IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aen/journl/1999v20-01-a01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial Transmission Rights Meet Cournot: How TCCs Curb Market Power

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Stoft

Abstract

This paper reconsiders the problem of market power when generators face a demand curve limited by a transmission constraint. After demonstrating that the problem's importance originates in an inherent ambiguity in Cournot-Nash theory, I review Oren's (1997a) argument that generators in this situation capture all congestion rents. In the one-line case, this argument depends on an untested hypothesis while in the three-line case, the Nash equilibrium was misidentified. Finally, the argument that financial transmission rights (and TCCs in particular) will have zero market value is refuted by modeling the possibility of their purchase by generators. This allows transmission owners, who initially own the TCCs, to capture some of the congestion rent. In fact when total capacity exceeds line capacity by more than the capacity of the largest generator, TCCs should attain their perfectly competitive value, thereby curbing the market power of generators.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Stoft, 1999. "Financial Transmission Rights Meet Cournot: How TCCs Curb Market Power," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-23.
  • Handle: RePEc:aen:journl:1999v20-01-a01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=1299
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to IAEE members and subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Edward J. & Hu, Xinin & Winchester, Donald, 2007. "Forward contracts in electricity markets: The Australian experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 3089-3103, May.
    2. Paul Joskow & Jean Tirole, 2005. "Merchant Transmission Investment," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 233-264, June.
    3. DAXHELET, Olivier & SMEERS, Yves, 1999. "Variational inequality models of restructured electricity systems," CORE Discussion Papers 1999066, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. Rashmi Jain & Anwar S. Siddiqui & Majid Jamil & C. P. Gupta & Preeti, 2017. "A strategy for FTR bidding in deregulated electricity markets," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 8(1), pages 78-89, January.
    5. Berry, Carolyn A. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Meroney, William A. & O'Neill, Richard P. & StewartJr, William R., 1999. "Understanding how market power can arise in network competition: a game theoretic approach," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 139-158, September.
    6. Sun, Junjie, 2005. "U.S. Financial Transmission Rights: Theory and Practice," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12266, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Bjørndal, Mette & Gribkovskaia, Victoria & Jörnsten, Kurt, 2014. "Market Power in a Power Market with Transmission Constraints," Discussion Papers 2014/29, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    8. Enzo Sauma & Shmuel Oren, 2006. "Proactive planning and valuation of transmission investments in restructured electricity markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 358-387, November.
    9. Hu, X. & Ralph, D. & Ralph, E.K. & Bardsley, P. & Ferris, M.C., 2004. "Electricity Generation with Looped Transmission Networks: Bidding to an ISO," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0470, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. Rajnish Kamat & Shmuel Oren, 2004. "Two-settlement Systems for Electricity Markets under Network Uncertainty and Market Power," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 5-37, January.
    11. Enzo Sauma & Shmuel Oren, 2006. "Proactive planning and valuation of transmission investments in restructured electricity markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 261-290, November.
    12. Johnsen, T. A., 2001. "Hydropower generation and storage, transmission contraints and market power1," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 63-73, June.
    13. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2001. "Economic Analysis of Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs) with Specific Reference to the Transpower Proposal for New Zealand," Working Paper Series 3902, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    14. Somani, Abhishek, 2012. "Financial risk management and market performance in restructured electric power markets: Theoretical and agent-based test bed studies," ISU General Staff Papers 201201010800003479, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Lusztig, C. & Feldberg, P. & Orans, R. & Olson, A., 2006. "A survey of transmission tariffs in North America," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1017-1039.
    16. Joskow, Paul L & Tirole, Jean, 1999. "Transmission Rights and Market Power on Electric Power Networks I: Financial Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 2093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. repec:spr:annopr:v:258:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2222-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Derek Bunn & Georg Zachmann, 2010. "Inefficient arbitrage in inter-regional electricity transmission," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 243-265, June.
    19. Sauma, Enzo E. & Oren, Shmuel S., 2009. "Do generation firms in restructured electricity markets have incentives to support social-welfare-improving transmission investments?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 676-689, September.
    20. Hu, X. & Ralph, R., 2006. "Using EPECs to model bilevel games in restructured electricity markets with locational prices," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0619, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F0 - International Economics - - General

    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:aen:journl:1999v20-01-a01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Williams). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaeeeea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.