A game theoretical analysis of the design options of the real-time electricity market
In this paper we study the economic consequences of two real-time electricity market designs (with or without penalties) taking into account the opportunistic behaviors of market players. We implement a two-stage dynamic model to consider the interaction between the forward market and the real-time market where market players compete in a Nash manner and rely on supply/demand function oligopoly competition. Dynamic programming is used to deal with the stochastic environment of the market and the mixed complementarity problem is employed to find a solution to the game. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate how the optimal competitor's strategies could change according to the adoption or no adoption of a balancing mechanism and to the level of the penalty imposed on imbalances, regarding a variety of producers' cost structures. The main finding of this study is that implementing balancing mechanisms would increase forward contracts while raising electricity prices. Moreover, possible use of market power would not be reduced when imbalances are penalized.
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published, Energy Studies Review, 2013, 20, 1, 34-64|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00816355|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Harker, Patrick T., 1991. "Generalized Nash games and quasi-variational inequalities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 81-94, September.
- Willems, Bert & Rumiantseva, Ina & Weigt, Hannes, 2009.
"Cournot versus Supply Functions: What does the data tell us?,"
Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 38-47, January.
- Willems, Bert & Rumiantseva, I. & Weigt, H., 2007. "Cournot Versus Supply Functions : What does the Data Tell us?," Discussion Paper 2007-63, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Bert WILLEMS & Ina RUMIANTSEVA & Hannes WEIGT, 2007. "Cournot versus supply functions: what does the data tell us?," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces0720, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
- Willems, Bert & Rumiantseva, I. & Weigt, H., 2007. "Cournot versus Supply Functions : What Does the Data tell us?," Discussion Paper 2007-023, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Allaz, Blaise, 1992. "Oligopoly, uncertainty and strategic forward transactions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 297-308, June.
- Hendrik Bessembinder & Michael L. Lemmon, 2002. "Equilibrium Pricing and Optimal Hedging in Electricity Forward Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1347-1382, 06.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00816355. 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: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.