skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in Western U.S. electric utilities

Abstract

Integrated resource planning (IRP) is an important regulatory process used in many U.S. states to formulate and evaluate least-cost and risk-assessed portfolios to meet future load requirements for electric utilities. In principle, effective implementation of IRP seeks to assure regulators and the public that utility investment decisions, given uncertainty, are as cost-effective as possible. However, to date, there is no empirical assessment on the effectiveness of IRP implementation. In this analysis, we compare planning, procurement processes and actual decisions for a sample of twelve load serving entities (LSEs) across the Western U. S. from 2003-2014. The 2008/2009 recession provides a unique “stress test” to the planning process and offers an excellent opportunity to trace how procurement decisions responded to this largely unforeseen event. In aggregate, there is a general alignment between planned and procured supply-side capacity. However, there are significant differences in the choice of supply-side resources and type of ownership for individual LSEs. We develop case studies for three LSEs and find that subsequent plans differ significantly due to changes in the planning environment and that procurement decisions in some cases are impacted by factors that are not accounted for in the planning process. Our results reveal that amore » limited amount of information produced during the long-term planning process (e.g., forecasts, methods, and least cost/risk portfolios) are ultimately used during the procurement process, and that the latter process relies extensively on the most recent information available for decision making. These findings suggest that states' IRP rules and regulations mandating long-term planning horizons with the same analytical complexity throughout the planning period may not create useful information for the procurement process. The social value of a long-term planning process that departs from procurement and the balance between transparency and complexity of the planning and procurement processes is an open question.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States). Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Division
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE)
OSTI Identifier:
1393625
Report Number(s):
LBNL-2001029
ark:/13030/qt93g3p2k8
DOE Contract Number:
AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY

Citation Formats

Carvallo Bodelon, Juan Pablo, Sanstad, Alan H., and Larsen, Peter H.. Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in Western U.S. electric utilities. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1393625.
Carvallo Bodelon, Juan Pablo, Sanstad, Alan H., & Larsen, Peter H.. Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in Western U.S. electric utilities. United States. doi:10.2172/1393625.
Carvallo Bodelon, Juan Pablo, Sanstad, Alan H., and Larsen, Peter H.. 2017. "Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in Western U.S. electric utilities". United States. doi:10.2172/1393625. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1393625.
@article{osti_1393625,
title = {Exploring the relationship between planning and procurement in Western U.S. electric utilities},
author = {Carvallo Bodelon, Juan Pablo and Sanstad, Alan H. and Larsen, Peter H.},
abstractNote = {Integrated resource planning (IRP) is an important regulatory process used in many U.S. states to formulate and evaluate least-cost and risk-assessed portfolios to meet future load requirements for electric utilities. In principle, effective implementation of IRP seeks to assure regulators and the public that utility investment decisions, given uncertainty, are as cost-effective as possible. However, to date, there is no empirical assessment on the effectiveness of IRP implementation. In this analysis, we compare planning, procurement processes and actual decisions for a sample of twelve load serving entities (LSEs) across the Western U. S. from 2003-2014. The 2008/2009 recession provides a unique “stress test” to the planning process and offers an excellent opportunity to trace how procurement decisions responded to this largely unforeseen event. In aggregate, there is a general alignment between planned and procured supply-side capacity. However, there are significant differences in the choice of supply-side resources and type of ownership for individual LSEs. We develop case studies for three LSEs and find that subsequent plans differ significantly due to changes in the planning environment and that procurement decisions in some cases are impacted by factors that are not accounted for in the planning process. Our results reveal that a limited amount of information produced during the long-term planning process (e.g., forecasts, methods, and least cost/risk portfolios) are ultimately used during the procurement process, and that the latter process relies extensively on the most recent information available for decision making. These findings suggest that states' IRP rules and regulations mandating long-term planning horizons with the same analytical complexity throughout the planning period may not create useful information for the procurement process. The social value of a long-term planning process that departs from procurement and the balance between transparency and complexity of the planning and procurement processes is an open question.},
doi = {10.2172/1393625},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month = 6
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The increasing use and impact of automatic fuel adjustment clauses (AFCA's), which permit electrical utilities to pass through increased fuel costs to customers before rate increases have been approved by regulatory agencies is discussed. The much debated question of whether the use of AFCA's decreases the utilities' incentive to obtain fuel at the lowest possible price, and other aspects of utilities' fuel procurement behavior, including vertical integration into the production of fuel are examined.
  • COMPLEAT takes its name, as an acronym, from Community-Oriented Model for Planning Least-Cost Energy Alternatives and Technologies. It is an electric utility planning model designed for use principally by publicly owned electric utilities and agencies serving such utilities. As a model, COMPLEAT is significantly more full-featured and complex than called out in APPA's original plan and proposal to DOE. The additional complexity grew out of a series of discussions early in the development schedule, in which it became clear to APPA staff and advisors that the simplicity characterizing the original plan, while highly desirable in terms of utility applications, wasmore » not achievable if practical utility problems were to be addressed. The project teams settled on Energy 20/20, an existing model developed by Dr. George Backus of Policy Assessment Associates, as the best candidate for the kinds of modifications and extensions that would be required. The remainder of the project effort was devoted to designing specific input data files, output files, and user screens and to writing and testing the compute programs that would properly implement the desired features around Energy 20/20 as a core program. This report presents in outline form, the features and user interface of COMPLEAT.« less
  • This paper reports statistical tests of the way betas are conventionally calculated. The results demonstrate that conventional betas are not appropriate for assessing the risk of electric utility investments. Electric utility betas calculated in an alternative way indicate a much higher level of risk, while the relative risks of comparison unregulated industries do not prove sensitive to the alternative calculation. For example, the results imply that recent data could lead to estimates of the cost of equity that are about 3 percentage points too low for electric utilities. Further tests reveal that more work is needed. In Phase II ofmore » this project, Charles River Associates Incorporated explores, with mixed results, alternative formulations of the relative risk, of utility investments.« less
  • This document contains summaries of the electric utilities performance-based rate plans for the following companies: Alabama Power Company; Central Maine Power Company; Consolidated Edison of New York; Mississippi Power Company; New York State Electric and Gas Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; PacifiCorp; Pacific Gas and Electric; Southern California Edison; San Diego Gas & Electric; and Tucson Electric Power. In addition, this document also contains information about LBNL`s Power Index and Incentive Properties of a Hybrid Cap and Long-Run Demand Elasticity.
  • Performance-Based Ratemaking (PBR) is a form of utility regulation that strengthens the financial incentives to lower rates, lower costs, or improve nonprice performance relative traditional regulation, which the authors call cost-of-service, rate-of-return (COS/ROR) regulation. Although the electric utility industry has considerable experience with incentive mechanisms that target specific areas of performance, implementation of mechanisms that cover a comprehensive set of utility costs or services is relatively rare. In recent years, interest in PBR has increased as a result of growing dissatisfaction with COS/ROR and as a result of economic and technological trends that are leading to more competition in certainmore » segments of the electricity industry. In addition, incentive regulation has been used with some success in other public utility industries, most notably telecommunications in the US and telecommunications, energy, and water in the United Kingdom. In this report, the authors analyze comprehensive PBR mechanisms for electric utilities in four ways: (1) they describe different types of PBR mechanisms, (2) they review a sample of actual PBR plans, (3) they consider the interaction of PBR and utility-funded energy efficiency programs, and (4) they examine how PBR interacts with electric utility resource planning and industry restructuring. The report should be of interest to technical staff of utilities and regulatory commissions that are actively considering or designing PBR mechanisms. 16 figs., 17 tabs.« less