Investment Incentives and Electricity Market Design: the British Experience
There is no academic consensus on which electricity market design provides the least distorting investment incentives. Theory suggests that "energy-only market" can allow capacity cost recovery by generators. However, separate payments for capacity or reserve obligations do not need to rely on infrequent price spikes to remunerate reserve capacity. Three years after the controversial change from the compulsory British Electricity Pool with capacity payments to the decentralised energyonly New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA), we contrast the two market designs in terms of investment incentives, analyse NETA's balancing market failures, and review the case for regulatory support for investment.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 4 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/rne|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rneart:v:4:y:2005:i:2:n:1. 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: (Peter Golla)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.