|

Bryan Leyland
|
MSc, FIEE, FIMechE,
FIPENZ, MRSNZ
Brian is a
consulting engineer specializing in electricity generation and
transmission. He is part owner and operator of a small hydro
power scheme. He is
Chairman of the economics panel of the New Zealand Climate
Science Coalition.
|
|
Opinion
Pieces
Contact us if
you would like to submit an opinion piece. We are seeking
commentators on a range of topics, including: RMA, crime and
justice, environmental issues, Maori issues, a NZ constitution
and governance. Contact
NZCPR.
|
|
Skip to make comment
|
Send to a friend
NZCPR
Guest
Why
is electricity so expensive?
Bryan
Leyland
1
November 2009
I
am writing this article in response to Muriel's question
"why is electricity so expensive"? There is a simple
answer to this question. "The electricity 'market'".
But explaining how and why it drives up prices and will
continue to do so, is rather more complicated.
I will try to do just that.
New
Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt an electricity
market. The Wholesale Electricity Market Development Group
(WEMDG) were given the job of designing
"a wholesale electricity market that …. would
ensure that wholesale electricity is delivered at the lowest
cost to the economy". In the end, it came down to two
options. One option was what it is called a "single
buyer" market the other, which they selected, was called
a "Vickrey Auction" where each generator bids in at
the lowest cost for which he is prepared to generate (or so
the theory goes). The system operator determines the expected
load, stacks up all the bids in price order and then pays all
the generators at the price bid by the most expensive
generator. In a power system that is almost entirely based on
fossil fuel generation such as Australia's, this is a
reasonably sensible system. Old, inefficient stations have to
bid in at a high price while new efficient stations are able
to bid at a lower price. So, in theory at least, new and
efficient drives out old and inefficient.
With
a single buyer market, there is an organisation that manages
and coordinate the system and purchases electricity from each
power station on the basis of a long-term contract. When new
stations are needed tenders are invited from the genuinely
competitive international market in building and operating
power stations. If it had been adopted in New Zealand, a
single buyer market would have guaranteed us a long term
low-cost supply from the existing heavily depreciated hydro,
geothermal and other power stations.
New stations would be more expensive but, as they only
supplied about 25% of our total load, they would not have had
a huge effect on the end price to the consumer.
WEMDG
was advised that there was little to choose between the two
schemes (which seems very odd to me) but they were warned that
the single buyer market carried no risks because it would
clearly work and it would provide electricity at the average
cost of generation. They were also advised that the Vickrey
Auction based market was untested anywhere in the world and
hence represented a voyage into unknown territory.
For
reasons that seem to be lost in the mists of time, the risky
option was chosen.
To
me at least, it was obvious from the beginning that the market
had serious flaws. The major problem is that generators make
money only if their power stations actually generate
electricity. This totally ignores the fact that any power
system must carry something like 20% of reserve capacity to
cope with breakdowns, emergencies, unexpected and rapid
increases in demand and the like. In New Zealand, we also need
to have sufficient reserve capacity to get us through a
drought. The generally accepted target is to get through a one
in 20 year drought without a serious shortage. It follows that
in most years, dry year reserve stations will generate very
little but will run flat out during a dry year. At the moment,
Huntly Power Station, which Genesis now say they cannot afford
to continue to operate, serves this vital role.
A
rational market design would have ensured that dry year
reserve stations were adequately rewarded even when they were
on standby. Our market does no such thing. Because they
believed that "electricity is a commodity like any
other" their theory was that as the price went up, the
demand would go down by the 15% or so needed to compensate for
the loss of generation during a drought. In economics 101 they
should have learned that with true market commodities like
tinned food you can always buy spaghettis if baked beans get
too expensive. Electricity
is an essential commodity for which there is no alternative.
The
situation with the New Zealand system is that when the hydro
lakes are spilling water, (which does not happen very often)
the price is very low. When the lake levels are normal, (which
happens about 80% of the time) the price is driven by the most
expensive generation - usually the thermal power stations.
When the lake levels are low, the hydro generators try
to save water for their own consumers so they bid in a very
high price for supplying any additional power to the spot
market. At the same time, the thermal generators are running
flat out, and so get the benefit of this high price.
The
major reason for our rapidly increasing electricity prices is
that the hydro stations that generate more than 60% of
electricity get rewarded with a very high price even though
their real cost of generation is very low. To make sure that
this does not show up as a very high rate of return on the
original asset value, all the generators have revalued their
hydro stations by a factor of three or more. They are then
able to claim that their return on asset value is moderate -
or even quite low!
If
the price of gas or coal increases, then the thermal stations
put up the price, and, once again, the hydro generators
benefit. The emissions trading scheme will increase the cost
of thermal generation even more and, as a result, the
consumers of New Zealand will finish up paying a carbon tax on
electricity generated from hydropower!
If
we get a Emissions Trading Scheme that values CO2 at $20 per
tonne, the cost of electricity to the consumer will increase
by about $800 million per annum. Something like $600 million
of this will be windfall profits. The way the market works, it
will be in the hydro generators financial interests to spill
water to ensure that Huntly power station keeps on generating.
A very perverse result for a tax that was meant to
hasten its demise!
In
summary, electricity prices are high and will continue
to increase because:
-
The
electricity market rewards low-cost hydro generators with
huge windfall profits;
-
Lack
of reserve capacity means that there will always be high
prices and shortages during a drought;
-
The
construction of a new - and inevitably expensive - station
puts up the price for everyone;
-
Most
of the time, there is no real competition and the price
seems to be "a trade-off between greed and
guilt".;
-
The
ETS will result in a very large price increase.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
To comment go to
letters to editor
>>>
Skip to top |
Send to
a friend:
|