What
if anything does the European experience tell us ?
There is a continuing and long
running source of tension in political approaches to the power sector and
indeed to network energy utilities as a whole. It is between central direction
and state involvement on the one hand and privatisation and liberalised markets
on the other. The distinction is of course often full of ambiguities. Today,
two very different models for electricity commercialization operate in the
different states of the USA. Most popular now is a competitive model, in which
power producers can openly access transmission infrastructure and participate
in wholesale electricity markets. The other is the traditional regulated
monopoly model, in which state commissions regulate privately owned and vertically
integrated electricity providers, who are de facto central planners. In Europe
state owned companies, such as EdF (still 85% state owned), have participated
successfully in liberalising markets across Europe.
Three factors help explain
both the liberalisation trend and the fact that it will continue to struggle
for wider acceptance. They are “the three D’s” -decarbonisation, digitalisation and decentralisation, all of which
are having and will continue to have a major impact on the governance of the
power sector.
But first it is worth recalling
the features of the power sector that explain its historical development as
some form of monopoly, with central control (not always at national level) over
the operation of the system.
1.
The natural monopoly character of networks, the
high and medium voltage transmission or distribution lines, transformers and control
operations which imply a heavy cost of physical fixed infrastructure.
2.
The command and control nature of the real time
operation of systems to balance supply and demand.
3.
Finally there is the need to secure investment
in very expensive immobile plant, eg generating plant, with a very long life. Investors
need inducement to put money in a utility in return for a low but secure rate
of return – this is critical to the affordability of power for consumers.
The answer historically was
always that some form of centrally controlled monopoly, publicly or privately
owned, and with a high degree of vertical integration, was both inevitable and demonstrably
the most economically efficient model. The liberalisation message, by contrast,
was that you could and indeed should unbundle the elements that were natural
monopoly – the wires business - from the elements that were in principle at
least open to competition – generation and retail sale to consumers. The
natural monopoly networks could then be put into private ownership and regulated
by statute to maintain quality standards and limit the owners to a fair rate of
return. The competitive elements, especially generation, would be subject to
market disciplines and economic regulation confined to monitoring by the
national competition authorities.
A major factor permitting liberalisation
was the extent of advance in sophisticated communication and IT systems (digitalisation), which had the effect
of reducing the otherwise huge transactions costs in unbundling an integrated
activity like electricity supply. This allowed, inter alia, the penetration of
competitive market ideas right down to the level of retail supply to small
consumers. Even so the industry retains a substantial, and necessary, element
of command and control, over system operations, which is achieved through a
complex structure of operating codes and protocols.
So what are the lessons from
European experience. The messages are mixed. The UK was a pioneer and pushed
the liberalisation process furthest – widely cited as a great achievement. The
rest of Europe, pushed by the European Commission, has been moving more slowly
and hesitantly along the same track. There are a plethora of different models,
with variations on the degree of unbundling, monopoly and competition, and different
forms of state involvement and intervention.
But has liberalisation been a
great success? One can certainly point to particular plus points, especially in
the regulation of the network businesses, but I would suggest that the answer
is much more complex and nuanced. The UK has major problems with the power
sector, with several indicators that all is not well. Little or no investment
in generation now takes place without some form of government subsidy or
guarantee; in other words the government has been sucked back into close
involvement with, and responsibility for, investment decisions in the sector;
at the same time it has lost many of the key levers and policy instruments previously
provided by ownership, and which would assist good decision making.
Another area of disquiet has
been the operation of retail competition, with substantial allegations of
various forms of abuse or unfair trading practices. At the last election both
parties went into the election on a platform of price controls, an anathema to
any conception of a properly functioning liberalised market.
And has the more liberalised
UK industry been more successful than its rivals within the EU? If we look at
the levels of retail prices as an international comparison[1] (which has its own
complexities) the evidence is not compelling. The UK is in the middle of the
pack and does not do as well as France in particular. France, with its history
of state ownership and a dirigiste approach to the economy, has been perhaps
the most successful over the period, at least for the power sector.
For the future we need to turn
to the other two D’s. Decarbonisation
will have the most profound impact on how the sector is managed and governed.
There are huge difficulties in relying on a carbon price alone to achieve the
emissions reductions we need. That implies more interventionist policies not
fewer. And the low carbon technologies lack the flexibility of fossil
generation. This creates both technical and theoretical difficulties[2] for efficient systems operation
within a conventional market framework. This will inevitable lead to some
return towards more command and control within system operations.
Digitalisation has
enabled the unbundling and successful market experiments that we have. It now
needs to be deployed to enable much more interesting forms of competition and
innovation at the retail level, but it won’t resolve the fundamental investment
conundrum – of getting large scale investment.
Decentralisation
and
local control depend partly on what become the dominant low carbon technologies,
but much more on the growing involvement of consumers – the demand side. The
centre of gravity of decision may move away from the centre to much more local
entities. But many of the same dilemmas for policy, securing investment and
meeting low carbon targets, will still be there. Paradoxically the loss of
scale may predispose to less market oriented approaches, as the complexities
and transaction costs involved in small scale power networks outweigh any
theoretical benefit from competition incentives.
In my view we are seeing a
slow move back towards greater government involvement in the power sector, for
all the reasons above. The challenge will be to develop our existing structures
to accommodate the interventions necessary to decarbonise the economy, while at
the same time continuing to exploit the innovations, not least in tariffs and
metering[3], that can spring at least
in part from domestic supply competition.
[1] I
drew attention to the UK – France comparison in a
recent comment on 27 January.
[2] This
is an issue discussed in more detail elsewhere on this site, but is part of a
family of rather technical issues around the conditions that can create market
failure.
[3]
This is another subject discussed earlier in the context of utility
tariffs in a low carbon future.
No comments:
Post a Comment