- How can transmission pricing be used to reduce the likelihood of anti-competitive behavior by those entities owning both generation and trasmission.
Electricity markets employ open access and non‐discrimination to foster competition, market entry, and innovation. The physical characteristics of the electricity system require explicit consideration of key elements in electricity market design. Pricing and settlement rules for the real‐time market must provide efficient incentives, both for short‐term operations and long‐run investment. The ERCOT energy‐only market design emphasizes the need to get the real‐time prices right. The recent innovation of the ERCOT Operating Reserve Demand Curve (ORDC) addressed the fundamental problem of inadequate region‐wide scarcity pricing that has plagued other organized markets, which have exhibited inadequate incentives both for reliable operations and efficient investment.
ERCOT employs an open wholesale electricity market as the basis for short‐term reliable electricity supply as well as for long‐term investments to maintain reliability in the future. A review of energy price formation in ERCOT leads to two important conclusions: (i) while the ORDC is performing consistently within its design, scarcity price formation is being adversely influenced by factors not contemplated by the ORDC; (ii) other aspects of the ERCOT market design must be improved to better maintain private market response to energy prices as the driver of resource investment, maintenance expenditure and retirement decisions.
The paper identifies three general issues that have affected ERCOT energy prices in recent years, and recommends policy and price formation improvements consistent with efficient market design. These recommendations cannot reverse the impact of broader economic trends, such as low natural gas prices, or national policies, such as subsidies for investments in renewable resources. However, the stress of these forces has exposed areas where there is a need for adjustments to pricing rules and policies within ERCOT.
limited retail wheeling experiment could result in two
ironies: (1) Edison may still be required to wheel power to
retail customers, but at rates less likely to be fully
compensatory, and (2) its generation will be more devalued
than it would have been without the suit.
making; or, more importantly, does it improve the quality of decision? There is a strong case that it does not?
For years, utilities, regulators, and economists have discussed the possibility of opening access to the electric transmission grid. It is now well past the time to cut the Gordian knot in impasse over the debate, and to raise the key strategic question of whether utility owned transmission facilities belong in the ratebase paid for by native-load ratepayers. The question is complex, but requires public discussion and debate as we move inexorably to more competitive bulk power markets. The issue is best approached from three different perspectives:
• Who should bear the risk of residual revenue respon-
sibility for transmission assets?
• Are actual costs and uses reflected in the allocation of responsibilities for transmission revenues?