Why the United States Is Rarely Troubled by Power Shortages

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 26 May 2011
by Liu Tao (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Meghan McGrath. Edited by Jenette Axelrod.
A sudden "off-season power shortage" is sweeping across China’s central and western provinces and cities.

Coal power generation supplies up to 80 percent of China’s electricity generation. Therefore, the power shortage issues are due to a disconnect between coal supply and the coal market. Coal prices long ago entered the era of the market economy; electricity prices are still strictly controlled by a government in the planned economy era. This disconnect in marketization is perhaps one of the causes of frequent electricity shortages in recent years. However, the power companies’ monopoly of power supplies also may have been a breeding ground for shortage issues.

As the world's largest electricity consumer, the United States rarely has sustained electricity shortages in large areas. While the United States has been in the service economy era for a long time, China is still in the process of heavy chemical engineering. Half of the U.S. still relies on coal power, and with electricity consumption six times higher per capita than in China, the price of electricity is still relatively low. This shows that the management of the U.S. power market is clearly exceptional.

In the U.S. electricity market, the most prominent feature is the diversification of the market in power generation, distribution, transmission and the sale of electricity. These various aspects provide full and effective competition. Since 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have put forth regulations to comprehensively push forward processes in the U.S. power market, such as requiring it to be fair and open, and for wholesale electricity markets in the U.S. to establish and achieve competitive power generation and distribution. Currently, the United States alone has more than 500 power companies. When compared to the few energy companies in China, such as the State Grid Corporation of China, China Southern Power Grid and other small district energy companies that have monopolies, it is really a night and day difference. Fully transparent market competition greatly reduces the cost of doing business and the end price, leaving industry profits nowhere to hide.

Market reform should take place in China. First, the government should clearly define the commercial value of electricity. If the government believes that electricity is not really a market commodity, they ought to be actively involved in coal and electricity price negotiations. If the government believes that electricity is a viable commodity, and coal prices continue to rise, then the government should show flexibility and allow a corresponding price increase by the power industry. Of course, by considering peoples’ livelihood, the government can determine the price for a specific user’s electricity, such as residents, for whom electricity is not a market commodity. Other users, for whom electricity is completely a viable market commodity, such as high energy-consuming industrial enterprises, can have restrictions on their electricity pricing lifted.

Second, the power grid enterprises should carry out market reforms. Concerning the state-owned power monopolies, despite repeated claims by power companies that corporate profits do not exist — to the point that they complain of bearing financial losses in silence — the public knows better. Especially since it was recently revealed that a number of local enterprises used public funds given to the State Grid Corporation of China to build private villas, it is hard to believe that power grid enterprises are "nonprofits." Rather than trust power companies and their internal, self-imposed restraint mechanisms, more private enterprises and joint ventures should be allowed to enter this field together with state-owned power grid companies; fair competition could arise, and we would be able to examine the cost and see if profits of other companies increase.


一场突如其来的"淡季电荒"正席卷我国东中西部多个省市。


  煤炭发电在我国电力供应结构中所占比重高达80%,因此,电荒问题本质上是煤炭和电力市场化不同步的问题。煤炭价格早已踏入市场经济时代;而上网电价仍实行严格的政府定价,被定格在计划经济时代。这种前后脱节的市场化,或许正是造成近年来电荒频发的根源之一。但另一方面,电网企业的垄断低效同样是催生电荒的温床。


  作为世界最大电力消费国,美国却很少出现持续、大面积的电荒。这其中有美国早已迈入了服务经济时代、而我国尚处于重化工业过程中的因素,但美国煤炭发电比重仍占半壁江山,人均电力消费6倍于我国、电价相对低廉,美国在电力市场管理方面显然有过人之处。


  美国电力市场最突出的特点就是市场主体多元化,在发电、配电、输电、售电等诸环节均存在充分有效的竞争。1996年以来,联邦能源监管委员会陆续出台法令,全面推动美国电力市场化进程,如要求电网必须公平开放,并在各州建立电力批发市场,实现发电和销售的竞争。目前,全美仅电网公司就超过500家,这与我国只有国家电网、南方电网等区区几家垄断企业的格局真是天壤之别。充分透明的市场竞争,大大降低了企业经营成本和终端电价,更让行业暴利无处遁形。


  这种市场化改革的经验同样适用于我国。其一,政府应清楚界定电力的商品属性。如果政府认为电力并非市场化商品,就应积极介入煤企和电企的价格谈判;如果政府认为电力是一种市场化商品,允许上游煤企涨价,就应允许电力行业也相应弹性提价。当然,基于民生考虑,政府也可以认定电力对于特定用户(如居民)是非市场化商品,而对另一些用户(如高耗能工业企业)是完全市场化商品,放开对后者的电价管制。


  其二,电网企业更应进行市场化改革。作为垄断性国企,尽管电网企业一再宣称自己不存在暴利,甚至抱怨经常默默承受亏损,但公众根据一系列事实,特别是不久前多个地方曝出的国家电网下属企业利用公款大肆兴建别墅群的负面新闻,很难相信电网企业"非暴利"和亏损的真实性。人们与其寄希望于电网企业在内部形成自我约束机制,不如将其交给市场;或允许更多民营企业和合资企业进入这一领域,与国有电网企业进行公平竞技,看看别的企业在成本控制和盈利能力方面是否能做得更好。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Topics

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

Related Articles

Afghanistan: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Cuba: Trump, Panama and the Canal