Impact of competitive electricity market on renewable generation technology choice and policies in the United States

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 1237-1240
Author(s):  
Ashok Sarkar
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron Hughes ◽  
Caitlin Graham ◽  
Charles July ◽  
Adam Brown ◽  
Thomas Schubert ◽  
...  

In the wake of dramatic policy changes commencing in late 2015, including the Government of Alberta’s announcement of the Climate Leadership Plan, the Renewable Energy Program, and the decision to introduce a parallel capacity market into Alberta’s previous energy-only market, the future of Alberta’s electricity market is uncertain. However, regulatory intervention in an attempt to improve the function of electricity markets and encourage renewable generation is not a new concept.Other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and jurisdictions in the United States, have used regulatory intervention to address issues in energy markets and to drive renewable generation. Regulatory intervention in these jurisdictions has not always achieved the intended consequences. In some cases, regulatory intervention has exacerbated issues it intended to solve, or created new problems. In other cases, regulatory intervention has relatively improved the function of electricity markets and incited renewable generation. This paper considers the evolution of energy policy and competing policy drivers, including system reliability, use of sustainable fuels to generate electricity, and price surges. The paper will discuss the success and failure of regulatory intervention in select jurisdictions, and how these lessons might apply in the new age of Alberta’s electricity market.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Flores-Espino ◽  
Tian Tian ◽  
Ilya Chernyakhovskiy ◽  
Megan Mercer ◽  
Mackay Miller

Author(s):  
Michael B. McElroy

Nuclear power was widely regarded as the Holy Grail for energy supply when first introduced into the US electricity market in the late 1950s and early 1960s— power so cheap that utilities could scarcely afford the cost of the meters needed to monitor its consumption and charge for its use. The first civilian reactor, with a capacity to produce 60 MW of electricity (MWe), went into service in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in late 1957. By the end of 1974, 55 reactors were in operation in the United States with a combined capacity of about 32 GWe. The largest individual power plant had a capacity of 1.25 GWe: the capacity of reactors constructed since 1970 averaged more than 1 GWe. The industry then went into a state of suspended animation. A series of highly publi¬cized accidents was responsible for this precipitous change in the fortunes of the industry. Only 13 reactors were ordered in the United States after 1975, and all of these orders were subsequently cancelled. Public support for nuclear power effectively disappeared in the United States following events that unfolded at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979. It suffered a further setback, not only in the United States but also worldwide, in the wake of the disaster that struck at the Chernobyl nuclear facility in the Ukraine on April 26, 1986. The most recent confidence- sapping development occurred in Japan, at the Fukushima- Daiichi nuclear complex. Floodwaters raised by a tsunami triggered by a major offshore earthquake resulted in a series of self- reinforcing problems in March 2011, culminating in a highly publicized release of radioactivity to the environment that forced the evacuation of more than 300,000 people from the surrounding communities If not a death blow, this most recent accident certainly clouded prospects for the future of nuclear power, not only in Japan but also in many other parts of the world. Notably, Germany elected to close down its nuclear facilities, leading to increased dependence on coal to meet its demand for electricity, seriously complicating its objective to markedly reduce the nation’s overall emissions of CO2.


2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (8) ◽  
pp. 1886-1891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Auffhammer ◽  
Patrick Baylis ◽  
Catherine H. Hausman

It has been suggested that climate change impacts on the electric sector will account for the majority of global economic damages by the end of the current century and beyond [Rose S, et al. (2014)Understanding the Social Cost of Carbon: A Technical Assessment]. The empirical literature has shown significant increases in climate-driven impacts on overall consumption, yet has not focused on the cost implications of the increased intensity and frequency of extreme events driving peak demand, which is the highest load observed in a period. We use comprehensive, high-frequency data at the level of load balancing authorities to parameterize the relationship between average or peak electricity demand and temperature for a major economy. Using statistical models, we analyze multiyear data from 166 load balancing authorities in the United States. We couple the estimated temperature response functions for total daily consumption and daily peak load with 18 downscaled global climate models (GCMs) to simulate climate change-driven impacts on both outcomes. We show moderate and heterogeneous changes in consumption, with an average increase of 2.8% by end of century. The results of our peak load simulations, however, suggest significant increases in the intensity and frequency of peak events throughout the United States, assuming today’s technology and electricity market fundamentals. As the electricity grid is built to endure maximum load, our findings have significant implications for the construction of costly peak generating capacity, suggesting additional peak capacity costs of up to 180 billion dollars by the end of the century under business-as-usual.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document