Price discrimination and the modes of failure in deregulated retail electricity markets

In Australia, as with Great Britain, governments have shown rising concern with the health of competitive residential electricity markets. A core concern is the practice of price discrimination and the rising dispersion of prices. After almost a decade of Full Retail Contestability, the State of Queensland finally removed its regulated price cap from the residential electricity market in 2016, while almost simultaneously, the two jurisdictions that pioneered this price deregulation reform, Great Britain and Victoria, were questioning their prior policy decision. Queensland makes for a fascinating case study because Southeast Queensland comprises a fully deregulated retail market while Regional Queensland is a regulated monopoly - with common input costs across both zones. Consequently, a regulated monopoly with a uniform tariff and 640,000 customers forms a very large control group, which can be directly compared to the competitive market of more than 1.3 million customers - making such analysis globally unique. Analysis of Queensland market conditions concludes the policy is welfare enhancing, and that British and Victorian concerns regarding price discrimination practices are misguided. To be clear, rising electricity prices are a problem, but price discrimination is not. The deregulated competitive market is, perhaps unsurprisingly, better at regulating the overall average tariff and consumer welfare has been enhanced by $184 million per annum - with some consumer segments very materially better off. However, certain modes of failure remain, viz. an inter-consumer misallocation problem and lack of transparency vis-à-vis the anchoring of discounts - known as the “discounts off what?” problem. The former is currently trivial, and the latter requires further research.