We analyze the efficiency, distributional, and environmental effects of real-time pricing (RTP) adoption in the short run. Consistent with theory, our simulations of the PJM electricity market show that RTP adoption improves efficiency and compresses the distributions of loads and prices. Adoption increases average load but decreases operating profits with the largest decrease for oil-fired generation (59% when all customers adopt). Consumer surplus and welfare gains are modest (2.5% and 0.24% of the energy bill), and emissions of SO2 and NOx increase but CO2 emissions decrease. Approximately 30% of these efficiency gains could be captured by varying flat rates monthly instead of annually. Monthly flat rate adjustment has many of the same effects as RTP adoption, captures more of the deadweight loss than time of use (TOU) rates, and requires no new metering technology.
BarboseGalen Charles GoldmanNeenanBernie (2004) “A Survey of Utility Experience with Real Time Pricing’“ http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/EMSV_pubs.html.
2.
BorensteinSeverin (2005a). “The Long-Run Efficiency of Real-Time Electricity Pricing.” The Energy Journal, 26(3): 93-116.
3.
BorensteinSeverin (2005b). “Time-Varying Retail Electricity Prices: Theory and Practice,” Electricity Deregulation: Choices and Challenges.PullerS.GriffenJ. Eds. University of Chicago Press.
4.
BorensteinSeverinBushnellJames B.WolakFrank (2002). “Measuring Market Inefficiencies in California’s Restructured Wholesale Electricity Market,” American Economic Review, 92(5): 1376-1405.
5.
BorensteinSeverinHollandStephen P. (2005). “On the Efficiency of Competitive Electricity Markets with Time-Invariant Retail Prices,” RAND Journal of Economics, 36(3):469-493.
6.
BorensteinSeverinJaskeMichaelRosenfeldArthur (2002). Dynamic Pricing, Advanced Metering, and Demand Response in Electricity Markets. Available at www.ucei.org/PDF/csemwp105.pdf.
7.
BushnellJames B. (2005). “Looking for Trouble: Competition Policy in the U.S. Electricity Industry,” in Electricity Deregulation: Choices and Challenges PullerS.GriffenJ.,Eds. University of Chicago Press.
8.
BushnellJames B.MansurErin T. (2005). “Consumption under Noisy Price Signals: A Study of Electricity Retail Rate Deregulation in San Diego,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(4): 493-513.
9.
CavesD.W.ChristensenL.R.HerrigesJ. A. (1987) “The Neoclassical Model of Consumer Demand with Identically Priced Commodities: An Application to Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing.” RAND Journal of Economics, 18: 564-580.
10.
HerrigesJ. A.BaladiS. M.CavesD. W.NeenanB. F., (1993) “The Response of Industrial Customers to Electric Rates Based Upon Dynamic Marginal Costs,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(3): 446-454.
11.
HollandStephen P.MansurErin T. (2004). “Is Real-Time Pricing Green?: The Environmental Impacts of Electricity Demand Variance,” CSEM WP-136.
12.
JenkinsAlan (2005) “Real Time Pricing Alive and Well in Georgia” EnergyPulse. http://www.ener-gypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=956
13.
JoskowPaul (2000). “Why Do We Need Electricity Retailer? or Can You Get It Cheaper Wholesale?” mimeo.
14.
JoskowPaulKahnEdward (2002). “A Quantitative Analysis of Pricing Behavior in California’s Wholesale Electricity Market during Summer 2000,” The Energy Journal, 23(4): 1-35.
15.
JoskowPaulTiroleJean (2004). “Retail Electricity Competition,” NBER working paper #10473.
16.
MansurErin T. (2004) “Measuring Welfare in Restructured Electricity Markets,” mimeo.
17.
MansurErin T. (forthcoming) “Vertical Integration in Restructured Electricity Markets: Measuring Market Efficiency and Firm Conduct.” Journal of Law and Economics.
18.
MatsukawaIsamu (2004). “The Effects of Information on Residential Demand for Electricity.” The Energy Journal, 25(1): 1-17.
19.
MoezziMithraGoldmanCharlesSezgenOsmanBharvirkarRanjitHopperNicole,(2004) “Real Time Pricing and the Real Live Firm” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California, LBNL-54978, http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-54978.
20.
PatrickRobertWolakFrank (2001). “Real-Time Pricing and Demand Side Participation in Restructured Electricity Markets,” mimeo.
21.
PriceCatherine Waddams (2004). “Spoilt for Choice? The Costs and Benefits of Opening UK Residential Energy Markets,” CSEM WP-123.
22.
RassentiStephen J.SmithVernon L.WilsonBart J. (2003). “Discriminatory Price Auctions in Electricity Markets: Low Volatility at the Expense of High Price Levels.” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 23(2): 109-123.
23.
ReissPeterWhiteMatthew W. (2003). “Demand and Pricing in Electricity Markets: Evidence from San Diego During California’s Energy Crisis,” NBER WP #9986.
24.
SchwartzPeterTaylorThomasBirminghamMattDardenShana (2002). “Industrial Response to Electricity Real-time Prices: Short-Run and Long-Run.” Economic Inquiry, 40(4): 597-610.
25.
TaylorT.N.SchwarzP.M.CochellJ.E. (2005). “24/7 Hourly Response to Electricity Real-Time Pricing with up to Eight Summers of Experience.” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 27(3): 235-262.
