h1

Pandering, politicians, and oil prices

April 21, 2011

Michael Giberson

The Free Dictionary defines pandering as, among other things, “To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses.”

Here is a new example of the common political variant of pandering: The newly organized federal Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group.

Consumers don’t like high gasoline prices and wish somebody would do something about it. Politicians like to be seen as decisive leaders who can get things done for hard-working American families who have already sacrificed so much, blah blah blah. Politicians know that most of what they can do is substance-free showboating, but it will look like they are doing something. Therefore, the OGPFWG.

Tom Fowler, energy reporter for the Houston Chronicle, quotes Craig Pirrong:

“This is a transparently political fishing expedition that insinuates that fraud or manipulation is distorting oil prices without providing even the flimsiest factual basis for such a suspicion,” Pirrong said. “This is part of a broad effort by the administration to deflect criticism with regard to gasoline prices.”

I think Pirrong is giving the OGPFWG too much credit. An actual fishing expedition takes a lot more effort than issuing a press release or two, but that is all we will see from the OGPFWG.

h1

Fracking regulation just became a little bit more difficult

April 21, 2011

Michael Giberson

Tuesday night a Cheasapeake Energy fracking operation in Pennsylvania suffered a breakdown resulting in the spill of thousands of gallons of fracking fluids at the drilling site and into a local stream.

The news reports so far are kind of sketchy on the scope of the potential damages. They report “thousands of gallons” of fluids spilled, but that phrase encompasses a range from 2 thousand to 999 thousand and isn’t very descriptive: Two thousand gallons is enough water to fill a relatively small backyard swimming pool, 999 thousand gallons is a very large municipal water tower.

How dangerous the spill sounds in new stories varies a bit:

  • A Forbes blogger said, ”thousands of gallons of salt water, likely mixed with minute quantities of chemicals used in the controversial but long-established fracking process have reportedly spilled out of the well and into a stream.”
  • Bloomberg reported, “Chesapeake Energy Corp. is trying to regain control of a natural-gas well in rural Pennsylvania that erupted yesterday, spilling chemically treated water into a creek and prompting evacuations of nearby residents.
  • An Associated Press story in the New York Times said, “thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water [spilled], contaminating a stream and forcing the evacuation of seven families who live nearby as crews struggled to stop the gusher.”

The small backyard swimming pool could also be described as “chemically treated water” (and that municipal water tower), though I suppose if a backyard swimming pool leaked its “thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water” there would be no need to evacuate neighbors.

A more recent Associated Press story says that the driller, Cheasapeake, says “initial testing has found little impact on waterways from a spill of thousands of gallons of drilling fluids from a well site in rural northern Pennsylvania.” Of course you would expect them to say that. The state of Pennsylvania will be testing streams and groundwater in the area.

h1

LearnLiberty.org: Unplanned order

April 20, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve been enjoying the new videos available at LearnLiberty, all of which give clear, insightful discussions of fundamental concepts of classical liberalism (including economics). My highlight of the day is Tom Bell’s “Can order be unplanned?”

The answer is yes. Here Tom explores the rich intellectual history of the concept of spontaneous order, and how individuals pursuing their own ends can coordinate their decentralized actions in ways that lead to the emergence of unplanned order. His brief discussion explains the concepts, refers to its articulation by Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, and shows how the answer to “who’s in charge here?” can be “no one” without society descending into chaos.

h1

BPA continues not to have a new plan for handling excess renewable power production

April 19, 2011

Michael Giberson

From The Oregonian, “BPA, wind developers argue over looming problem of too much power from renewables.”

In sum: “The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative. “

The looming problem involves moments on the Bonneville Power System in which the combination of hydropower production and wind power production (along with a little nuclear power) is well in excess of consumer load and the ability to ship power out. BPA wants to tell wind operators to shut down in exchange for essentially free BPA power, and wind operators – who face the loss of production tax credit subsidies and other renewable energy payments say free isn’t enough. Wind operators want to be paid to back off of the system to compensate for the loss of these other income streams.

In short, the wind operators need a market-price system to ration the moments of excess supply in order to preserve at least some of the benefits of the non-energy price side payments they earn through production tax credits and renewable energy credits. A market-price system for coordinating supply would let the wholesale energy price go negative, essentially requiring generators to pay to deliver power to the system. BPA resists the idea of paying people to take its power, particularly when they must run the system to meet environmental or other requirements.

By the way, much of the boom in wind power development in Washington and Oregon is fostered by demand from California utilities seeking to comply with their state renewable portfolio standard obligation.

Related, from bloggers at Forbes.com:

We’ve discussed this issue a few times in the past, try this search of the KP archives: Bonneville + wind
h1

Updated blog theme

April 18, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve tweaked the blog theme, largely because I’ve never liked how the indented quotes were formatted previously. It has some minor weirdness in the sidebar, which I’m working on. Progress, progress.

h1

Regulatory inertia, antitrust edition

April 18, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

This article in the Wall Street Journal last week got less attention than I expected (perhaps because of budget, Libya, etc. news). It’s a very good analysis of bureaucrat v. bureaucrat competition between the DOJ and the FTC on which agency will take the lead in prosecuting antitrust cases:

Both agencies are charged with enforcing antitrust law, a situation that has prevailed for almost a century, and it’s up to them to sort out disputes. Neither will disclose how often they occur, but antitrust lawyers and agency officials say they have been rising in number and intensity, in part because converging industries—especially in the realm of technology—have blurred the agencies’ traditional lines of responsibility. …

Some methods used to resolve agency disputes belie the stakes involved. In addition to the most recent coin toss—which several people familiar with the matter said the Justice Department won—the agencies have employed the “possession arrow” system borrowed from college basketball, in which they take turns. That prevents either agency from claiming jurisdiction over a company or industry sector in the future. …

The two agencies have different legal procedures for challenging business deals or practices they believe to be anticompetitive. The Justice Department must work through the federal court system and face judges who are often skeptical of antitrust law. The FTC, by contrast, tries cases in its own administrative law system. This, many lawyers believe, provides a significant home-court advantage.

I’ve always classified the FTC’s jurisdiction as being more focused on mergers in consumer retail products and industries.

The article goes on to describe the real costs that this jurisdictional squabbling creates for firms, adding time and expense to an already long and expensive merger process. It concludes with observations from FTC commissioner and former FTC chair William Kovacic, who argues that it’s time to revamp the structure of the federal government’s antitrust prosecution.

I think there’s a crucially important, more general, broader insight to draw from this story: the inevitability of regulatory inertia relative to the underlying dynamism and change in the economy. Note in the quote above what is cited as an impetus for this conflict: “… converging industries—especially in the realm of technology—have blurred the agencies’ traditional lines of responsibility.”

By its nature regulation (including antitrust enforcement) relies on establishing definitions, guidelines, limits on behavior (of an agency as well as of firms), and legalistic, administrative procedures for carrying them out. In the case of antitrust and the split jurisdiction between the DOJ and the FTC, these strictures also include stipulations of who will concentrate on which industries. One of the hallmarks of economic and technological dynamism is the Schumpeterian creative destruction of industry boundaries — whole new industries exist that could not have been imagined a century ago, in the heyday of establishing regulatory agencies.

Why are regulatory agencies slow to adapt to such organic, evolutionary changes in technology and the economy? Here I think Schumpeter meets Buchanan and Tullock — once established, those working in agencies have an interest in maintaining the status quo jurisdiction and budget of the agency, despite any apparent mismatch of its functions with changes in the underlying economy. Changes in regulation require changes in legal procedures, and may even require changes in enabling legislation, adding yet another layer of inertia to the process. In addition, I think that legal procedures intended to increase agency transparency and accountability, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, exacerbate the legalistic bureaucracy of regulation and reinforce the slow pace of regulatory adaptation to underlying dynamic change.

One unfortunate consequence of such regulatory inertia is the potential for reduced welfare/total surplus, through both reduced consumer surplus and producer surplus. Such regulatory agencies were established primarily to protect consumer surplus, but one consequence of technological change has been how it enhances consumers’ abilities to investigate and protect their own interests, as personally and subjectively defined rather than as bureaucratically defined (which is usually defined as lower prices). But regulatory institutions adapt slowly to such change, as this example illustrates, to the detriment of total welfare.

This observation extends to other forms of regulation, including state-level public utility regulation. One of the things I find most paradoxical in the current approach to smart grid investment is how the technology adoption decision has been incorporated into the regulatory process, which the above analysis suggests is counter-productive.

h1

Natural gas fracking news update

April 18, 2011

Michael Giberson

Fracking for natural gas continues to make headlines. For example, USA Today: “‘Fracking’ for natural gas also splits towns and families” and from Bloomberg, “Oil, gas companies injected toxic chemicals into ground, U.S. report shows.”

These stories extend the understanding of shale gas development a little, but mostly cover familiar ground. Another angle, mentioned here before, is that the big players in the industry favor regulation targeted to discourage cheap, low-quality shale gas development. See this discussion by Marc Gunther, based on a recent Shell Oil event. My summary: Every job done badly by low quality firms threatens to produce delays and potentially more-costly regulations that will hit the more established firms harder. By raising rivals’ costs in this way, the regulation-seeking companies may be maximizing the overall value of the gas ultimately produced from shale.

The new shale gas fracking news last week was generated by a research report on fracking that concluded fracking for natural gas has a bigger greenhouse gas impact over 20-years per unit of energy output than that associated with coal.

The study, “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formation“, was published last week in the journal Climatic Change.

I speculate two things account for the continued newsworthiness of natural gas fracking.

First, fracking is new to many people, raises some new concerns, and shale gas has emerged as a potentially immense resource (i.e., big enough to affect national energy policies). In part, the news stories reflect natural interest in the developments.

Second, the uncovering of this vast new resource creates social tensions, as a bunch of people are making sometimes substantial sums of money, mostly by being lucky rather than good. That is to say, people now receiving thousands of dollars – and sometimes millions – mostly bought their properties for other reasons and paid nothing extra for the shale gas resource they acquired because at the time of purchase it wasn’t worth anything. Envy and resentment over apparent unearned wealth help motivate social conflict, and social conflict makes news.

h1

Price gouging interview on the radio

April 17, 2011

Michael Giberson

Last Friday, April 15, 2011, Mark Edge, of the Free Talk Live radio show, interviewed me on price gouging.

Generally speaking, we discuss the recent article on price gouging appearing in Regulation magazine, and we agree that even if price hikes after emergencies are troubling, there just isn’t a better way to manage post-disaster private decisions about appropriate prices for goods and services than letting buyers and sellers work out prices in the usual manner.

The interview starts at about the 2:05:00 mark in the program. The full 2 1/2 hour program:

Juveniles Tried as Adults :: Restitution and Responsibility :: Broken Justice System :: Unfit Movie :: Prison Industrial Complex :: Online Gambling Crackdown :: Smoking Bans :: Silver and Midas :: No Restitution :: Not Paying Income Tax :: Social Security :: Declaring Sovereignty :: Puberty Age Dropping for Females :: Plastic Bottles :: Mark Interviews Michael Giberson.

h1

Gusher of BP oil-spill fund creates “spillionaires”

April 15, 2011

Michael Giberson

A story reported by Kim Barker, ProPublica (a version of the story ran in the Washington Post). I’m excerpting several parts of the story, but the whole story is worth a look:

The oil spill that was once expected to bring economic ruin to the Gulf Coast appears to have delivered something entirely different: a gusher of money.

Some people profiteered from the spill by charging BP outrageous rates for cleanup. Others profited from BP claims money, handed out in arbitrary ways. So many people cashed in that they earned nicknames — “spillionaires” or “BP rich.” Meanwhile, others hurt by the spill ended up getting comparatively little….

Some inequities arose from the chaos that followed the April 20 spill. But in at least one corner of Louisiana, the dramatic differences can be traced in part to local powerbrokers.

Emergency! BP fund seen as a change to help recover from Hurricane Katrina damages:

Just days into the crisis, [Craig Taffaro Jr., St. Bernard's parish president] did what many parish presidents did: He invoked a Louisiana law that allowed him to declare a 30-day emergency and handle the crisis without most normal government checks and balances. But Taffaro used his powers more broadly than most, saying that he wanted to put money back into the community….

In some ways, parish residents seemed to view the disaster and BP’s culpability as a way to recover from earlier blows. More than other coastal communities, St. Bernard bore the brunt of Hurricane Katrina, which flooded almost every home in August 2005. The population dropped almost in half, from about 67,000 in 2000 to about 36,000 in 2010, largely because people didn’t come back after Katrina and the hurricanes that followed. Before the spill, the parish slashed its budget by 11 percent, cutting garbage collection, the fire department and mosquito control. There was just no money.

The spill changed that. Fishermen were paid to lay out protective boom, the floating material used to corral the oil. Contractors were hired to manage the cleanup and provide security. Claims money began flowing to people who said their lives had been upended by the crisis.

The parish government was among the first to benefit, snagging a $1 million check for oil-spill expenses. Parish employees went shopping for cameras, printers, a file cabinet, staplers, six pairs of children’s scissors and 712 shirts emblazoned with the parish name. Some of the money also went to overtime pay for more than 40 parish employees, including three who claimed overtime for picking up dog food for the animal shelter. …

As the money flowed, complaints spread. Some beneficiaries didn’t necessarily suffer from the spill but had social or political connections. Subcontractors said those at the top of the cleanup creamed off money for doing very little, while those at the bottom earned much less for doing the actual work.

At first, everyone was angry with BP. But as the months wore on, some St. Bernard residents directed their frustration at Taffaro, blaming him for handing out jobs and money to a small group of insiders.

Meanwhile, Taffaro was attacking BP and the federal government in the media, appearing on TV alongside Gov. Bobby Jindal and testifying in Congress. His outrage was palpable. There wasn’t enough boom, coordination or respect for the local government. BP wasn’t making good on its obligations.

The pressure paid off. Taffaro at one point boasted that St. Bernard had doled out more BP cleanup money to commercial fishermen than any other Louisiana parish. His claim is impossible to verify, because neither Taffaro nor anyone else would provide details about the spending numbers.

There is more, none of it very encouraging about the role local politics plays in local business in coastal Louisiana:

The company that benefited most from BP’s checkbook was Loupe Construction and Consulting Co., Inc., a small, family-owned business in a nearby parish with few employees and a bare-bones website that misspelled the company name. On May 5, Taffaro chose Loupe to manage the cleanup in St. Bernard, a job that would eventually be worth as much as $125 million.

Taffaro said he selected Loupe after asking for proposals from several companies and because of its disaster experience….

“That company had no particular expertise in oil mitigation — none,” said [Wayne Landry], the parish council chair. “But we’ve been kept in the dark on the entire operation. Pardon the pun, but we’ve been left out of the loop.”

In other Louisiana parishes, BP chose the lead cleanup companies, all of them certified by the Coast Guard as official Oil Spill Response Organizations, meaning they had some experience responding to spills. But Loupe didn’t have that certification. In fact, the company that would eventually manage more than 50 subcontractors and 150 vessels had no oil-spill experience at all. Its main job in St. Bernard had been helping rebuild levees….

Owner Paul Loupe had a long history of debts and lawsuits. Four lawsuits, three of which have been settled, accused him of not paying his bills after Katrina and Hurricane Rita, when he and another small Louisiana company joined up to clear debris in nearby Jefferson Parish, the company’s only major experience responding to a disaster. Loupe’s website says the two companies performed more than $100 million worth of work for Ceres Environmental Services Inc., the Minnesota-based company that hired them.

But much of that work was actually performed by layers of subcontractors, which is why Loupe was accused of being one of the “pass-through” companies that proliferated after the hurricanes. Workers at the bottom of the contracting chain earned so little for debris-removal work that the U.S. Department of Labor later ordered Ceres to pay $1.5 million in back wages to more than 2,000 laborers….

It was “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”:

After Loupe was picked, there was a feeding frenzy to get hired by the company, which operated out of a family compound about an hour from St. Bernard. People with little connection to commercial fishing used old boats or bought new ones and signed up to work. Companies from Washington state, Nevada and Mississippi came to town. Contracts were fought over. Everyone wanted a piece, just as they did after Hurricane Katrina. Only this time, the federal government wasn’t footing the bill; a reviled corporation was, and the prices reflected that.

“There was a lot of gouging,” said David Northcutt, who worked for a Loupe subcontractor and has since sued for unpaid wages. “Everybody had their hand out, of course. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a lot of people.”

h1

Next Restaurant: pricing and ticketing innovation redux

April 12, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Last May I wrote about Next, a new restaurant in Chicago from chef Grant Achatz and his business partner Nick Kokonas. In that post I focused on the two innovations in the proposal: selling tickets concert style rather than having a reservation system, and using dynamic pricing for reservations/tickets at different times on different evenings.

Last week Next opened with great fanfare (although I don’t know first hand, because although I signed up on their email notification list I have yet to receive my login authorization for the ticketing system), and they’ve been getting attention both from foodies and economists (and economist foodies). The design feature that is receiving the most economist attention is the one that Nick Kokonas himself pointed out in a comment on my original blog post — the tickets are non-refundable but transferable.

Naturally, then, a secondary market has cropped up, with $170 tickets selling for $1000 and the like. Larry Ribstein ties his observations on such scalping into his previous work on ticket scalping. Why are such savvy entrepreneurs as Achatz and Kokonas letting secondary sellers capture so much of the surplus that they have created?

In particular, while I like the dynamic pricing, why don’t they set up a secondary market auction themselves? My Kellogg colleague Sandeep Baliga wondered the same thing yesterday at Cheap Talk, and then Jeff Ely picked it up and ran with it later in the day at Cheap Talk (note also that Nick Kokonas commented on both posts, love it). Here’s Jeff’s observations regarding my thoughts on a secondary market:

The most interesting design issue is to manage re-allocation of tickets. This is potentially a big deal for a restaurant like Next because many people will be coming from out of town to eat there. Last-minute changes of plans could mean that rapid re-allocation of tickets will have a big impact on efficiency. More generally, a resale market raises the value of a ticket because it turns the ticket into an option.  This increases the amount people are willing to bid for it.  So Next should design an online resale market that maximizes the efficiency of the allocation mechanism because those efficiency gains not only benefit the patrons but they also pay off in terms of initial ticket sales.

As Sandeep points out in the comments, setting up a resale auction that’s essentially a second-price sealed bid auction is not meaningfully different from or more difficult than any typical eBay auction in which lots of people have participated. Jeff’s auction design points are all really good, and if you’re interested you should go read them; in particular he has some suggestions for keeping scalpers from flooding the queue.

Now I just need to keep checking my email and hope that my ticket login shows up before all of the seats are sold …