Under both Labour and the previous Tory regimes, serious consideration has been / is being given by DESNZ & Ofgem to the introduction of zonal (wholesale) pricing of greater or lesser granularity. Maybe it'll be a handful of regions with separate mini-markets at the wholesale level, maybe it'll be a serious plethora of pricing nodes, with nothing that could be termed a 'market' at each.
[To recap: right now there is a single wholesale pricing zone across the whole of GB (not NI) - essentially, the whole of the national grid HV transmission system is a single trading point. This doesn't mean that all bilateral trade in the UK takes place at the same (half-hourly) price: but there is a single, transparent 'settlement' price for each half-hour, arising out of open-market commercial activity, that is an absolutely vital marker for any number of other commercial applications - settlement of forward deals (many of them representing essential hedging activity); basis of CfD subsidies; basis of 'index-related deals' for companies that want to be exposed to spot market prices (there are some); etc etc. Open markets for commodities cannot exist without such things, even if the design of each market is strikingly different in detail. The market we're sketching here looks not at all like, say, the spot market for Brent Crude: but they both have the same essential features.]
Why might there be pressure for change to a more fragmented set-up of regional-or-even-smaller mini (/micro) markets?
The argument is essentially theoretical, albeit based on experiences elsewhere. Its most vocal advocate is Octopus, the UK's largest energy supplier (with tentacles in all manner of other sectors). We might explain it by analogy with postage stamps. Whether I send a letter to someone in the same town, or to Inverness, the stamp will cost the same. Is that in any way reflective of the costs and dynamics of the post? Patently, it is not. Why shouldn't postal rates be properly cost-reflective? It would surely make for efficiencies. If you wanna live in Inverness, well, there you go. It doesn't take much to make the cross-over analogies: if you are determined to build your windfarm in the North of Scotland, why should you get paid for getting your electricity into the GB-wide market at the same wholesale price as if you have a windfarm close to the 'centre of gravity' of GB electricity demand where your product is actually needed? You sure as Hell cause a lot more problems for the Grid. Hence the idea of moving, at least to regional wholesale pricing, if not pricing at an even more granular 'nodal' level.
Oh, and for completeness, those advocating such changes say "it'll be cheaper for everyone in the long run". That's a big leap of faith, though, because although there might (possibly) (in the long run) be an overall system gain from efficiency, the distribution of that gain is unlikely to iron out the positions of the winners and - more significantly - the losers, of which more below.
From first principles, other things being equal I am a big advocate of cost-reflective everything - you need accurate cost / price signals in order to know what's going on in economic life. It's a matter of policy if you subsequently decide to subsidise those 'losers' deemed to be horribly disadvantaged by this, and unable to rectify matters themselves by reacting rationally to those signals. That should be the exception, of course, because the aim is positively to incentivise rational responses!
But there are other considerations than efficiency, and I'll highlight two. The first is political: the great cry of "postcode lottery" goes up - you can hear it already - there being, errr, winners and losers on a geographical basis, with corresponding heartfelt loser-lobbies, and locally-based politicians to heed them. That includes residential energy users, but also electricity generators.
The second is Liquidity. For markets to function, there must be liquidity: it's of paramount importance - a big topic, but for those who don't know why this is so, we'll hold a tutorial another day. How big (in economic terms) does a region need to be before one can be certain of enough free-trading commercial activity to constitute a liquid market? There's no precise science, and a lot of ignorance in play. Yes, we can point to some apparently much smaller electricity markets than GB's, where there seems to be adequate liquidity. But sometimes these turn out to be not genuinely separate markets, but rather 'branches' of the same 'tree'.
All I would conclude with is this: the current GB market[1], with the rather blunt, non-granular price signals it sends, may not be quite as efficient as would be ideal, but it is liquid (some say, 'indeed - but only just') and that's a precious thing, not to be taken for granted or tampered with lightly. If blundering, incomprehending hands break this thing - and Miliband / DESNZ / Ofgem-as-currently-led[2] are just the poeple to do that - it'll be a disaster. I'm not in the thick of the current market-design dynamics, but I sure hope they know what they are about.
ND
_________________
[1] I had a hand in the design of the original manifestation of the present market (2001), though there have been many modifications since. You'll accuse me of pride and undue sentimental conservatism? Fair enough! But I know what the dangers are.
[2] There have been previous Ofgem regimes - and before that agency came into being, its predecessors 'Ofgas' and 'Offer' before it - that were truly excellent. The present management is sub-standard.
