Demande R-3669-2008
POLITIQUE D'AJOUTS AU RÉSEAU
Témoignage du Dr Ren Orans et du Dr C.K. Woo
Original : 2008-07-29
HQT-10, Document 5.1
(en liasse)
Transmission Rate Design
for Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie (HQT)
Direct Testimony of
Dr. Ren Orans and Dr. C.K. Woo
Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3)
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco California 94104
1
1. Introduction and overview
This testimony is jointly prepared by:
•
Dr. Ren Orans, Managing Partner of Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.
(E3)
•
Dr. C.K. Woo, Senior Partner of E3.
Our business address is 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, California,
94104, USA.
We have been retained by Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie (HQT) to evaluate an alternative
treatment (“Alternative
Treatment” hereafter) described in the Régie’s decision
D-2007-141 of HQT’s network upgrade cost related to Hydro-Québec Distribution’s
(HQD) interconnection of a 990-MW wind farm to serve HQD’s load obligation.
Our evaluation draws on our qualifications and experience described below:
Dr. Ren Orans
With over 20 years of experience in the electric utility business, Dr. Orans has worked
extensively in transmission pricing, wholesale and retail rate design, electricity market
reform, integrated resource planning, and transmission and distribution (T&D) planning.
He has testified before state and provincial regulators on transmission pricing, electricity
market reform, and asset valuation. Over the past ten years, his work has focused on
transmission pricing and planning for electric utilities in North America. He received his
Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Stanford University and his B.A. in Economics from
2
University California, Berkeley. His curriculum vitae provided in the appendix further
details his qualifications and experience.
Dr. Orans has testified in Québec and other Canadian provinces on transmission rate
design and related matters:
•
On behalf of Hydro-Québec (HQ) before the Régie in HQT’s 2001 wholesale
transmission tariff and 2005 Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT)
application.
•
On behalf of British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) before the
British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) in BCTC’s 2004 open access
transmission tariff (OATT) application.
•
On behalf of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in Ontario Hydro Network’s 2000
transmission rate application.
•
On behalf of BC Hydro before the BCUC in BC Hydro’s 2008 Residential Rate
Application, 1996 and 1997 initial wholesale transmission service rate
applications before both the FERC and the BCUC and 1995 participation in the
BCUC’s Electricity Market Restructure Review.
Dr. C.K. Woo
With over 20 years of experience in the electricity industry, Dr. Woo has published
extensively on electricity economics, applied microeconomics, and applied finance.
Recognized by Who’s Who in America, he is an associate editor of Energy and a guest
editor of a 2006 special issue on Electricity Market Reform and Deregulation. He is also
a member of the editorial board of The Energy Journal and a guest editor for a 1988
3
special issue on Electricity Reliability. He holds a Ph.D. (Economics) from University of
California, Davis, a M.A. (Economics) from Queen’s University, and a B.Comm.
(Economics) from Concordia University. His curriculum vitae provided in the appendix
further details his qualifications and experience.
Dr. Woo’s prior experience of providing testimony on rate-related matters includes:
•
On behalf of Southern Water Company (SWC), he filed rebuttal testimony with
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding SWC’s
procurement cost prudence.1
•
On behalf of Upper Canada Energy Alliance, he filed comments and testified in
1999 before the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding OEB Staff’s Draft
Electric Distribution Rate Handbook.
•
On behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), he filed rebuttal
testimony and testified in 1996 before the CPUC on the use of customer outage
cost in generation marginal cost estimation.2
•
On behalf of BC Hydro, he filed direct testimony and testified in 1996 before the
British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) on Industrial Service Options.3
1
The case was settled, as documented in Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd and W. Clayton (2006) “Did a Local
Distribution Company Procure Prudently during the California Electricity Crisis?” Energy Policy, 34:16,
2552-2565.
2
The testimony was based on Woo, C.K. (1988) "Optimal Electricity Rates and Consumption Externality,"
Resources and Energy, 10, 277-292.
3
The testimony was based on (a) Woo, C.K., P. Chow and I. Horowitz (1996) "Optional Real-Time Pricing
of Electricity for Industrial Firms," Pacific Economic Review, 1:1, 79-92; and (b) Woo, C.K., R. Orans,
B. Horii and P. Chow (1995) "Pareto-Superior Time-of-Use Rate Option for Industrial Firms,"
Economics Letters, 49, 267-272.
4
To be detailed in the remainder of our testimony below, our evaluation yields the
following findings:
•
HQT’s current OATT approved by the Régie in decisions D-2008-019,
D-2008-027, D-2008-036 and D-2008-045 offers open and comparable
transmission access to all eligible customers requesting interconnection, without
differentiation by interconnection customer characteristics, generation technology
or capacity factor.
•
The Alternative Treatment in D-2007-141 is a significant departure from HQT’s
OATT because (a) it is based on an agreement between HQD and Hydro-Québec
Production (HQP), of which HQT is not a party; and (b) it assigns HQD’s share of
the network upgrade cost by reason of a specific technology (wind) and a specific
peak capacity factor (35%, which is the agreement’s guaranteed capacity at
HQT’s system peak divided by the wind farm’s installed capacity).
•
The Alternative Treatment is inconsistent with the industry standard practice that
an OATT’s upgrade cost treatment for generation interconnection does not vary
by interconnection customer characteristics, generation technology or capacity
factor.
•
The Alternative Treatment can cause differential transmission access by
technology type.
•
The Alternative Treatment can present implementation complications because of
technological diversity among renewable resources (e.g., biomass vs. hydro).
5
While we are fully aware that the Régie has the full jurisdiction to determine just and
reasonable rate levels for both HQD and HQT, the above findings lead us to recommend
the Régie (a) not use the Alternative Treatment for the 990-MW wind farm
interconnection cost; and (b) not modify HQT’s OATT based on the Alternative
Treatment.
2. HQT’s OATT offers open and comparable
transmission access
In general, HQT’s OATT is based on the 1996 FERC Order 888 pro forma tariff
commonly used by North American jurisdictions.4 An important goal of an OATT is to
provide open and comparable transmission to all eligible customers. Thus, “an open
access tariff that is not unduly discriminatory or anticompetitive should offer third parties
access on the same or comparable basis, and under the same or comparable terms and
conditions, as the transmission provider's uses of its system.” (Order 888, p.37).
To achieve open and comparable access, HQT’s OATT does not differentiate network
upgrade cost treatment by interconnection customer characteristics, generation
technology or capacity factor. The cost treatment in HQT’s OATT (p.186) is that “[a]ny
Network Upgrade to the Transmission System required to meet the need for Transmission
Service under Parts II, III and IV herein, including generating station connections under
Section 12A, shall be paid for by the Transmission Provider and incorporated into its rate
4
Lusztig, C. P. Feldberg, R. Orans and A. Olson (2006) “A Survey of Transmission Tariffs in North
America,” Energy 31: 1017-1039.
6
base for cost recovery purposes … .” The same OATT (p.196) provides that $574/kW is
the maximum amount to be borne by HQT for the connection of generating stations to
Transmission and Distribution System.
When compared to the OATTs in other jurisdictions,5 the cost treatment in HQT’s OATT
helps foster the province’s generation development, including renewable resources. This
is because the amount borne by HQT reduces the upfront payment of an interconnection
customer, thus easing the customer’s financing burden.
3. The Alternative Treatment is a significant departure
from HQT’s OATT
The Alternative Treatment is that only 35% of the 990-MW wind farm’s interconnection
cost would be eligible for the maximum amount borne by HQT; this is notwithstanding
that HQD made the interconnection request in accordance with HQT’s OATT. Decision
D-2007-141 reasoned that the 35% factor reflects the wind farm’s winter guaranteed
capacity at HQD’s single coincident peak (1-CP) (p.25).
The Alternative Treatment is technology- and capacity-factor-specific; and it is therefore
a significant departure from HQT’s current OATT approved by the Régie’s decisions D2008-019, D-2008-027, D-2008-036 and D-2008-045. This departure can be illustrated
using the following example:
5
See Tables 1A-1D below.
7
Example. Suppose a point-to-point (PTP) customer makes a 990-MW wind-farm
interconnection request and signs a 20-year contract with HQT for long-term firm
service based on HQT’s OATT. There is no provision in HQT’s OATT that
would subject the PTP customer to the Alternative Treatment for setting the
amount to be borne by HQT. If the Alternative Treatment were to be used for the
PTP customer, HQT’s OATT would have to be revised accordingly. As will be
shown in Section 6 below, however, the Alternative Treatment can present
implementation complications for HQT.
To the extent that the Régie had accepted transmission access under HQT’s current
OATT being open and comparable, the Alternative Treatment is discriminatory and
inconsistent with the goal of open and comparable transmission access, as will be
demonstrated in the remainder of our testimony below.
4. The Alternative Treatment is inconsistent with the
industry standard practice
We recognize that network upgrade cost treatment can vary by transmission provider, as
demonstrated by the OATT examples shown in Tables 1A – 1D below. These OATT
examples encompass:
•
Canadian providers in Tables 1A and 1B and US providers in Tables 1C and 1D;
•
Providers in Tables 1A and 1C that use OATTs based on the FERC pro forma
tariff and those in Tables 1B and 1D that do not; and
8
•
Hydro- (e.g., British Columbia, Washington and Oregon) and thermal-generation
dominated regions (e.g., Alberta, Ontario, New York, New England, and PJM).
The OATT examples indicate that some transmission providers (e.g., Nova Scotia Power
in Table 1A) require an interconnection customer to make an upfront payment for the
entire network upgrade cost, and other providers do not (e.g., AESO in Table 1B).
However, they also indicate that each transmission provider’s cost treatment is identically
applied to all of its eligible customers requesting generation interconnection.6 None of
the OATTs differentiate network cost treatment by identity (e.g., affiliate vs. non-affiliate
of the transmission provider), generation type (e.g., renewable vs. non-renewable) or
capacity factor (high vs. low). As a result, none of the OATTs has a cost treatment that
depends on an interconnection customer’s agreement for renewable energy.
The cost treatments in Tables 1A-1D generally follow FERC Order 2003-C (pp.3-4) that
requires the transmission provider reimburse an interconnection customer for its upfront
payments for network upgrades by means of credit against the customer’s transmission
bills over a maximum period of 20 years. In justifying this policy, FERC Order 2003
(p.139) states that “the Commission's crediting policy helps to ensure that the
Interconnection Customer's interconnection is treated comparably to the interconnections
that a non-independent Transmission Provider completes for its own Generating
6
AESO's OATT offers demand transmission service (DTS) to loads and supply transmission service (STS)
to generators, see http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_2006_Terms_and_Conditions_2006-01-01.pdf.
DTS customers are eligible for AESO's local investment allowance that would reduce their
interconnection costs. STS customers are not eligible for AESO's local investment allowance. As only
STS customers, not DTS customers, request generation interconnection, the AESO's treatment is applied
identically to all STS customers requesting generation interconnection.
9
Facilities. The Transmission Provider has traditionally rolled into its transmission rates
the cost of Network Upgrades required for its own interconnections, and the
Commission's crediting policy ensures that Network Upgrades constructed for others are
treated the same way.”
Consistent with standard industry practice, HQT’s OATT provides open and comparable
transmission access. As a result, the cost treatment in HQT’s OATT does not vary by
customer characteristics, technology or capacity factor.
In contrast, the Alternative Treatment is based on an agreement between HQD and HQP,
with specific terms and with reference to a particular technology and a particular peak
capacity factor.
Hence, the Alternative Treatment is inconsistent with the industry
practice and the goal of open and comparable transmission access.
10
Table 1A
Treatment of network upgrade cost for generation interconnection by Canadian
transmission providers that use OATTs based on the FERC pro forma tariff
Transmission
provider
(Province)
BCTC (British
Columbia)
Description
Transmission customer provides security for
the network upgrade; balance of security is
reduced by an amount equal to the customer’s
payment for transmission service.7
Manitoba
Transmission customer is responsible for costs
Hydro
of new facilities and receives credit where such
(Manitoba)
facilities are jointly planned with the
Transmission Provider.8
New
“If the additional transmission tariff revenues
Brunswick
associated with the increased use of the
Power (New
transmission system are less than the increase
Brunswick)
in the Transmission System revenue
requirement, the Transmission Customer will
make a contribution to capital of an amount that
will allow the Transmission Provider to
continue to collect the full revenue
requirement.”9
Nova Scotia
“…the Transmission Customer shall be
Power (Nova
responsible for such costs as determined by the
Scotia)
Transmission Provider.” The customer shall
receive credit “…where such facilities are
jointly planned and installed.”10
SaskPower
“the Transmission Customer shall be
(Saskatchewan) responsible for such costs to the extent
consistent with law and policy governing the
Transmission Provider”11
Does the treatment
vary by customer
characteristics,
generation type or
capacity factor?
No
No
No
No
No
7
BCTC Open Access Transmission Tariff, Effective March 1, 2006, p. 59 and Attachment K, p.3
Manitoba Hydro Open Access Transmission Tariff, Effective June 1, 2008, pp. 65, 76
9
New Brunswick Power Open Access Transmission Tariff effective May 1, 2005, Attachment K, pp.335,
336
10
Nova Scotia Power Inc. Open Access Transmission Tariff, approved May 31, 2005, pp.51, 62
11
SaskPower Open Access Transmission Tariff, Effective Jan 1, 2006, p.62
8
11
Table 1B
Treatment of network upgrade cost for generation interconnection by Canadian
transmission providers that use OATTs not based on the FERC pro forma tariff
Transmission Description
provider
(Province)
AESO
(Alberta)
IESO
(Ontario)
AESO offers: (a) supply transmission service
(STS) to generators that pay upfront all
“supply related costs” for generation
interconnection; and (b) demand transmission
service (DTS) to loads (e.g., an industrial
firm) that pay upfront “demand related costs”
for load interconnection, net of maximum
local investment allowance: $125,000 per year
plus $5,000/MW/year.12
Does the treatment vary
by customer
characteristics,
generation type or
capacity factor?
No
A STS customer is not eligible for the local
investment allowance; and the customer is
required to pay a system contribution, which
is refunded over a 10-year period.13
“For a single generator customer, a transmitter
No
shall attribute to that generator customer the cost
of any required modification to a transmitterowned connection facility required to serve the
rated peak output of the generation facilities.”14
“Where more than one generator customer
triggers the need for a modification to a
transmitter-owned connection facility, a
transmitter shall attribute the cost of the
modification to those generator customers …”15
12
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_2006_Terms_and_Conditions_2006-01-01.pdf, pp.23-25.
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/AESO_2006_Terms_and_Conditions_2006-01-01.pdf, p.27.
14
Ontario Energy Board, Transmission System Code, July 25, 2005, p.35.
15
Ontario Energy Board, Transmission System Code, July 25, 2005, p.36.
13
12
Table 1C
Treatment of network upgrade cost for generation interconnection by US
transmission providers that use OATTs based on the FERC pro forma tariff
Transmission
provider (States)
Description
Bonneville Power
Administration
(Oregon)
Unless the transmission provider decides
otherwise, network upgrades shall be “solely
funded by the Interconnection Customer.”
Interconnection customer is entitled to a cash
repayment, with interest, “as payments are
made under the Transmission Provider’s tariff
for transmission services...” Full
reimbursement shall not extend beyond 20
years.16
“…the Transmission Customer shall be
responsible for such costs to the extent
consistent with Commission policy.”17
“…the Transmission Customer shall be
responsible for such costs to the extent
consistent with Commission policy.”18
PacifiCorp
(Washington,
Oregon)
Southern
Companies:
Alabama Power,
Georgia Power,
Gulf Power,
Mississippi Power
(Alabama,
Georgia, Florida,
Mississippi)
Does the treatment
vary by customer
characteristics,
generation type or
capacity factor?
No
No
No
16
Bonneville Power Administration, Open Access Transmission Tariff, Attachment L, effective May 1,
2005, pp.260, 261
17
PacifiCorp FERC Electric Tariff Seventh Revised Volume No. 11 Pro Forma Open Access Transmission
Tariff, effective July 13, 2007, p.105. In Order 2003-C, the FERC affirmed that full reimbursement for
an interconnection customer’s upfront payment shall not extend beyond 20 years.
18
Open Access Transmission Tariff of Southern Companies, effective July 1, 2006,
https://www.weboasis.com/OASIS/SOCO/Tariff/Southern_OATT_2008-05-14.pdf, First Revised Sheet
141B.130
13
Table 1D
Treatment of network upgrade cost for generation interconnection by US
transmission providers that use OATTs not based on the FERC pro forma tariff
Transmission provider
(States)
MISO (Mid-west
states in Northern US)
Description
Does treatment
vary by
customer
characteristics,
generation type
or capacity
factor?
No
Network upgrades are initially funded by the
interconnection customer, but these costs are
repaid. Upgrades resulting from
interconnection requests are included in
subsequent Midwest ISO Transmission
Expansion Plans and are subject to regional
cost sharing.19
NYISO (New York)
“…the Transmission Customer shall be
No
responsible for such costs to the extent
consistent with Commission policy.”20
ISO-NE (New
Generator owners are responsible for all costs, No
England)
unless they are determined to “provide
benefits to the system as a whole as well as to
particular parties,” in which case they are
regionally shared to Transmission
Customers.21
PJM (Delaware,
“[A]n Interconnection Customer shall agree to No.
Illinois, Indiana,
reimburse the Transmission Provider (for the
Kentucky, Maryland,
benefit of the affected Transmission Owners)
Michigan, New Jersey, for the costs . . . of constructing Attachment
North Carolina, Ohio, Facilities, Local Upgrades, and Network
Pennsylvania,
Upgrades necessary to accommodate its
Tennessee, Virginia,
Interconnection Request to the extent that the
West Virginia and the Transmission Owner, as Interconnected
District of Columbia.) Transmission Owner, is responsible for
building such facilities.”22
19
MISO Open Access Transmission Tariff, pp. 1714Z.95-96, 1837-1838, 1842-1843.
New York Independent System Operator Open Access Transmission Tariff, effective April 25, 2007,
p.154. In Order 2003-C, the FERC affirmed that full reimbursement for an interconnection customer’s
upfront payment shall not extend beyond 20 years.
21
ISO-NE Open Access Tariff, pp. 568, 768, 776.
22
PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, Original Sheet 224X.
20
14
5. The Alternative Treatment can cause differential
transmission access by technology type
The Alternative Treatment can cause differential access because the amount of network
upgrade cost to be borne by HQT will vary by technology type, as illustrated by the
following examples.
The first example compares natural-gas generation and renewable generation. Suppose a
customer, for reliability reasons, installs a new combustion turbine (CT) with high fuel
cost. Though seldom run, the new CT’s capacity available at HQT’s system peak is
equal to the installed capacity. Under the Alternative Treatment, the new CT would
qualify for 100% of the $574/kW maximum to be borne by HQT, more than the
percentage for renewable energy (e.g., solar or wind) that has a peak capacity factor less
than 100%.
The second example compares biomass generation and wind energy. Biomass generation
has an average capacity factor of 80%, as shown in Table 2 below.23 This high average
capacity factor indicates that biomass energy is likely to have a peak capacity factor
closer to 80% than the 35% factor used by Alternative Treatment for the 990-MW wind
farm. Thus, biomass generation would, under the Alternative Treatment, qualify for
more of the $574/kW maximum to be borne by HQT than the wind farm.
23
Different from the peak capacity factor used by the Alternative Treatment, an average capacity is a
generation unit’s average MW output over 8760 hours per year divided by the unit’s installed capacity.
15
The final example compares hydro without storage and hydro with storage. A hydro unit
without storage can have a low peak capacity factor if river flow is low at the time of the
system peak. However, a hydro unit with storage can have a peak capacity factor close to
100% because the unit is likely operated at full capacity at the time of system peak.
Under the Alternative Treatment, the hydro unit without storage would qualify for less of
the $574/kW maximum to be borne by HQT than the hydro unit with storage.
6. The Alternative Treatment can present
implementation complications
The Alternative Treatment can present implementation complications because it is
specific to a particular generation technology and a particular peak capacity factor. As
renewable energy generation can have varying capacity factors by technology type (e.g.,
biomass vs. hydro), the Alternative Treatment opens up the possibility that the amount of
network upgrade costs to be borne by HQT for future interconnection requests may have
to be done on a case-by-case basis.
To see this point, consider Table 2 that presents technology-specific average capacity
factors used by our firm to model greenhouse gas emissions in the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) for the California Public Utilities Commission.24
Irrespective of a renewable generation unit’s average or peak capacity factor, however,
the MW size of the unit’s interconnection should match an interconnection customer’s
24
http://www.ethree.com/cpuc_ghg_model.html
16
request. If the customer requests a 100-MW interconnection for a 100-MW generation
unit, a transmission provider should provide a 100-MW interconnection in accordance
with its OATT.
Even though Table 2 is admittedly not Quebec-specific and the average capacity factors
are not the same as a peak capacity factor, it serves as an example to show that there is
significant variance in capacity factor within a given technology such as hydro, as well as
across technologies (e.g., biomass vs. hydro).
Table 2
Average capacity factors by renewable technology type
Technology type
Hydro
Concentrating solar power
Biomass
Geothermal
Capacity factor
12% - 65%
37%-40%
80%
90%
Notes:
(a) An average capacity is a generation unit’s average MW output over 8760 hours per year divided by the
unit’s installed capacity.
(b) Average capacity factor data were downloaded on July 10, 2008 from the following sources:
• Hydro: http://www.ethree.com/GHG/20%20Hydro%20Assumptions%20v4.doc
• Solar: http://www.ethree.com/GHG/19%20Solar%20Thermal%20Assumptions%20v4.doc
• Biomass: http://www.ethree.com/GHG/17%20Biomass%20Assumptions%20v4.doc
• Geothermal: http://www.ethree.com/GHG/18%20Geothermal%20Assumptions%20v5.doc
As shown by Table 2, biomass and geothermal generation have higher capacity factors
than hydro and solar generation. To the extent that average and peak capacity factors
correlate, the Alternative Treatment will cause the network upgrade cost to be borne by
HQT to differ by renewable energy type. This can make the Alternative Treatment’s
implementation difficult, as it may need a case-by-case assessment of the performance of
a specific renewable generation unit.
17
7. Conclusion
Since HQT is a transmission provider not subject to FERC jurisdiction, the Régie has the
full jurisdiction to determine just and reasonable rate levels for both HQD and HQT.
However, the Régie has also adopted the goal of providing open and comparable
transmission access when approving HQT’s OATT based on the FERC pro forma tariff.
Our evaluation presented above indicates that the Alternative Treatment described in
D-2007-141 is inconsistent with open and comparable transmission access. This leads us
to recommend the Régie (a) not use the Alternative Treatment for the 990-MW wind
farm interconnection cost; and (b) not modify HQT’s OATT based on the Alternative
Treatment.
18
Appendix
Curriculum vitae of Dr. Ren Orans
Curriculum vitae of Dr. C.K. Woo
19
Curriculum vitae of Dr. Ren Orans
Ren Orans
101 Montgomery St. Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104
ren@ethree.com
415.391.5100
Dr. Orans founded the consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in 1993. The
firm specializes in energy economics and has nationally recognized experts in the fields of
electricity pricing, integrated resource planning and regulatory theory and finance. Dr. Orans
heads the electricity pricing practice for E3.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC.
Managing Partner
San Francisco, CA
1993-Present
•
Dr. Orans’s work in utility pricing and planning is centered on the design and use of areaand time-specific costs for electric utilities. The first successful application was
conducted for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in their 1993 General Rate Case. Using
costs developed by Dr. Orans, PG&E became the first electric utility to use area and time
specific costing in its ratemaking process. This seminal work led to detailed area costing
applications in pricing, marketing and planning for Wisconsin Electric Company, Niagara
Mohawk Power Company, Public Service of Indiana, Kansas City Power and Light,
Central and Southwest Utilities, Philadelphia Electric Company, Tennessee Valley
Authority and Ontario Hydro. This work has been formalized in Dr. Orans’Dissertation,
Area-Specific Costing for Electric Utilities, A Case Study of Transmission and Distribution
Costs (1989) and a more recent NARUC report revising the California Standard Practice
Guidelines for Evaluating DSM programs (2000).
•
Dr. Orans’s expertise in utility planning is complemented by his practical working
experience at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), where he was responsible for
designing their electric utility rates between 1981 and 1985. He has relied on this
background, along with his published papers to provide expert testimony on transmission
pricing on behalf of BC Hydro (1996, 1997 and 2004, 2005), Ontario Power Generation
(2000) and Hydro Quebec (2001, 2006). Dr. Orans has also testified in stranded asset
cases before the British Columbia Utilities Commission and the Texas PUC on behalf of
BC Hydro and Central Power and Light, respectively. Dr. Orans was also PG&E’s expert
witness for avoided generation costs in their most recent rate case (2005) and is currently
sponsoring testimony on electric rate design for both Hawaiian Electric Company and
Lower Valley Energy. He is also currently (2007) sponsoring testimony on behalf of the
CALISO on the economics of SDG&E’s proposed Sunrise project.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Lead Consultant
•
Washington, DC
1992-1993
Developed new models to evaluate small-scale generation and DSM placed optimally in utility
transmission and distribution systems.
20
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
Research and Development Department
San Francisco, CA
1989-1991
•
Developed an economic evaluation method for distributed generation alternatives. The new
approach shows that targeted, circuit-specific, localized generation packages or targeted DSM
can in some cases be less costly than larger generation alternatives.
•
Developed the evaluation methodology that led to PG&E’s installation of a 500KW photovoltaic
(PV) facility at their Kerman substation. This is the only PV plant ever designed to defer the
need for distribution capacity.
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Consultant
•
1988-1992
Developed the first formal economic model capable of integrating DSM into a
transmission and distribution plan; the case study plan was used by PG&E for a $16
million pilot project that was featured on national television.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Lead Consultant
•
Palo Alto, CA
Washington, DC
1989-1990
Collaborated on a cooperative research and development project with the People's Republic of
China. The final product was a book on lessons learned from electric utility costing and
planning in the United States.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
Corporate Planning Department
San Francisco, CA
1989-1992
•
Lead consultant on a joint EPRI and PG&E research project to develop geographic
differences in PG&E's cost-of-service for use in the evaluation of capital projects.
•
Developed shared savings DSM incentive mechanisms for utilities in California.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
Rate Department Economist
San Francisco, CA
1981-1985
•
Responsible for the technical quality of testimony for all electric rate design filings.
•
Responsible for research on customers’behavioral response to conservation and load
management programs. The research led to the design and implementation of the first
and largest residential time-of-use program in California and a variety of innovative
pricing and DSM programs.
21
Education
Stanford University
Palo Alto, CA
Ph.D., Civil Engineering
Stanford University
Palo Alto, CA
M.S., Civil Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, CA
B.S., Economics
Citizenship
United States
Refereed Papers
1. Woo, C.K., E. Kollman, R. Orans, S. Price and B. Horii (2008) “Now that California Has AMI,
What Can the State Do with It?” Energy Policy, 36, 1366-74.
2. Orans, R., S. Price, J. Williams, Woo, C.K., Moore, J. (2007), “A Northern California-British
Columbia partnership for renewable energy, Energy Policy. 35:8, 3979-3983
3. Lusztig, C., P. Feldberg, R. Orans and A. Olson (2006) “A survey of transmission tariffs in
North America,” Energy, 31: 1017-1039.
4. Woo, C.K., A. Olson and R. Orans (2004), “Benchmarking the Price Reasonableness of an
Electricity Tolling Agreement,” Electricity Journal, 17:5, 65-75.
5. Orans, R., Woo, C.K., Clayton, W. (2004) ”Benchmarking the Price Reasonableness of a
Long-Term Electricity Contract,” Energy Law Journal, 25:2, 357-383.
6. Orans, R., Olson, A., Opatrny, C., Market Power Mitigation and Energy Limited Resources,
Electricity Journal, March, 2003.
7. Chow, R.F., Horii, B., Orans, R. et. al. (1995), Local Integrated Resource Planning of a Large
Load Supply System, Canadian Electrical Association.
8. Feinstein, C., Orans, R. (1995) "The Distributed Utility Concept," The Annual Energy
Review,1988.
9. Woo, C.K., R. Orans, B. Horii and P. Chow (1995), "Pareto-Superior Time-of-Use Rate
Options for Industrial Firms," Economics Letters 49, 267-272.
10. Woo, C.K., B. Hobbs, Orans, R. Pupp and B. Horii (1994), "Emission Costs, Customer
Bypass and Efficient Pricing of Electricity," Energy Journal, 15:3, 43-54.
22
11. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, R. Pupp and I. Horowitz (1994), "Demand Side Management and
Electric Power Exchange," Resource and Energy Economics, 16, 243-254.
12. Pupp, R., C.K.Woo, R. Orans, B. Horii, and G. Heffner (1995), "Load Research and
Integrated Local T&D Planning," Energy - The International Journal, 20:2, 89-94.
13. Woo, C.K., R. Orans, B. Horii, R. Pupp and G. Heffner (1994), "Area- and Time-Specific
Marginal Capacity Costs of Electricity Distribution," Energy - The International Journal, 19:12,
1213-1218.
14. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and B. Horii (1994), "Targeting Demand Side Management for Electricity
Transmission and Distribution Benefits," Managerial and Decision Economics, 15, 169-175.
15. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and R.L. Pupp (1994), "Demand Side Management and Electric Power
Exchange," Energy - The International Journal, 19:1, 63-66.
16. Orans, R., Seeto, D., and Fairchild, W., (1985), "The Evolution of TOU Rates," Pergamon
Press.
Research Reports
1. Orans, R. Olson, A., Integrated Resource Plan for Lower Valley Energy, December, 2004.
2. Orans, R., Woo C.K., and Olsen, Arne, Stepped Rates Report, prepared for BC Hydro and filed
with the BCUC, May, 2003.
3. Orans, R., Woo, C.K, and B. Horii (1995), Impact of Market Structure and Pricing Options on
Customers' Bills, Report submitted to B.C. Hydro.
4. Horii, B., Orans, R., Woo, C.K., (1994) Marginal Cost Disaggregation Study, Report
submitted to PSI Energy.
5. Woo, C.K., L. Woo and R. Orans (1995), Rationing and Area-Specific Generation Costs,
Report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
6. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and C. Greenwell (1994), Designing Profitable Rate Options Using
Area- and Time-Specific Costs, Report No. TR-104375, Electric Power Research Institute.
7. Singer, J., Orans, R., Energy Efficiency Lending, A Business Opportunity for Fannie Mae,
Report submitted to Fannie Mae.
8. Orans, R., Feinstein, C. et. al., (1993), Distributed Utility Valuation Study, submitted to the
Electric Power Research Institute, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and PG&E.
9. Orans, R., Pupp, R., (1993), Menomonee Falls Case Study, Submitted to Wisconsin Electric
Power Corporation.
10. Orans, R. and C.K. Woo (1992), Marginal Cost Disaggregation Study, Report submitted to
Wisconsin Electric Power Corporation.
23
11. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, J.N. Swisher, B. Wiersma and B. Horii (1992), Targeting DSM for
Transmission and Distribution Benefits: A Case Study of PG&E's Delta District, Report No.
TR-100487, Electric Power Research Institute.
12. Orans, R., Swisher, J., Duane, T., (1989), Lessons Learned from U.S. Electric Utilities,
Prepared for the Department of Energy for the Peoples Republic of China.
13. Orans, R., Area-Specific Marginal Costing for Electric Utilities: A Case Study of Transmission
and Distribution Costs (1989) PhD Thesis, Stanford University.
14. Orans, R., (1987)The Risk of Sales Forecasts: Controllable through Indexation and Careful
Disaggregation, Submitted to Stanford University and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
15. Woo, C.K. and R. Orans (1983), Transferability of Other Utilities' Time of Use Experiments to
PG&E's Service Schedule D-7, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Reports filed with the
California Public Utilities Commission.
Conference Papers
1. Orans, R. Evaluating Generating Resources based on a Equivalent Reliability Methodology,
2nd Annual Resource Planning Symposium, January, 2004, Vancouver, Canada.
2. Martin, J., Orans, R., Knapp, K., “DG Economics and Distribution Rate Design” (2000),
Western Electric Power Institute, Distributed Generation and the Utility Distribution System
Conference, March 22-23, Reno, NV.
3. Orans, R. (1997), “Getting the Transmission Prices Right,” Facilitating Cross Border Trade,
New Mexico.
4. Orans, R. (1997), “Deregulation on the Mainland, What is Happening and What is Not, PCEA
Conference, Hawaii.
5. Swisher, J., Orans, R., (1995), "A New Utility DSM Strategy Using Intensive Campaigns
Based on Area Specific Costs," ECEEE 1995 Summer Study.
6. Orans, R., Greenwell, C., (1995), "Designing Profitable Rate Options Using Area and TimeSpecific Costs," Prepared for EPRI, Annual DSM Review, Dallas, Texas.
7. Orans, R, Integrated Local Area Planning, (1995), Prepared for NELPA and presented in
Calgary.
8. Orans, R., Local Area Planning for Profit, "Annual Review of Distributed Resource Studies,"
Prepared for EPRI, Lake George, New York.
9. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, B. Horii and R. Pupp, (1994), "Estimation and Applications of Area- and
Time-Specific Marginal Capacity Costs," Proceedings: 1994 Innovative Electricity Pricing,
(February 9-11, Tampa, Florida) Electric Research Power Institute, Report TR-103629, 306315.
24
Curriculum vitae of Dr. C.K. Woo
C.K. Woo
ck@ethree.com
415.391.5100 ext. 310
Dr. Woo specializes in public utility economics, applied microeconomics, and applied
finance. With over 20 years of experience in the electricity industry, he has testified and
prepared expert testimony for use in regulatory and legal proceedings in California, British
Columbia and Ontario. He has also filed declaration for and testified in arbitration in
connection to contract dispute.
Dr. Woo’s current research includes electricity
deregulation, procurement, risk management, demand response and rationing, avoided
cost estimation, integrated resource planning, value of service reliability, deregulation,
and transmission pricing.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC.
San Francisco, CA
Senior Partner
1993 – Present
Dr. Woo has published over 80 refereed articles on electricity deregulation, procurement, risk
management, pricing, rationing, integrated resource planning, value of service reliability, applied
microeconomics, and applied finance. These articles appear in such scholarly journals as Energy
Policy, Energy Law Journal, The Energy Journal, Energy, Electricity Journal, Resource and
Energy Economics, Energy Economics, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Water Resources
Research, Managerial and Decision Economics, OMEGA, Journal of Regulatory Economics,
Journal of Public Economics, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Economics Letters, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, and Pacific Basin Finance
Journal. Recognized by Who’s Who in America, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and
Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, Dr. Woo is an associate editor of Energy and their guest
editor of a special issue on electricity market reform and deregulation. He is a member of the
editorial board of The Energy Journal and has served as their guest editor for a special issue on
electricity reliability. He is also a member of the editorial board of The Open Operational
Research Journal.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Hong Kong, China
Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Finance
1991 – 1993
Dr. Woo analyzed the economic impacts of supply shortage on consumers, resulting in a series of
publications on water and electricity rationing. He also performed specification tests of
econometric models of stock returns. As a consultant, he performed marginal costing, demandside-management evaluation and reliability planning which led to several publications on local
integrated resource planning and T&D costing.
ANALYSIS GROUP, INC.
San Francisco, CA
Senior Associate
1987 – 1991
Dr. Woo was responsible for applied microeconomics, outage cost estimation, reliability planning, and
electricity pricing. He was the primary consultant to several utilities for outage cost estimation and
reliability differentiation. His extensive publications in these two areas are widely cited by other
researchers. He also performed economic analysis of mergers and acquisition with a primary focus on
the anti-trust aspect of market power, with the resulting findings filed with both state and federal courts.
25
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
San Francisco, CA
Rate Economist
1985 – 1987
Dr. Woo revamped PG&E’s research on outage cost estimation whose findings appear in a special
issue of The Energy Journal focusing on electricity reliability. He also participated in PG&E’s
preparation of the General Rate Cases.
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT
Sacramento, CA
Econometrician
1984 – 1985
Dr. Woo was responsible for demand estimation and load forecasting. The results from his study
guided SMUD’s resource planning.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
San Francisco, CA
Rate Economist
1982 – 1984
Dr. Woo was responsible for time-of-use (TOU) demand analysis and TOU pricing mandated by the
CPUC. This work resulted in a performance award from PG&E and several publications.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMISSION
Sacramento, CA
Research Assistant
1978 – 1982
Mr. Woo was the primary author of the life cycle costing model used by the CEC to analyze solar
energy and other DSM measures. He testified before the CPUC on the economics of solar financing.
Education
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Davis, CA
Ph.D. in Economics
Thesis: The non-parametric approach to production analysis: a case study on a regulated electric
utility.
QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY
Kingston, Ontario
M.A. in Economics
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
Montreal, Quebec
B. Comm. in Economics
Citizenship
United States
26
Research
Special issues
1. Woo, C.K., L.C.H. Chow and N. Lior, editors (2006) Special Issue on Electricity Market
Reform and Deregulation, Energy, 31:6-7.
2. Munasinghe, M., C.K. Woo and H.P. Chao, editors (1988) Special Electricity Reliability Issue,
The Energy Journal, 9.
Refereed Publications
Electricity Deregulation
1. Tishler, A., I. Milstein and C.K. Woo (2008) “Capacity Commitment and Price Volatility in a
Competitive Electricity Market,” Energy Economics, 30, 1625-1647.
2. Tishler, A., J. Newman, I. Spekterman and C.K. Woo (2008) “Assessing the Options for a
Competitive Electricity Market in Israel,” Utilities Policy, 16, 21-29.
3. Tishler, A. and C.K. Woo (2007) “Is Electricity Deregulation Beneficial to Israel?” International
Journal of Energy Sector Management, 1(4): 322-341.
4. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz and A. Tishler (2006) "A Critical Assessment of the Hong Kong
Government's Proposed Post-2008 Regulatory Regime for Local Electricity Utilities," Energy
Policy, 34, 1451-1456. (Lead article)
5. Woo, C.K., A. Olson, I. Horowitz and S. Luk (2006) “Bi-directional Causality in California’s
Electricity and Natural-Gas Markets,” Energy Policy, 34:15, 2060-2070.
6. Woo, C.K., M. King, A. Tishler and L.C.H. Chow (2006) "Costs of Electricity Deregulation,"
Energy, 31:6-7, 747-768. (Lead article after Guest Editors’ Introduction, one of the 25 most
downloaded articles)
7. Tishler, A. and C.K. Woo (2006) "Likely Failure of Electricity Deregulation: Explanation with
Application to Israel," Energy, 31:6-7, 845-856.
8. Tishler, A., J. Newman, I. Spekterman and C.K. Woo (2006) “Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Reforming Israel’s Electricity Industry,” Energy Policy, 34:16, 2442-2454. (Lead article after
Guest Editor’s Introduction)
9. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd, R. Karimov and A. Tishler (2003) “Stranded Cost Recovery in Electricity
Market Reforms in the US,” Energy, 28:1, 1-14. (Lead article)
10. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd and A. Tishler (2003) “Electricity Market Reform Failures: UK, Norway,
Alberta and California,” Energy Policy, 31:11, 1103-1115. (One of the 25 most downloaded
articles)
27
11. Tishler, A., C.K. Woo and D. Lloyd (2002) “Reforming Israel’s Electric Sector,” Energy Policy,
30:4, 347-353.
12. Woo, C.K. (2001) “What Went Wrong in California’s Electricity Market?” Energy, 26:8, 747758.
13. Woo, C. K., I. Horowitz and J. Martin (1998) “Reliability Differentiation of Electricity
Transmission,” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 13, 277-292.
14. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd-Zannetti and I. Horowitz (1997) “Electricity Market Integration in the
Pacific Northwest,” The Energy Journal, 18:3, 75-101.
Electricity Procurement
1. Orans, R., S. Price, J. Williams, C.K. Woo and J. Moore (2007) “A Northern California British Columbia Partnership for Renewable Energy” Energy Policy, 35:8, 3979-3983 (Lead
article).
2. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd and W. Clayton (2006) “Did a Local Distribution Company Procure
Prudently during the California Electricity Crisis?” Energy Policy, 34:16, 2552-2565.
3. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and W. Clayton (2004) “Benchmarking the Price Reasonableness of a
Long-Term Electricity Contract,” Energy Law Journal, 25:2, 357-383.
4. Woo, C.K., A. Olson and R. Orans (2004) “Benchmarking the Price Reasonableness of an
Electricity Tolling Agreement,” Electricity Journal, 17:5, 65-75. (One of the 25 most
downloaded articles)
5. Lloyd, D., C.K. Woo, M. Borden, R. Warrington and C. Baskette (2004) “Competitive
Procurement and Internet-based Auction: Electricity Capacity Option,” Electricity Journal,
17:4, 74-78. (One of the 25 most downloaded articles)
6. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd, M. Borden, R. Warrington and C. Baskette (2004) “A Robust InternetBased Auction to Procure Electricity Forwards,” Energy, 29:1, 1-11. (Lead article)
7. Woo, C.K., M. Borden, R. Warrington and W. Cheng (2003) “Avoiding Overpriced Risk
Management: Exploring the Cyber Auction Alternative,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, 141:2, 3037.
Electricity Risk Management
1. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz, A. Olson, B. Horii and C. Baskette (2006) “Efficient Frontiers for
Electricity Procurement by an LDC with Multiple Purchase Options,” OMEGA, 34:1, 70-80.
2. Woo, C.K., A. Olson and I. Horowitz (2006) “Market Efficiency, Cross Hedging and Price
Forecasts: California’s Natural-Gas Markets,” Energy, 31, 1290-1304.
3. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz, B. Horii and R. Karimov (2004) “The Efficient Frontier for Spot and
Forward Purchases: An Application to Electricity,” Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 55, 1130-1136.
28
4. Woo, C.K., R. Karimov and I. Horowitz (2004) “Managing Electricity Procurement Cost and
Risk by a Local Distribution Company,” Energy Policy, 32:5, 635-645.
5. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz and K. Hoang (2001) “Cross Hedging and Forward-Contract Pricing of
Electricity,” Energy Economics, 23, 1-15. (Lead article and one of the 10 most cited recent
papers published in Energy Economics, see Tol, R.J.S. and J.P. Weyant (2006) “Energy
Economics’ most influential papers,” Energy Economics, 28:4, 405-409 )
Demand Response and Capacity Rationing
1. Woo, C.K., E. Kollman, R. Orans, S. Price and B. Horii (2008) “Now that California Has AMI,
What Can the State Do with It?” Energy Policy, 36, 1366-74.
2. Horowitz, I. and C.K. Woo (2006) “Designing Pareto-Superior Demand-Response Rate
Options,” Energy, 31:6-7, 1040-1051.
3. Hartway, R., S. Price and C.K. Woo (1999) “Smart Meters, Customer Choice and Profitable
Time of Use Rate Option,” Energy, 24, 895-903.
4. Woo, C.K., P. Chow and I. Horowitz (1996) "Optional Real-Time Pricing of Electricity for
Industrial Firms," Pacific Economic Review, 1:1, 79-92.
5. Woo, C.K., R. Orans, B. Horii and P. Chow (1995) "Pareto-Superior Time-of-Use Rate Option
for Industrial Firms," Economics Letters, 49, 267-272.
6. Woo, C.K. (1993) "Efficient Electricity Pricing with Self-Rationing: Reply," Journal of
Regulatory Economics, 5:1, 101-102.
7. Woo, C.K. (1992) "Optimal Electricity Pricing and Capacity Rationing," Hong Kong Economic
Papers, 22, 1-6.
8. Woo, C.K. (1991) "Capacity Rationing and Fixed Cost Collection," The Energy Journal, 12:2,
153-164.
9. Woo, C.K. (1990) "Efficient Electricity Pricing with Self-Rationing," Journal of Regulatory
Economics, 2:1, 69-81. Reprinted in Rees R. (2006) The Economics of Public Utilities, The
International Library of Critical Writings in Economics Series 196, Edward Elgar.
10. Woo, C.K. and N. Toyama (1986) "Service Reliability and the Optimal Interruptible Rate
Option in Residential Electricity Pricing," The Energy Journal, 7:3, 123-136.
Electricity Pricing and Rate Design
1. Woo, C. K., B. Horii and I. Horowitz (2002) “The Hopkinson Tariff Alternative to TOU Rates in
the Israel Electric Corporation,” Managerial and Decision Economics, 23, 9-19.
2. Seeto, D. Q., C.K. Woo and I. Horowitz (2001) “Finessing the Unintended Outcomes of PriceCap Adjustments: An Electric Utility Multi-Product Perspective,” Energy Policy, 29:13, 11111118.
29
3. Seeto, D.Q., C. K. Woo and I. Horowitz (1997) “Time-of-Use Rates vs. Hopkinson Tariffs
Redux: An Analysis of the Choice of Rate Structures in a Regulated Electricity Distribution
Company," Energy Economics, 19, 169-185.
4. Horowitz, I., D.Q. Seeto and C.K. Woo (1996) "Ramsey Pricing of Electricity under Unknown
Bypass Costs," The Energy Journal, 17:2, 59-77.
5. Seeto, D.Q., S.D. He and C.K. Woo (1994) "Pricing Electric Harmonics," Energy, 20:7, 617621.
6. Woo, C.K., B. Hobbs, R. Orans, R. Pupp and B. Horii (1994) "Emission Costs, Customer
Bypass and Efficient Pricing of Electricity," The Energy Journal, 15:3, 43-54.
7. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, R. Pupp and I. Horowitz (1994) "Demand Side Management and
Electric Power Exchange," Resource and Energy Economics, 16, 243-254.
8. Woo, C.K. (1988) "Optimal Electricity Rates and Consumption Externality," Resources and
Energy, 10, 277-292.
9. Woo, C.K. and D.Q. Seeto (1988) "Optimal Off-Peak Incremental Sales Rate in Electricity
Pricing," The Energy Journal, 9:1, 93-102.
10. Woo, C.K. (1988) "Inefficiency of Avoided Cost Pricing of Cogenerated Power," The Energy
Journal 9:1, 103-113.
11. Woo, C.K. (1985), "An Application of the Expenditure Function in Electricity Pricing: Optimal
Residential Time-of-Use Rate Option," The Energy Journal, 6:2, 89-99.
Integrated Resource Planning
1. Heffner, G., C.K. Woo, B. Horii and D. Lloyd-Zannetti (1998) “Variations in Area- and TimeSpecific Marginal Capacity Costs of Electricity Distribution,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, PE-493-PWRS-012-1997, 13:2, 560-567.
2. Forte, V.J., R. Pupp, R. Putnam and C.K. Woo (1995) "Using Customer Outage Costs in
Electricity Reliability Planning," Energy, 20:2, 81-87.
3. Pupp, R., C.K.Woo, R. Orans, B. Horii and G. Heffner (1995) "Load Research and Integrated
Local T&D Planning," Energy, 20:2, 89-94.
4. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd-Zannetti, R. Orans, B. Horii and G. Heffner (1995) "Marginal Capacity
Costs of Electricity Distribution and Demand for Distributed Generation," The Energy Journal,
16:2, 111-130.
5. Woo, C.K., R. Orans, B. Horii, R. Pupp and G. Heffner (1994) "Area- and Time-Specific
Marginal Capacity Costs of Electricity Distribution," Energy, 19:12, 1213-1218.
6. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and B. Horii (1994) "Targeting Demand Side Management for Electricity
Transmission and Distribution Benefits," Managerial and Decision Economics, 15, 169-175.
7. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and R.L. Pupp (1994) "Demand Side Management and Electric Power
Exchange," Energy, 19:1, 63-66.
30
8. Keane, D.M. and C.K. Woo (1992) "Using Customer Outage Costs to Plan Generation
Reliability," Energy, 17:9, 823-827.
Value of Service Reliability
1. Woo, C.K. and R.L. Pupp (1992) "Costs of Service Disruptions to Electricity Consumers,"
Energy, 17:2, 109-126.
2. Woo, C.K., R.L. Pupp, R. Mango and T. Flaim (1991) "How Much Do Electricity Consumers
Want to Pay for Reliability?" Energy Systems and Policy, 15, 145-159.
3. Hartman, R.S., M.J. Doane and C.K. Woo (1990) "Status Quo Bias in the Measurement of
Value of Service," Resources and Energy, 12, 197-214.
4. Munasinghe, M., C.K. Woo and H.P. Chao (1988) "Guest Editors' Introduction," Special
Electricity Reliability Issue, The Energy Journal, 9. i-iv.
5. Goett, A.A. D. McFadden and C.K. Woo (1988) "Estimating Residential Value of Service
Reliability with Market Research Data," Special Electricity Reliability Issue, The Energy
Journal, 9, 105-120.
6. Woo, C.K. and K. Train (1988) "The Cost of Electric Power Interruption to Commercial Firms,"
Special Electricity Reliability Issue, The Energy Journal, 9, 161-172.
7. Doane, M.J., R.S. Hartman and C.K. Woo, (1988) "Households' Perceived Value of Electric
Power Service Reliability: An Analysis of Contingent Valuation Data," Special Electricity
Reliability Issue, The Energy Journal, 9, 135-149.
8. Doane, M.J., R.S. Hartman and C.K. Woo, (1988) "Household Preferences of Interruptible
Rate Options and the Revealed Value of Service Reliability," Special Electricity Reliability
Issue, The Energy Journal, 9, 121-134.
9. Keane, D.M., L.S. MacDonald and C.K. Woo (1988) "Estimating Residential Partial Outage
Costs with Market Research Data," Special Electricity Reliability Issue, The Energy Journal,
9, 151-159.
Applied Microeconomics
1. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz, S. Luk and A. Lai (2008) “Willingness to Pay and Nuanced Cultural
Cues: Evidence from Hong Kong’s License-Plate Auction Market” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 29, 35-53.
2. Woo, C.K. and R.H.F. Kwok (1994) "Vanity, Superstition and Auction Price," Economics
Letters, 44, 389-395.
3. Woo, C.K. (1994) "Managing Water Supply Shortage: Interruption vs. Pricing," Journal of
Public Economics, 54, 145-160.
4. Woo, C.K. and K.W.K. Lo (1993) "Factor Supply Interruption, Welfare Loss and Shortage
Management," Resource and Energy Economics, 15, 339-352.
31
5. Woo, C.K. (1992) "Drought Management, Service Interruption and Water Pricing: Evidence
from Hong Kong," Water Resources Research, 28:10, 2591-2595.
6. Hartman, R.S., M.J. Doane and C.K. Woo (1991) "Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo,"
Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 141-162.
7. Woo, C.K., P. Hanser and N. Toyama (1986) "Estimating Hourly Electric Load with
Generalized Least Squares Procedures," The Energy Journal, 7:2, 153-170.
8. Woo, C.K. (1985) "Demand for Electricity of Small Nonresidential Customers under Time-ofUse Pricing," The Energy Journal, 6:4, 115-127.
9. Woo, C.K. (1984) "A Note on Measuring Household Welfare Effects of Time-of-Use Pricing,"
The Energy Journal, 5:3, 171-181.
Applied Finance
1. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz, N. Toyama, A. Olson, A. Lai, and R. Wan (2007) “Fundamental
Drivers of Electricity Prices in the Pacific Northwest,” Advances in Quantitative Analysis of
Finance and Accounting, 5, 299-323.
2. Woo, C.K., I. Horowitz and K. Hoang (2001) “Cross Hedging and Value at Risk: Wholesale
Electricity Forward Contracts,” Advances in Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management,
8, 283-301.
3. Wong, K.A., C.K. Woo and R.Y.K. Ho (1998) “Macroforecasting Accuracy and Gains from
Stock Market Timing,” Research in Finance, 16, 127-139.
4. Woo, C.K. and Y.L. Cheung (1996) "Specification Tests of A Market Model of Stock Returns,"
Advances in Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 4, 187-194.
5. Woo, C.K., A. Lai and Y.L. Cheung (1995) "Specification Tests of A Market Model of AsiaPacific Stock Returns: Thailand and Hong Kong," Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 22:3, 363-375.
6. Woo, C.K., Y.L. Cheung and R.Y.K. Ho (1994) "Endogeneity Bias in Beta Estimation:
Thailand and Hong Kong," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2, 453-461.
7. Ho, R.Y.K., Z. Fang and C.K. Woo (1992) "Intraday Arbitrage Opportunities and Price
Behavior of Hang Seng Index Futures," The Review of Futures Markets, 11:3, 413-430.
8. Fang, Z. and C.K. Woo (1991) "Two Factor Model for Bond Selection," Economics Letters,
37, 417-421.
Book Reviews
1. Woo, C.K. (2007) “Book Review: Agile Energy Systems: Global Lessons from the California
Energy Crisis by W.W. Clark II and T.K. Bradshaw,” Energy, 32, 871.
32
2. Woo, C.K. (2005) “Book Review: Electricity Reform in China, India and Russia by Xu Yichong,” Energy Studies Review, 13:2, 148-149.
3. Woo, C.K. (2004) “Book Review: Reforming the Power Sector in Africa edited by M.R.
Bhagavan,” Energy, 29, 1231-1232.
Invited lectures
1. “Will You Likely Win the Electricity Deregulation Game?” Keynote Speech, CCEPSI October
27-31, 2008 Macau.
2. “A Critical Assessment of the Hong Kong Government's Proposed Post-2008 Regulatory
Regime for Local Electricity Utilities,” Elizabeth Chan Cheng E-Lay Geography Academic
Seminar, March 16, 2006, Hong Kong Baptist University.
3. “Israeli Reform,” Electricity Industry Reform in Small Markets – Lessons for Hong Kong:
Lunch and Seminar, October 12, 2004, sponsored by Hong Kong Electric Company, UBS,
and Mallesons Stephen Jaques.
4. "Recent Contributions to Customer Outage Cost Estimation," Workshop on Energy Load
Management, Israel Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure.
Testimony
1. Woo, C.K. (2004) Electricity Price Forecast: 2001-2030, and Response to Rebuttal Testimony
of William A. Monsen; In the Matter of the Application for Reduction of Assessment of
Geysers Power Company, LLC, Sonoma County Assessment Appeals Board, Application
Nos.: 01/01-137 through 157.
2. Woo, C.K. (2004) Declaration of Dr. C.K. Woo in support of Micrel Inc.’s final offer: Micrel Inc.
v. Chevron Energy Solutions, LP.
3. Woo, C.K. (2002) Rebuttal Testimony filed on the behalf of Southern California Water
Company before the California Public Utilities Commission.
4. Woo, C.K. and P.D. Ferguson (1999) Comments on the Ontario Energy Board Staff’s Draft
Electric Distribution Rate Handbookt submitted to Ontario Energy Board on the behalf of The
Upper Canada Energy Alliance.
5. Woo, C.K. (1996) Direct Testimony, Industrial Service Options Application, prepared for B.C.
Hydro.
6. Woo, C.K. (1996) Rebuttal Testimony Presenting an Analysis of the Use of Class-based
Value of Service for Marginal Generation Capacity Costs, filed with California Public Utilities
Commission for Pacific Gas Electric Company’s 1996 General Rate Case.
33
7. Woo, C.K. (1979) Economics of Solar Financing, Order Instituting Investigation 42 Testimony
submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission for the California Energy Commission.
Research Reports
1. C.K. Woo and K. Herter (2006) Residential Demand Response Evaluation Scoping Study,
LBNL Report-61090, report submitted to Demand Response Research Center, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
2. Woo, C.K. (2005) Should Hong Kong Reform its Electricity Sector? report submitted to The
Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong.
3. Woo, C.K. and M. King (2004) Costs of Electricity Deregulation and Implications for Israel,
report submitted to Israel Electric Corporation.
4. Woo. C.K. and D. Lloyd (2001) Stranded Cost Recovery in Electricity Market Reforms, report
submitted to Israel Electric Corporation.
5. Woo. C.K. and D. Lloyd (2001) Assessment of the Peak Benefit Multiplier Effect: (a)
Economic Theory and Statistical Specification; and (b) Theory, Estimation and Results,
reports submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
6. Horii, B., C.K. Woo and D. Engel (2000) PY2001 Public Purpose Program Strategy and Filing
Assistance: (a) A New Methodology for Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation; (b) Peak Benefit
Evaluation; (c) Screening Methodology for Customer Energy Management Programs; and (d)
Should California Ratepayers Fund Programs that Promote Consumer Purchases of CostEffective Energy Efficient Goods and Services? reports submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
7. Tishler, A., C.K. Woo and D. Lloyd (2000) Reforming Israel’s Electric Sector: Choices for
Change, position paper submitted to Israel Electric Corporation.
8. Woo, C.K. and K. Hoang (1999) Cross Hedging and Risk Premium, report submitted to
Ontario Power Generation Inc.
9. Woo, C.K. and B. Horii (1999) Should Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) Replace Its Industrial
Time of Use Energy Rates with A Hopkinson Tariff? report prepared for Israel Electric
Corporation.
10. Lloyd-Zannetti D. and C.K. Woo (1997) Wheeling Charges for Transmission Service, report
prepared for Israel Electric Corporation.
11. Lloyd-Zannetti D. and C.K. Woo (1997) Capacity Shortage and Profitable Rate Options,
report prepared for Israel Electric Corporation.
12. Lloyd-Zannetti, D., B. Horii, J. Martin, S. Price and C.K. Woo (1996) Profitability Primer: A
Guide to Profitability Analysis in the Electric Power Industry, Report No. TR-106569, Electric
Power Research Institute.
13. Woo, C.K. (1996) Electricity Market Integration in the Western Interconnection, prepared for
British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation (Powerex).
34
14. Woo, C.K. and R. Orans (1996) Transmission: Spot Price, Reliability Differentiation and
Investment, report submitted to Ontario Hydro.
15. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and B. Horii (1995) Impact of Market Structure and Pricing Options on
Customers' Bills, report submitted to B.C. Hydro.
16. Woo, C.K., L. Woo and R. Orans (1995) Rationing and Area-Specific Generation Costs,
report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
17. Woo, C.K., D. Lloyd-Zannetti and L. Woo (1994) Using Residual Emissions Adders in
Electricity Ratemaking, report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
18. Orans, R., C.K. Woo and C. Greenwell (1994) Designing Profitable Rate Options Using Areaand Time-Specific Costs, Report No. TR-104375, Electric Power Research Institute.
19. Orans, R. and C.K. Woo (1992) Marginal Cost Disaggregation Study, report submitted to
Wisconsin Electric Power Corporation.
20. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, J.N. Swisher, B. Wiersma and B. Horii (1992) Targeting DSM for
Transmission and Distribution Benefits: A Case Study of PG&E's Delta District, Report No.
TR-100487, Electric Power Research Institute.
21. Pupp, R. and C.K. Woo (1991) Integrating Customer Outage Costs in Electricity Reliability
Planning, report submitted to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
22. Woo, C.K., R.L. Pupp and D. Glyer (1991) Voluntary Interruptible Pricing Program (VIPP): An
Integrated Approach to Electricity Reliability Pricing, report submitted to Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation. Also in Caves, D.W. and D. Glyer (1992), Designing an Integrated Menu
of Electric Service Options, Electric Power Research Institute Report TR-100523, Appendix
B.
23. Doane, M.J., G. McCelland, W. Schulze and C.K. Woo (1990) Industrial Outage Cost Survey,
report submitted to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
24. Doane, M.J., G. McCelland, W. Schulze and C.K. Woo (1990) Residential Outage Cost
Survey, report submitted to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
25. Doane, M.J. and C.K. Woo (1988) An Analysis of Customer Subscription to PG&E's
Interruptible and Curtailable Rates, report submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
26. Woo, C.K. (1988) Recent Contributions to Customer Outage Cost Estimation, report
submitted to Israel Models Limited.
27. Doane, M.J. R.S. Hartman, W. Schulze and C.K. Woo (1988) Recommended Approach for
Collecting Data on Outage Cost and Value of Service Reliability, report submitted to Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
28. Woo, C.K. (1987) Review of Existing NMPC Procedures for Collecting Data on Outage Cost
and Value of Service Reliability, report submitted to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
29. Woo, C.K., (1987) Recent Contributions to the Theory and Measurement of Customer Value
of Service Reliability, report submitted to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
30. Woo, C.K. (1984) Residential Time of Use Program - First and Second Semi-Annual Reports,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Reports filed with the California Public Utilities
Commission.
35
31. Woo, C.K. (1983) A-20 Small Commercial Time of Use Experiment, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company Reports filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.
32. Woo, C.K. and R. Orans (1983) Transferability of Other Utilities' Time of Use Experiments to
PG&E's Service Schedule D-7, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Report filed with the
California Public Utilities Commission.
Conference Papers
1. Tishler, A. and C.K. Woo (2005) "Why is electricity deregulation likely to fail in Israel?" 25th
USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, Denver Colorado.
2. Woo, C K, Karimov, R I and Lloyd, D (2003) “Did a Local Distribution Company Procure
Prudently during the California Electricity Crisis?’ International Conference on Energy Market
Reform: Issues and Problems, Hong Kong, August 25-26.
3. Seeto, D. and C.K. Woo (1995) "Time-of-Use Rates vs. Hopkinson Tariffs in Electricity
Pricing," Rutgers University Advanced Workshop in Regulation and Public Utilities
Economics, 8th Annual Western Conference, July 5-7, San Diego, California.
4. Seeto, D., S.D. He and C.K. Woo (1994) "Regulatory Perspectives of the Harmonics
Problem: Pricing Electric Harmonics," 1994 IEEE Summer Power Engineering Society
Meeting, July 24-29, San Francisco, California.
5. Seeto, D. and C.K. Woo (1994) "Practical Ramsey Pricing of Electricity and Customer Bypass
under Regulation," Rutgers University Advanced Workshop in Regulation and Public Utilities
Economics, 7th Annual Western Conference, July 6-8, San Diego, California.
6. Orans, R., C.K. Woo, B. Horii and R. Pupp (1994) "Estimation and Applications of Area- and
Time-Specific Marginal Capacity Costs," Proceedings: 1994 Innovative Electricity Pricing,
(February 9-11, Tampa, Florida) Electric Research Power Institute, Report TR-103629, 306315.
7. Heffner, G., R. Orans, C.K. Woo, B. Horii and R. Pupp (1993) "Estimating Area Load and
DSM Impact by Customer Class and End-Use," Western Load Research Association
Conference, September 22-24, San Diego, California; and Electric Power Research Institute
CEED Conference, October 27-29, St. Louis, Missouri.
8. Woo, C.K. (1992) "Drought Management: Service Interruption," International Conference on
Economics and Government, September 1-4, Gold Coast, Australia.
9. Woo, C.K. (1991) "Local Electric Service Reliability as a Public Good," 14th International
Association of Energy Economists (IAEE) Conference, East-West Center, Hawaii.
10. Keane, D.M. and C.K. Woo (1991) "Using Customer Outage Costs to Plan Generation
Reliability," 14th International Association of Energy Economists (IAEE) Conference, EastWest Center, Hawaii.
11. Woo, C.K. (1990) "Outage Costs as Design Criteria for Product Differentiation," New Service
Opportunities for Electric Utilities: Creating Differentiated Products, Symposium sponsored by
Electric Power Research Institute and University of California, Berkeley.
36
12. Woo, C.K., B.M. Gray and M.E. Carl (1987) "Residential Air Conditioning Load Model," 8th
International Association of Energy Economists (IAEE) Conference, MIT.
13. Woo, C.K., (1987) "Fixed Cost Recovery under Competition in Electricity Pricing," 8th
International Association of Energy Economists (IAEE) Conference, MIT.
37