IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/0532.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Power and Technological Bias: The Case of Electricity Generation

Author

Listed:
  • Twomey, P.
  • Neuhoff, K.

Abstract

It is difficult to elminated all market power in electricity markets and it is therefore frequently suggested that some market power should be tolerated: extra revenues contribute to fixed cost recovery, facilitate investment and increase security of supply. This suggestion implicitly assumes all generation technologies benefit equally from market power. We assess a mixture of conventional and intermittent generation, eg coal plants and wind power. If all output is sold in the spot market, then intermittent generation benefits less from market power than conventional generation. Forward contracts or option contracts reduce the level of market power but bias against intermittent generators persists.

Suggested Citation

  • Twomey, P. & Neuhoff, K., 2005. "Market Power and Technological Bias: The Case of Electricity Generation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0532, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:0532
    Note: EPRG
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/eprg0501.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Burger & Bernhard Klar & Alfred Muller & Gero Schindlmayr, 2004. "A spot market model for pricing derivatives in electricity markets," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 109-122.
    2. Green, Richard, 1999. "The Electricity Contract Market in England and Wales," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 107-124, March.
    3. Richard Green, 1999. "The Electricity Contract Market in England and Wales," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 107-124, March.
    4. Hoogwijk, Monique & de Vries, Bert & Turkenburg, Wim, 2004. "Assessment of the global and regional geographical, technical and economic potential of onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 889-919, September.
    5. Hjalmarsson, Erik, 2003. "Does the Black-Scholes formula work for electricity markets? A nonparametric approach," Working Papers in Economics 101, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Negrete-Pincetic, Matías, 2018. "Portfolio applications in electricity markets review: Private investor and manager perspective trends," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 192-204.
    2. Green, Richard & Vasilakos, Nicholas, 2010. "Market behaviour with large amounts of intermittent generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3211-3220, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Twomey, Paul & Neuhoff, Karsten, 2010. "Wind power and market power in competitive markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3198-3210, July.
    2. Roy H. Kwon & J. Scott Rogers & Sheena Yau, 2006. "Stochastic programming models for replication of electricity forward contracts for industry," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(7), pages 713-726, October.
    3. Christian Redl & Derek Bunn, 2013. "Determinants of the premium in forward contracts," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 90-111, January.
    4. Benjamin F. Hobbs & Fieke A.M. Rijkers & Maroeska G. Boots, 2005. "The More Cooperation, The More Competition? A Cournot Analysis of the Benefits of Electric Market Coupling," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 69-98.
    5. de Bragança, Gabriel Godofredo Fiuza & Daglish, Toby, 2017. "Investing in vertical integration: electricity retail market participation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 355-365.
    6. Liski, Matti & Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2014. "Forward trading in exhaustible-resource oligopoly," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 122-146.
    7. Andrew Sweeting, 2007. "Market Power In The England And Wales Wholesale Electricity Market 1995-2000," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 654-685, April.
    8. Crawford, Gregory S. & Crespo, Joseph & Tauchen, Helen, 2007. "Bidding asymmetries in multi-unit auctions: Implications of bid function equilibria in the British spot market for electricity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1233-1268, December.
    9. Andreas Ehrenmann & Karsten Neuhoff, 2009. "A Comparison of Electricity Market Designs in Networks," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 274-286, April.
    10. Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2005. "Merchant Transmission Investment," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 233-264, June.
    11. Robert A. Ritz, 2014. "On Welfare Losses Due to Imperfect Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 167-190, March.
    12. Bushnell, James, 2004. "California's electricity crisis: a market apart?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1045-1052, June.
    13. Dressler, Luisa, 2016. "Support schemes for renewable electricity in the European Union: Producer strategies and competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 186-196.
    14. Frank A. Wolak, 2000. "Market Design and Price Behavior in Restructured Electricity Markets: An International Comparison," NBER Chapters, in: Deregulation and Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region, pages 79-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Aitor Ciarreta & María Espinosa, 2010. "Market power in the Spanish electricity auction," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 42-69, February.
    16. Petrella, Andrea & Sapio, Alessandro, 2012. "Assessing the impact of forward trading, retail liberalization, and white certificates on the Italian wholesale electricity prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 307-317.
    17. Adilov, Nodir, 2012. "Strategic use of forward contracts and capacity constraints," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 164-173.
    18. Majid Al-Gwaiz & Xiuli Chao & Owen Q. Wu, 2017. "Understanding How Generation Flexibility and Renewable Energy Affect Power Market Competition," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 114-131, February.
    19. Haita, Corina, 2014. "Endogenous market power in an emissions trading scheme with auctioning," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 253-278.
    20. Woo, C.K. & Chen, Y. & Olson, A. & Moore, J. & Schlag, N. & Ong, A. & Ho, T., 2017. "Electricity price behavior and carbon trading: New evidence from California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 531-543.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    market power; technology choice; electricity markets; intermittent output; forward and option contracting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:0532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.