Pricing and Technology Options: An Analysis of Ontario Electricity Capacity Requirements and GHG Emissions

  • Pierre-Olivier Pineau
  • Stephan Schott
Chapter

Abstract

Many jurisdictions face the problem of having to reduce GHG emissions and new electricity capacity requirements. Ontario has the additional commitment of phasing out its coal power plants. Time of use (TOU) pricing is seldom considered as an option in the analysis of these problems, even if its impacts on capacity requirements and emissions can be substantial. We analyze to what extent TOU pricing can reduce capacity requirements and we evaluate its impacts on total energy use and CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions under different technologies. We also introduce “transfer of demand” between peak and off-peak periods to account for cross-price elasticity between time periods.

Keywords

Price Elasticity Peak Period Technology Option Electricity Sector Royal Academy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayres, M., MacRae, M., and Stogran, M. (2004). Levelised Unit Electricity Cost Comparison of Alternate Technologies for Baseload Generation in Ontario. Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association, Calgary, Canadian Energy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Borenstein, S. (2004). The Long-Run Effects of Real-Time Electricity Pricing. Working paper CSEM WP-133. Center for the Study of Energy Markets.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, C., Biewald, B., and White, D. (2003). A Clean Path to Ozone Annex Compliance: Phasing Out Ontario's Coal-Fired Power Plants. Prepared for The OntAIRio Campaign, Cambridge, Synapse Energy Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Crew, M.A., and Kleindorfer, P.R. (1986). The Economics of Public Utility Regulation Houndmills, The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Environment Canada (2002). Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2000. Greenhouse Gas Division Environment Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  6. Environment Canada (22003a). 1990–2001 National and Provincial GHG Emissions. Webpage accessed on September 16, 2004. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ghg/ghg_tables_2001_e.cfm.Google Scholar
  7. Environment Canada (2003b). Glossary. Webpage accessed on September 16, 2004. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/glossary_e.cfm.Google Scholar
  8. Electricity Conservation & Supply Task Force (2004). Tough Choices: Addressing Ontario's Power Needs. Final Report to the Minister.Google Scholar
  9. Energy Information Administration (2001), Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Electric Power Plants with Advanced Technology Scenarios. SR/OIAF/2001-05, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Filippini, M. (1995a). Swiss residential demand for electricity by time of use: An application of the almost ideal demand system. Energy Journal, 16(1):1–13.Google Scholar
  12. Filippini, M. (1995b). Electricity demand by time of use—An application of the household AIDS model. Energy Economics, 17(3):197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Government of Canada (2001). Canada's Third National Report on Climate Change-Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  14. Herriges, J.A., Baladi, S.M., Caves, D.W., and Neenan, B.F. (1993). The response of industrial customers to electric rates based upon dynamic marginal costs. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 75(3):446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hydro Ottawa (2004). Residential and Small Business Rates. Webpage accessed on July 5, 2004. https://www.hydroottawa.com/residential/rates-e.cfm?TEMPLATE_ID=118&LANG=E.Google Scholar
  16. ICF Consulting (2003). Analysis of Electricity Dispatch in Canada Final Report. Submitted to the Pilot Emission Removals, Reductions and Learnings Initiative (PERRL), Environment Canada, Fairfax.Google Scholar
  17. Independent Electricity Market Operator (2004a). 10-Year Outlook Highlights From January 2005 to December 2014. Toronto.Google Scholar
  18. Independent Electricity Market Operator (2004b). Inside the Market—Market Summaries. Webpage accessed on June 25, 2004. http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/marketdata/marketSummary.asp.Google Scholar
  19. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (2004). Bill 100 2004—An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Electricity Restructuring Act).Google Scholar
  20. Mountain, D.C., and Lawson, E.L. (1995). Some initial evidence of canadian responsiveness to time-of-use electricity rates: Detailed daily and monthly analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 17(2):189–212, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Energy Board (1999). Canadian Energy—Supply and Demand to 2025. Calgary.Google Scholar
  22. NCCP-Analysis and Modelling Group (2000). An Assessment of the Economic and Environmental Implications for Canada of the Kyoto Protocol. National Climate Change Process, National Climate Change Secretariat, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  23. NCCP-Electricity Table (1999). Electricity Industry Issues Table Options Paper. National Climate Change Process, National Climate Change Secretariat, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  24. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2001). Coal-Fired Electricity Generation in Ontario. Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. Ontario Power Generation (2003). Towards Sustainable Development 2002 Progress Report. Toronto, OPG, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. Patrick, R.H. and Wolak, F.A. (2001). Estimating the Customer-Level Demand for Electricity Under Real-Time Market Prices. NBER Working Papers 8213, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Pineau, P.-O. and Schott, S. (2004). Time of Use Pricing and Electricity Demand Transfer: A Long Run Analysis of Capacity and Prices. Working paper.Google Scholar
  28. Protti, G.J. and McRae, R.N. (1980). The Impact of Rate Structure Change on Electricity Demand: A Case Study of Calgary Power Limited. Canadian Energy Research Institute, Calgary.Google Scholar
  29. Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). The Costs of Generating Electricity. London.Google Scholar
  30. Stevens, B. and Lerner, L. (1996). Testimony on The Effect of Restructuring on Price Elasticities of Demand and Supply. Prepared for the August 14, 1996 ER 96 Committee Hearing, California Energy Commission.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, T.N., and Schwarz, P.M. (1990). The long-run efficiency of time-of-use demand charge. Rand Journal of Economics. 21(3):431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Olivier Pineau
  • Stephan Schott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations