as a way to keep electricity prices low and the risk of electricity shortages high. The second issue is concerned with the difficulties of establishing an active forward market for electricity in LACs. The third relates to the LAC-specific challenges associated with establishing an independent and regulatory body. The fourth addresses the advisability of cost-based versus bid-based dispatch of generation units in LAC wholesale markets. The fifth is how to regulate the default provider retail electricity price in LACs. Sixth concerns the advisability of capacity payments mechanism for ensuring energy adequacy in markets where demand is expected to grow rapidly. The final issue is the role for government versus private ownership in LACs.

The report then discusses specific market design challenges in five LACs. These countries are Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico. A number of these challenges are specific examples of the general challenges discussed earlier in the paper, whereas others are unique to the geography, natural resource base or legal environment in the country.

The report closes with a proposed market design that should serve as a baseline market design for all LACs. Deviations from this basic design could be substantial depending on initial conditions in the industry and the country, but the ideal behind proposing this design is to have a useful starting point for all LAC restructuring processes.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Stanford University, Department of Economics
Authors
Frank Wolak

Encina Hall E419-B
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 724-1714 (650) 724-1717
0
Research Fellow
MHayes.jpg

Mark H. Hayes was recently a Research Fellow with the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD). He lead PESD's research on global natural gas markets, including studies of the growing trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the future for gas demand growth in China.

Dr. Hayes has developed models to analyze the impact of growing LNG imports on U.S. and European gas markets with special attention to seasonality and the opportunity for arbitrage using LNG ships and regasification capacity. From 2002 to 2005, Dr. Hayes managed the Geopolitics of Natural Gas Project, a study of critical political and financial factors affecting investment in cross-border gas trade projects. The study culminated in an edited book volume published by Cambridge University Press.

Prior to coming to Stanford, Mark worked as a financial analyst at Morgan Stanley in New York City. He was a member of the Global Power and Utilities Group, where he was involved in mergers and acquisitions, financing and corporate restructuring.

In 2006 he completed his Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Program on Environment and Resources at Stanford University. After completing his Ph.D. at Stanford, Mark has taken a position at RREEF Infrastructure Investments, San Francisco, CA. Mark also has a B.A. in Geology from Colgate University and an M.A. in International Policy Studies from Stanford. From 1999 to 2002 he served on the Board of Trustees of Colgate University.

Subscribe to Electricity