To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

Imperfect Markets versus Imperfect Regulation in US Electricity Generation

American Economic Review 2022 112(2), 409-441 open access
This paper evaluates changes in electricity generation costs caused by the introduction of market mechanisms to determine production in the United States. I use the staggered transition to markets from 1999 to 2012 to estimate the causal impact of liberalization using a differences-in-difference design on a comprehensive hourly panel of electricity demand, generators’ costs, capacities, and output. I find that markets reduce production costs by 5 percent by reallocating production: gains from trade across service areas increase by 55 percent based on a 25 percent increase in traded electricity, and costs from using uneconomical units fall 16 percent. (JEL L51, L94, L98, Q41, Q48)

When Does Regulation Distort Costs? Lessons from Fuel Procurement in US Electricity Generation: Reply

American Economic Review 2021 111(4), 1373-1381
The average effect of deregulatory policies on fuel prices at coal-fired power plants is strongly influenced by plants that were initially paying the highest prices for fuel. Primary sources document that these plants were locked into long-term, high-cost fuel contracts, and only secured market rates post-deregulation. While these plants' fuel costs were unusual, their response to deregulation was not: both coal- and gas-fired plants reduce fuel prices one-for-one with the amount they were initially paying above their neighbors' costs. Our understanding of deregulation is not improved by excluding those who stand to benefit most. (JEL L51, L71, L94, L98, Q35, Q41, Q48)

When Does Regulation Distort Costs? Lessons from Fuel Procurement in US Electricity Generation

American Economic Review 2015 105(1), 411-444 open access
This paper evaluates changes in fuel procurement practices by coal-and gas-fired power plants in the United States following state-level legislation that ended cost-of-service regulation of electricity generation. I find that deregulated plants substantially reduce the price paid for coal (but not gas) and tend to employ less capital-intensive sulfur abatement techniques relative to matched plants that were not subject to any regulatory change. Deregulation also led to a shift toward more productive coal mines. I show how these results lend support to theories of asymmetric information, capital bias, and regulatory capture as important sources of regulatory distortion. (JEL L51, L71, L94, L98, Q35, Q41, Q48)