We analyze the optimal design of policies to motivate electricity distribution companies to adopt efficient distributed energy resources (DER) and manage associated project costs. The optimal policy often entails a bias against new DER projects and implements cost sharing when DER projects are undertaken in order to foster cost containment while limiting excessive profit for the utility. Failure to adequately tailor the degree of cost sharing to the prevailing environment can raise procurement costs substantially. The distribution company may optimally be awarded more than the cost saving it achieves.
Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) (2014). In the Matter of Arizona Public Service Company for Approval of its 2014 Renewable Energy Standard Implementation Plan for RESET of Renewable Energy Adjustor. Docket No. E-01345A-12-0140. http://images.edocket.azcc.gov/docketpdf/0000156237.pdf.
2.
BiggarD. (2017). “The Transformation of the Electricity Sector in Australia: The Public Policy and Competition Policy Issues.” OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation Paper # DAF/C0MP/WP2(2017)1. http://www.oecd.org/competition/radical-innovation-in-the-electricity-sector.htm.
3.
BowerA. (1993). “Procurement Policy and Contracting Efficiency.” International Economic Review34(4): 873-901. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526970.
4.
BrownD.SappingtonD. (2017). “Designing Compensation for Distributed Solar Generation: Is Net Metering Ever Optimal?” The Energy Journal38(3): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.3.dbro.
5.
BrownD.SappingtonD. (2018). “Technical Appendix to Accompany ‘Optimal Procurement of Distributed Energy Resources’.” https://uofa.ualberta.ca/arts/about/people-collection/david-brown.
6.
California Public Utilities Commission (2013). Distribution Resources Plan R.14-08-013. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=5071.
7.
California Public Utilities Commission (2016a). Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Introducing a Draft Regulatory Incentives Proposal: Discussion and Comment. Rulemaking 14-10-003.
8.
California Public Utilities Commission(2016b). Decision Addressing Competitive Solicitation Framework and Utility Regulatory Incentive Pilot. Rulemaking 14-10-003. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M171/K162/171162207.PDF.
9.
ChuL.SappingtonD. (2007). “Simple Cost-Sharing Contracts.” American Economic Review97(1): 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282807780323433.
10.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2017). An Act Relative to Local Energy Investment and Infrastructure Modernization. Bill H.175 in the 190th Court. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H1725.
11.
CossentR.GomezT. (2013). “Implementing Incentive Compatible Menus of Contracts to Regulate Electricity Distribution Investments.” Utilities Policy27: 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjup.2013.09.002.
12.
CostaP.BentoN.MarquesV. (2017). “The Impact of Regulation on a Firm’s Incentive to Invest in Emergent Smart Grid Technologies.” The Energy Journal38(2): 149-174.
13.
CoutureT.GagnonY. (2010). “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models: Implications for Renewable Energy Investment.” Energy Policy38(3): 955-965. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.enpol.2009.10.047.
14.
CrouchM. (2006). “Investment under RPI-X: Practical Experience with an Incentive Compatible Approach in the GB Electricity Distribution Sector.” Utilities Policy14(4): 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjup.2006.05.005.
15.
Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (PUC) (2014). Instituting a Proceeding to Investigate Distributed Energy Resource Policies, Docket No. 2014-0192. http://dms.puc.hawaii.gov/dms/DocketSearch?V_DocketNumber=2014-0192&V_DocketType=All&V_IndustryType=All&V_Status=All&AllWordsGroup=0&QuickLink=1.
16.
JenkinsJ.Perez-ArriagaI. (2014). “The Remuneration Challenge: New Solutions for the Regulation of Electricity Distribution Utilities Under High Penetrations of Distributed Energy Resources and Smart Grid Technologies.” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research Working Paper 2014-005. http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2014-005.pdf.
17.
JenkinsJ.Perez-ArriagaI. (2017). “Improved Regulatory Approaches for the Remuneration of Electricity Distribution Utilities with High Penetrations of Distributed Energy Resources.” The Energy Journal38(3): 63-91.
18.
JoskowP (2008). “Incentive Regulation and Its Application to Electricity Networks.” Review of Network Economics7(4): 547-560. https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1161.
19.
JoskowP. (2014). “Incentive Regulation in Theory and Practice: Electricity Distribution and Transmission Networks,” in Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned? N. Rose (ed.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 291-344.
20.
LaffontJ.MartimortD. (2002). The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-AgentModel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
LaffontJ.TiroleJ. (1993). A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press.
22.
LavrijssenS. (2017). “Power to the Energy Consumers.” OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation Paper #DAF/COMP/WP2(2017)3. http://www.oecd.org/competition/radical-innovation-in-the-electricity-sector.htm.
23.
LavrijssenS.CarrilloA. (2017). “Radical Innovation in the Energy Sector and the Impact on Regulation.” OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation Paper #DAF/COMP/WP2(2017)5. http://www.oecd.org/competition/radical-innovation-in-the-electricity-sector.htm.
24.
MIT Energy Initiative (2016). Utility of the Future: An MIT Energy Initiative Response to an Industry in Transition. Cambridge, MA. https://energy.mit.edu/wp.../2016/12/Utility-of-the-Future-Executive-Summary.pdf.
25.
MyersonR. (1979). “Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica47(1): 61-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912346.
26.
National Grid (2017). 2017 System Reliability Procurement Report, Submitted to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, RIPUC Docket No. 4655, October 17, http://www.ripuc.org/eventsactions/docket/4655-NGrid-SRP2017(10-17-16).pdf.
27.
New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) (2014). Developing the REV Market in New York: DPS Staff Straw Proposal on Track One Issues, Case 14-M-0101 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision.
28.
New York Public Service Commission (2015). Order Adopting Regulatory Policy Framework and Implementation Plan. Case 14-M-0101 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision. http://energystor-age.org/resources/nys-psc-rev-order-adopting-regulatory-policy-framework-and-implementation-plan-track-one-0.
29.
New York Public Service Commission (2016). Order Adopting Ratemaking and Utility Revenue Model Policy Framework, Case 14-M-0101 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission in Regard to Reforming the Energy Vision.
30.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) (2017). “EM&V Forum and Policy Brief: State Leadership Driving NonWires Alternative Projects and Policies,” January, http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/NWA%20brief%20final%20draft%20-%20CT%20FORMAT.pdf.
31.
Ofgem (2009). Electricity Distribution Price Control Review: Final Proposals - Incentives and Obligations, Decision Document 145/09.
32.
PoullikkasA. (2013). “A Comparative Assessment of Net Metering and Feed in Tariff Schemes for Residential PV Systems.” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2013.04.001.
33.
ReichelsteinS. (1992). “Constructing Incentive Schemes for Government Contracts: An Application of Agency Theory.” Accounting Review67(4): 712-31.
34.
RevConnect (2017), Non-Wires Alternatives, Updated November 9, https://nyrevconnect.com/non-wires-alternatives/.
35.
RogersonW. (2003). “Simple Menus of Contracts in Cost-Based Procurement and Regulation.” American Economic Review93(3): 919-926. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322157160.
36.
RuesterS.Perez-ArriagaI.SchwenenS.BatlleC.GlachantJ. (2014). “From Distribution Networks to Smart Distribution Systems: Rethinking the Regulation of European Electricity DSOs.” Utilities Policy31: 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2014.03.007.
37.
SappingtonD. (1982). “Optimal Regulation of Research and Development Under Imperfect Information.” Bell Journal of Economics13(2): 354-368. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003459.
38.
SappingtonD.WeismanD. (1996). Designing Incentive Regulation for the Telecommunications Industry. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press.
St JohnJ. (2016). “SoCal Edison’s Grid Edge Experiment Contracts for 125MW of Batteries and Demand Response.” Greentech Media, September 13, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/socal-edisons-grid-edge-experiment-contracts-for-125mw-of-batteries-and-dem#gs.1sqEuHg.
41.
WolakF. (2017). “Efficient Pricing: The Key to Unlocking Radical Innovation in the Electricity Sector.” OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation Paper # DAF/COMP/WP2(2017)4. http://www.oecd.org/competition/radi-cal-innovation-in-the-electricity-sector.htm.
42.
YamamotoY. (2012). “Pricing Electricity from Residential Photovoltaic Systems: A Comparison of Feed-in Tariffs, Net Metering, and Net Purchase and Sale.” Solar Energy86(9): 2678-2685. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.solener.2012.06.001.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
