Submitting Institution
University of CambridgeUnit of Assessment
Economics and EconometricsSummary Impact Type
PoliticalResearch Subject Area(s)
Engineering: Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Economics: Applied Economics, Econometrics
Summary of the impact
The Electricity Policy Research Group (EPRG), led by Professor David
Newbery, has undertaken research into electricity market restructuring,
privatisation and regulation that has achieved internationally leading
status among public policy makers. Government users, both national and
international (in the UK, Ireland and the European Commission) request
EPRG policy advice on electricity market design, monitoring for market
abuse, regulation of transmission and distribution, and design of access
pricing. Industrial users demand analytical briefings and credit EPRG for
moving the debate from rhetoric to more quantitative approaches.
Underpinning research
The impact described in this case study is underpinned by research
carried out by the EPRG under the leadership of Professor David Newbery
(employed by the University of Cambridge since 1966) with input from
Neuhoff (Cambridge), Brunekreeft (Cambridge), Roques, Nuttall and Pollitt
(Judge Business School, Cambridge), de Neufville and Conners (MIT), Grubb
(Cambridge), Gilbert (University of California) and Strbac (Imperial
College).
EPRG's underpinning research expanded from an initial study of UK
electricity privatization in 1990 to encompass most aspects of
electricity, gas and carbon markets; regulation of transmission and
distribution; and performance of industry and regulatory structures.
EPRG's website lists an average of 30 new working papers annually. This
case study describes a subset of that research, led by David Newbery on
(A) transmission access pricing and use and (B) electricity and carbon
market reform.
A. Transmission: In response to the challenge of connecting new renewable
generation, the Government's Energy White Paper (May 2007) prompted Ofgem
to launch its Transmission Access Review (TAR). Earlier research
(Brunekreeft, Neuhoff and Newbery, 2005, of Cambridge University) argued
cogently for Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) to guide generation
investment to the efficient location and ensure efficient dispatch,
supplemented by additional access charges.
B. Electricity and carbon market reform: Newbery had published
extensively on the design and operation of the electricity wholesale
market of England and Wales since its launch in 1990. He and others
extensively criticised the 1998 proposal to reform the electricity market
(Newbery, 2005), providing the intellectual foundation for the
Government's Electricity Market Reform White Paper of 2011. Roques,
Newbery et al. (2006) argued that fossil generation enjoyed a natural
hedge because the price of electricity was set by the cost of fossil fuels
and the carbon price, disadvantaging low-carbon generation such as nuclear
power. Newbery criticized the way in which the EU Emissions Trading System
(ETS) determined the price of carbon by setting a quota. The intellectual
case for setting a carbon price or tax instead was developed in Grubb and
Newbery (2008). Newbery (2008) further argued that fixing a quota
amplified market power in the gas market. A series of presentations and
submissions, summarized in Newbery (2011), argued that the ETS meant that
any additional renewable energy would not reduce CO2 as that was set by
the cap, undermining support for the Renewables Directive, whereas a
carbon tax would ensure that any additional renewable energy would create
additional carbon reductions; and pointed out that the ETS carbon price
was too volatile, too low, and not credible.
References to the research
Newbery, D. M. (2005). `Electricity liberalisation in Britain: the quest
for a satisfactory wholesale market design', Energy Journal,
Special Issue on European Electricity Liberalisation, ed. D Newbery:
43-70.DOI 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-NoSI-3
Roques, F. A., W. J. Nuttall, D. M. Newbery, R. de Neufville, and S.
Connors (2006). `Nuclear Power: a Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon
Prices?', The Energy Journal, 27 (4), DOI
10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol27-No4-1.
Gilbert, R. J., K. Neuhoff and D. M. Newbery (2004). `Allocating
Transmission to Mitigate Market Power in Electricity Markets', Rand
Journal of Economics, 35 (4): 691-709.
Grubb, M. G. and D. M. Newbery (2008). `Pricing carbon for electricity
generation: national and international dimensions', in M. Grubb, T.
Jamasb, and M. Pollitt (eds.), Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity
System: Technologies, Economics and Policy, Cambridge: 278-313.
Newbery, D. M. (2008). `Climate change policy and its effect on market
power in the gas market', Journal of European Economic Association,
June 6(4): 727-751, DOI 10.1162/JEEA.2008.6.4.727
All outputs can be supplied by the University of Cambridge on request.
Evidence of 2* or better quality
The Faculty of Economics at Cambridge was ranked first in the world in
REPEC's energy economics citations in 2009, with Professor Newbery as the
top ranked author. EPRG research quality is also testified to by requests
from regulatory agencies, the European Commission, the World Bank, and
governments for advice, visits to hear our results, and in our
presentations at international conferences.
Key research grants or end-of-grant reports:
1. Professor D.M.G. Newbery and Faculty of Economics
Electricity Policy Research Group
ESRC under Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy Programme (TSEC):
RES-152-25-1002
1 October 2005 to 30 September 2010
£2.39 million — end-of-grant report submitted Dec 2010
2. Dr Michael Pollitt and Faculty of Economics
Meeting the Challenge: Designing Effective Policy for Climate Change in
the Electricity Sector
ESRC Follow-on funding
1 Oct 2010-30 September 2011
£78,331.97 — end-of-grant report submitted December 2011
3. Dr Michael Pollitt and Faculty of Economics
EPSRC SUPERGEN — Flexnet
1 Oct 2007- 30 Sept 2011. £644,690
Details of the impact
Two categories of evidence demonstrate that EPRG research has exercised
an impact beyond academia: demand by non-academic users (and in particular
their willingness to incur costs to secure access to research); and direct
testimony, as documented in a 2012 ESRC-commissioned impact evaluation
report by CAG Consultants (source 8).
Demand by non-Academic Users
The main conduit for the EPRG's research is the Energy Policy Forum which
is funded by annual subscriptions from a number of corporations. Users
beyond academia both from the public and private sector have been anxious
to participate in EPRG via a programme of conferences, seminars, dinner
discussion groups, on-site briefings, working papers, newsletters, online
updates, advisorships, and secondments. Each year, the EPRG has held two
domestic and one international conference to disseminate research,
attended by 70-100 separate stakeholders from industry and government. The
need to cap attendance at 100 indicated the existence of excess demand.
Numerous non-academic users subscribed to EPRG working papers, newsletters
and updates, such DECC, Ofgem and the Prime Ministers' Office. Ofgem
demonstrated demand for EPRG research by inviting EPRG staff to act as
Advisors, including David Newbery, Steven Littlechild and Michael Pollitt
during the 2008-2013 period. The Department for Energy and Climate Change,
`impressed with previous "prophetic" EPRG research on electricity market
design' requested and obtained an academic secondee, Christian Winzer,
from EPRG to work on a technical update paper on Electricity Market Reform
(5/11-3/12) (p. 22, source 8). As a result of Newbery's prominence through
EPRG's conferences and publications in assessing market reform he was
recruited as the Deputy Independent Member of the Irish Single Electricity
Market Committee (Nov 2012) and a Technical Expert in DECC's Electricity
Market Reform Delivery Plan Panel (Feb 2013).
Non-academic end users incur costs in order to learn about EPRG research,
indicating their expectation that it would positively affect their
activities. Public-sector users incurring such costs included the UK House
of Commons, the Japanese Diet, the Department of Energy and Climate
Change, the Treasury, 4 regulators including Ofgem. 7 NGOs, 5 Industry
bodies and 6 firms. The costs incurred included pecuniary expenses, the
opportunity cost of time, and — for key stakeholders — annual subscription
fees for membership in EPRG's Electricity Policy Forum. Firms were willing
to pay £20,000 per annum and government agencies £3000 for membership.
As another example of impact arising from this research, Ofgem invited
Newbery to the TAR stakeholder meeting on 5 Nov 2007 where he presented
the case for an enduring LMP-based access regime. The Government overruled
this idea and chose "connect and manage" to which Ofgem responded by
commissioning Newbery to write a report on transmission charging, which
was published in 2011 (source 1 and 2). Similarly, the European
Commission's Directorate-General for Energy, concerned at the slow pace of
integrating national electricity markets and cross-border transmission,
commissioned Newbery and Strbac to write a report on transmission, which
was published in 2011 (source 4) to adjudicate between proposals for
Physical and Financial Transmission Rights, drawing on earlier work of
Gilbert et al (2004) (source 5).
Direct testimony
On Transmission Pricing:
An impact evaluation report by CAG Consultants (2012) concludes
uncompromisingly that governmental and industrial users regarded EPRG
research as exercising an impact on their decisions. The EPRG `were seen
as a primary source of advice and knowledge on energy economics and
markets, especially by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
and Ofgem' (source 8).
On Electricity Market Reform;
EPRG has played an influential role as a sounding board for the
Electricity Market Reform process and face-to-face briefings with DECC
(2010-2013) in Cambridge and London led to a number of policy impacts' (p.
4, source 8). DECC described EPRG as `the premier group in electricity
markets' (and David Newbery as a key player)' (p. 16, source 8). DECC
stated that a number of suggestions made by EPRG `are now being proposed
for legislation'. (p. 16, source 8). Newbery's work also `created interest
from Australia and the EPRG study is cited in the new Australian approach'
(p. 16, source 8). An EU policy-maker stated, `we have followed what
[EPRG] are doing, downloaded papers, and been inspired by documents' (p.
19, source 8). Industrial users credited EPRG with `moving the debate from
a rhetorical one to a more quantitative approach, where facts and figures
are being brought to bear. They moved the policy debate forward on issues
such as carbon capture and storage, distribution networks, energy market
reform, ... cost of renewable policy, security of supply, ... and how
commercial projects ... should be taken forward and regulated. This
greater understanding has had an impact at EU level which then is passed
down to industry.' (p. 4, source 8). One industry stakeholder commented:
`We value them [as being different to consultants] because of their
independence and ability to free think and take a rounded look' (p. 35,
source 8). The House of Commons acknowledged the contribution of Newbery
on Electricity Market Reform as special advisor in HC (2011) Electricity
Market Reform, HC 742, 16 May, Vol 1 (sources 6 and 7).
Sources to corroborate the impact
On transmission pricing:
[1] Ofgem commissioned and published Newbery's (2011) report on
transmission charging, at:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=93&refer=Networks/Trans/PT
[2] The Ofgem website traces the history of this inquiry at:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PT/Pages/ProjectTransmiT.aspx
while
[3] Person 1(Senior Partner, Ofgem) can corroborate the contributions
made.
[4] DG-ENER commissioned and published the report by Newbery and Strbac
(2011) on Transmission:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/studies/doc/electricity/2012_transmission.pdf
[5] Person 2 (Administrator, DG-ENER, european Commission) can
corroborate the contributions made.
On Electricity Market Reform (EMR):
The House of Commons acknowledges the contribution of
[6] HC (2011) Electricity Market Reform, HC 742, 16 May, Vol 1 at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/742/742.pdf
[7] Person 3 (Clerk to the Committee) can support the impact the advice
had in influencing the report and the subsequent White Paper.
[8] For an overall evaluation of EPRG impact, see CAG Consultants, Impact
Evaluation of the ESRC's Energy Research Groups, March 2012
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Impact_Evaluation_of_ESRC_Energy_Groups_25-7_tcm8-22272.pdf