Making the least active pay: a simulation of rewards and penalties under Demand Side Participation programs

The orthodox approach for incentivising Demand Side Participation (DSP) programs is that utility losses from capital, installation and planning costs should be recovered under financial incentive mechanisms which aim to ensure that utilities have the right incentives to implement DSP activities. The recent national smart metering roll-out in the UK implies that this approach needs to be reassessed since utilities will recover the capital costs associated with DSP technology through bills. This paper introduces a reward and penalty mechanism focusing on residential users. DSP planning costs are recovered through payments from those consumers who do not react to peak signals. Those consumers who do react are rewarded by paying lower bills. Because real-time incentives to residential consumers tend to fail due to the negligible amounts associated with net gains (and losses) or individual users, in the proposed mechanism the regulator determines benchmarks which are matched against responses to signals and caps the level of rewards/penalties to avoid market distortions. The paper presents an overview of existing financial incentive mechanisms for DSP; introduces the reward/penalty mechanism aimed at fostering DSP under the hypothesis of smart metering roll-out; considers the costs faced by utilities for DSP programs; assesses linear rate effects and value changes; introduces compensatory weights for those consumers who have physical or financial impediments; and shows findings based on simulation runs on three discrete levels of elasticity.

A note on estimating market–based minimum capital risk requirements: a multivariate GARCH approach

Internal risk management models of the kind popularized by J. P. Morgan are now used widely by the world’s most sophisticated financial institutions as a means of measuring risk. Using the returns on three of the most popular futures contracts on the London International Financial Futures Exchange, in this paper we investigate the possibility of using multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a method for the estimation of the value at risk of a portfolio based on a multivariate GARCH model. We find that the consideration of the correlation between the contracts can lead to more accurate, and therefore more appropriate, MCRRs compared with the values obtained from a univariate approach to the problem.

An extreme value theory approach to calculating minimum capital risk requirements

This paper investigates the frequency of extreme events for three LIFFE futures contracts for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a semiparametric approach where the tails are modelled by the Generalized Pareto Distribution and smaller risks are captured by the empirical distribution function. We compare the capital requirements form this approach with those calculated from the unconditional density and from a conditional density - a GARCH(1,1) model. Our primary finding is that both in-sample and for a hold-out sample, our extreme value approach yields superior results than either of the other two models which do not explicitly model the tails of the return distribution. Since the use of these internal models will be permitted under the EC-CAD II, they could be widely adopted in the near future for determining capital adequacies. Hence, close scrutiny of competing models is required to avoid a potentially costly misallocation capital resources while at the same time ensuring the safety of the financial system.

‘Pre-plan mapping’, networks, capital resources and community strategies in England

In this working paper we discuss current attempts to engage communities in planning policy formulation in the UK. In particular we focus on the preparation of Community Strategies (CS) in England to inform local public policy and the wider proposals recently published by the UK government to move towards enhanced community engagement in planning (DTLR, 2001). We discuss how such strategies could be operationalised with a conceptual framework developed following ideas derived from ANT (cf. Murdoch, 1997, 1998; Selman, 2000; Parker & Wragg, 1999; Callon, 1986, 1998) and the ‘capitals’ literature (Lin, 2002; Fine, 2001; Selman, 2000; Putnam, 1993). We see this as an expression of neo-pragmatic planning theory, (Hoch, 1996; Stein & Harper, 2000) to develop a form of ‘pre-plan mapping’.