Search

Load Serving Entities (LSEs) can procure electricity from their owned generation or purchase it on bilateral or organized markets. Electric utility procurement decisions have important implications for rates, resource adequacy, environmental impacts, and LSE cost recovery. However, there is little or no research on trends of utility procurement practices—or the role of wholesale market transactions. This paper leverages information from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, Berkeley Lab's Resource Planning Portal, and structured interviews with regulatory and utility staff. We find that use of market transactions to meet electric energy needs has been increasing across U.S. LSEs. The reasons for this trend include a general stagnation in building owned resources, a preference towards contracting renewable energy resources to meet RPS targets, and the lower relative cost of wholesale market electricity. Results suggest resource adequacy obligations may drive preferences for asset ownership more than a profit incentive. We also recommend improving the planning to procurement connection by incorporating operational constraints of market transactions within planning processes. These results provide insights on key issues in electric utility procurement that could improve overall market efficiency and identify practices that stakeholders should consider incorporating into their long-term capacity planning processes.

In-house software development for use in a clinical laboratory is a controversial issue. Many of the objections raised are based on outdated software development practices, an exaggeration of the risks involved, and an underestimation of the benefits that can be realized. Buy versus build analyses typically do not consider total costs of ownership, and unfortunately decisions are often made by people who are not directly affected by the workflow obstacles or benefits that result from those decisions. We have been developing custom software for clinical use for over a decade, and this article presents our perspective on this practice. A complete analysis of the decision to develop or purchase must ultimately examine how the end result will mesh with the departmental workflow, and custom-developed solutions typically can have the greater positive impact on efficiency and productivity, substantially altering the decision balance sheet. Involving the end-users in preparation of the functional specifications is crucial to the success of the process. A large development team is not needed, and even a single programmer can develop significant solutions. Many of the risks associated with custom development can be mitigated by a well-structured development process, use of open-source tools, and embracing an agile development philosophy. In-house solutions have the significant advantage of being adaptable to changing departmental needs, contributing to efficient and higher quality patient care.