Book contents
- Electricity Capacity Markets
- Electricity Capacity Markets
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Capacity Markets Primer
- 3 Restructured Electricity Markets and Regional Transmission Organizations
- 4 Reliability and the Missing Money Problem
- 5 Capacity Policies
- 6 First-Generation Capacity Markets
- 7 Second-Generation Capacity Markets
- 8 Capacity Market Demand
- 9 Capacity Market Supply
- 10 Capacity Market Design
- 11 Market Power
- 12 Minimum Offer Price Rules
- 13 The Texas Alternative
- 14 Conclusion
- Index
- References
14 - Conclusion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2022
Book contents
- Electricity Capacity Markets
- Electricity Capacity Markets
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Capacity Markets Primer
- 3 Restructured Electricity Markets and Regional Transmission Organizations
- 4 Reliability and the Missing Money Problem
- 5 Capacity Policies
- 6 First-Generation Capacity Markets
- 7 Second-Generation Capacity Markets
- 8 Capacity Market Demand
- 9 Capacity Market Supply
- 10 Capacity Market Design
- 11 Market Power
- 12 Minimum Offer Price Rules
- 13 The Texas Alternative
- 14 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
After two decades in which they have grown tremendously in size, importance, and complexity, capacity markets are due for a comprehensive reassessment. The analysis in this book challenges several of the core assumptions on which capacity markets rest:
1. There is no consensus regarding the missing money theory used to justify capacity markets.
2. The use of forward capacity markets appears to lead to systematic errors in forecasting electricity demand, inducing capacity markets to procure excess capacity and impose excess costs on consumers.
3. Both regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and FERC seem fixated on concerns that capacity prices are too low, despite strong evidence that prices are higher than necessary.
4. Capacity markets have become increasingly and inexorably complex, due in significant part to regulatory accretion that undermines the role of market forces.
5. The widespread use of an engineering-based reliability standard based on a fixed risk-of-outage metric is ill-suited to the goal of reliability.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Electricity Capacity Markets , pp. 252 - 266Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
F References
Aagaard, TS and Kleit, AN (2019) The complexity dilemma in policy market design. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 30, 1.Google Scholar
Bó, ED (2006) Regulatory capture: a review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22, 203–25.Google Scholar
Calabrese, G (1947) Generating reserve capacity determined by the probability method. Transactions of the IEEE 66, 1439–50.Google Scholar
Campbell, RJ (2012) Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric System Resiliency, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service (Report 7–5700).Google Scholar
Carden, K and Wintermantel, N (2013) The Economic Ramifications of Resource Adequacy. Prepared by Astrapé Consulting for the Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (January).Google Scholar
Carden, K, Wintermantel, N, and Pfeifenberger, J (2011) The Economics of Resource Adequacy Planning: Why Reserve Margins Are Not Just About Keeping the Lights On, Washington, DC: National Regulatory Research Institute (April).Google Scholar
Dworkin, MH and Goldwasser, RA (2007) Ensuring consideration of the public interest in the governance and accountability of regional transmission organizations. Energy Law Journal 28, 543.Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2005) Devon Power LLC, Initial decision, 111 FERC ¶ 63,063 (June 15).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2011) Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard. Federal Register 76, 16,250–63 (March 23).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2018) Electric storage participation in markets operated by regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (Order 841), 162 FERC ¶ 61,127 (February 15).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2019) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order accepting proposed tariff revisions, 167 FERC ¶ 61,029 (April 15).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020a). PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order on proposed tariff and operating agreement revisions, 171 FERC ¶ 61,153 (May 21).Google Scholar
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020b) Participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in markets operated by regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (Order No. 841). Federal Register 85, 67,094–158 (September 17).Google Scholar
Mays, J (2021) Missing incentives for flexibility in wholesale electricity markets. Energy Policy 149, 112010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, N (2014) Complexity, capacity, and capture. In Carpenter, D and Moss, DA, eds., Preventing Regulatory Capture, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–123.Google Scholar
New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC) (2020) Resource Adequacy Metrics and Their Applications. Prepared by NYSRC Resource Adequacy Working Group (April 20).Google Scholar
North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) (2018a) 2018 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, Atlanta, GA (December).Google Scholar
North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) (2018b) Probabilistic Adequacy and Measures, Atlanta, GA (July).Google Scholar
Pfeifenberger, J, Newell, S, Earle, R, Hajos, A, and Geronimo, M (2008) Review of PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model (RPM), Boston, MA: Prepared by the Brattle Group for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (June 30).Google Scholar
Pfeifenberger, J, Spees, K, Carden, K, and Wintermantel, N (2013) Resource Adequacy Requirements: Reliability and Economic Implications, Boston, MA: Prepared by the Brattle Group for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (September).Google Scholar
Weber, RF (2012) Structural regulation as antidote to complexity capture. American Business Law Journal 49, 643–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welton, S (2021) Rethinking grid governance for the climate change era. California Law Review 109, 209.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.