This paper estimates short- and long-run marginal production costs and returns to scale in electric power generation in the United States. We find substantial short-run diseconomies of scale at high output levels. A relatively large number of small and mid-sized firms have optimal capital stocks below actual levels. In contrast, several large firms have optimal capital stock targets substantially above current levels. These disparities in actual and optimal capital suggest a possible consolidation in the industry.
AtkinsonS.HalvorsenR. (1984). “Parametric efficiency tests, economies of scale, and input demand in U. S. electric power generation.” International Economic Review25: 647-662.
2.
BeachC.M.MacKinnonJ.G. (1978). “A maximum likelihood procedure for regression with autocorrelated errors.” Econometrica46: 51-58.
3.
BerndtE. K.HallB.H.HallR.E.HausmanJ.A. (1974). “Estimation and inference in nonlinear structural models.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement (October): 653-665.
4.
BerndtE.K.SavinN.E. (1975). “Estimation and hypothesis testing in singular equation systems with autoregressive disturbances.” Econometrica43: 937-957.
5.
BorensteinS.BushnellJ. (1999). “An empirical analysis of the potential for market power in California's electricity industry.” Journal of Industrial Economics47: 285-323.
6.
BrownM. (1968). On the Theory and Measurement of Technological Change. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrownRandallChristensenL. (1981). “Estimating elasticities of substitution in a model of partial static equilibrium: An application to U. S. agriculture, 1947-1974,” in Measuring and Modeling Natural Resource Substitution, edited by Berndt E., B. Field. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8.
CavesD. W.ChristensenL. R. (1980). “Global properties of flexible functional forms.” American Economic Review70: 422-432.
9.
ChiangJ.S.FriedlaenderA.F. (1985). “Truck Technology and Efficient Market Structure.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 67(2)(May): 250-258.
10.
ChristensenL.R.GreeneW.H. (1976). “Economies of scale in U. S. electric power generation,” Journal of Political Economy84: 655-676.
11.
CowingT.R.SmithV.K. (1978). “The estimation of a production technology: a survey of econometric analyses of steam-electric generation.” Land Economics54(2): 156-185.
12.
DiewertW. E. (1971). “An application of the Shephard duality theorem, a generalized Leontief production function.” Journal of Political Economy79(3): 481-507.
13.
DiewertW. E. (1976). “Exact and superlative index numbers.” Journal of Econometrics 4(May): 115-145.
14.
Energy Information Administration (1996). Financial statistics of major U. S. investor-owned electric utilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
ImK.S.PesaranM.H.ShinY. (1997). “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels,” Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, Working Paper, available at Pesaran's web site, (http:/www.Cambridge.ac.uk): 13 pgs.
16.
LauL. J. (1978). “Applications of profit functions,” in Production Economics: A dual approach to theory and applications, edited by M. A. Fuss, and D. McFadden. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
17.
MorrisonC. (1985a). “On the economic interpretation and measurement of optimal capacity utilization with anticipatory expectations.” Review of Economic Studies52: 295-310.
18.
MorrisonC. (1985b). “Primal and dual capacity utilization: An application to productivity measurement in the U. S. automobile industry.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics39: 312-324.
19.
MorrisonC. (1988). “Quasi-fixed inputs in U. S. and Japanese manufacturing: A generalized Leontief restricted cost function approach.” The Review of Economics and Statistics70: 275-287.
20.
NerloveM. (1963). “Returns to scale in electricity supply,” in Measurements in economics—Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics in memory of Yehuda Grunfeld, edited by C. F.Christ. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
