Abstract
We show that commonly used "avoided cost" rules, which evaluate investment alternatives by comparing their costs to forecasts of future expected cost, are fundamentally flawed for choosing local area investments in distribution capacity. Use of avoided cost rules: 1) confuses cost-effectiveness tests with benefit-cost tests; 2) makes inappropriate marginal comparisons and violates necessary optimality conditions because of the "lumpy" nature of many distribution system investments; 3) fails to incorporate the effects of uncertainty properly; 4) necessarily leads to excess deferral or traditional distribution capacity investments with distributed generation and DSM investments; and 5) does not lead to lowest expected cost investment plans. We conclude by outlining a more appropriate approach to evaluating distribution investments based on evaluations of actual cash flows associated with investment alternatives under uncertainty.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
