Display:
I have a question about marginal pricing. In my youth power companies used to brag about the long-term supply contracts they had with resource supplies. I think at the time these were mostly coal mines.

In addition as regulated utilities they knew how much they were going to be able to charge for electricity. Any changes were always multi-year efforts to get past the state regulatory bodies.

I know that much electricity is now priced by auction on a hourly basis so that such stability is no longer the norm.

However it seems to me that electricity generators would still be interested in long-term supply contracts. Those with lower fixed supply costs could underbid during the auctions and still make a profit thus forcing the more expensive plants out of the auction except at times of the most extreme demands. So why would electricity be priced at the marginal rate under these conditions?

Are there no longer any long-term contracts?

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM EST
Electricity is always priced at margianl cost. The question is how often marginal cost is really far off from average or base load cost.

Marginal cost will be close to baseload/long term supply contract prices the majority of the time in any case - as you say, it's only during demand peaks that that price increases.

One problem today is that enough of the baseload capacity is coming from gas-fired plants that they determine marginal price even for period of lowish demand, and even then prices will be high because the gas supply-demand balance imposes it, not the electricity supply-demand balance.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 05:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know it doesn't actually work this way, but wouldn't it mean nuclear operators are making a fortune? And they are accumulating the financial resources to build more nuclear capacity?
by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 09:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
EDF has actually been making a higher operating profit than Total (on roughly half the sales) for the past 2 years.

So yes thye will be able to finance nuclear plants - but it will cost them more than if they borrowed at the same rate as the French State.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 2nd, 2007 at 09:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That sounds vaguely impressive but I don't know about French industry outside of EdF and Alstom. I only know American oil companies had return on investment (or maybe even profit margins) around 45% on Saudi oil sales back in the 70s or 80s. European oil companies must be taxed at a much higher level though since European governments aren't patently insane.

Absent raiding by the Assemble Nationale, EdF's profits are theirs, yes? So the only thing they're missing out on is the opportunity to lend their money to the private sector as they borrow from the public purse. I suppose from a financial perspective, it's all the same thing.

I take it there's no chance whatsoever of France breaking EU rules to give guarantees?

How will they be financed anyways? 20 years or 40? Any news on the transition would be appreciated.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Fri Feb 2nd, 2007 at 05:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series