Skip to main content
Log in

Electricity Market Restructuring: Reforms of Reforms

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electricity systems present complicated challenges for public policy. In many respects these challenges are similar to those in other network industries in providing a balance between regulation and markets, public investment and private risk taking, coordination and competition. As with other such industries, naturally monopoly elements interact with potentially competitive services, but electricity has some unusual features that defy simple analogy to other network industries. Following a reversal of a long-term decline in real electricity prices, the last two decades of the twentieth century were for the United States a time of reform, reaction, and reforms of reforms in electricity systems, moving slowly towards greater reliance on competition and markets. Changing technology, new entrants in the generation market, and a legislative mandate to provide access to the essential transmission facility accelerated a process that required major innovations in institutions and operations. Complete laissez faire competition is not possible, and the details of an efficient competitive electricity market are neither obvious nor easy to put in place. The benefits of reform may be substantial, but they require careful attention to market design. A review of the past identifies some choices on the road ahead.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bay Area Economic Forum. 2001. The Bay Area—A Knowledge Economy Needs Power: A Report on California's Energy Crisis and its Impact on the Bay Area Economy. Available at www.bayeconfor.org.

  • Bower, J., and D. W. Bunn. 2000. “Model-Based Comparisons of Pool and Bilateral Markets for Electricity.” Energy Journal 21: 1-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushnell, J. B., and S. E. Stoft. 1996. “Electric Grid Investment Under a Contract Network Regime.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 10: 61-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadwalader, M., S. M. Harvey, W. Hogan, and S. Pope. 1998. “Market Coordination of Transmission Loading Relief Across Multiple Regions.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandley, J. D., S. M. Harvey, and W. W. Hogan. 2000. “Electricity Market Reform in California.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, P., and R. Wilson. 1998. A Review of ISO New England's Proposed Market Rules. Hyattsville, MD: Market Design, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, W. 2000. The Evolving Bargain: Strategic Implications of Deregulation and Privatization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Information Administration. 2000. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry 2000: An Update. DOE/EIA-0562(00). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. 1999. “Draining the Pool: The Reform of Electricity Trading in England and Wales.” Energy Policy 27(9).

  • Harvey, S. M., and W. W. Hogan. 2001. “On The Exercise Of Market Power Through Strategic Withholding In California.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. M., W. W. Hogan, and S. L. Pope. 1997. “Transmission Capacity Reservations and Transmission Congestion Contracts.” Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

  • Henney, A. 2001. “The Illusory Politics and Imaginary Economics of NETA.” Power UK 85: 16-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, P. 2000. Government Policy Statement: Further Development of New Zealand's Electricity Industry. Wellington, New Zealand.

  • Hogan, W. W. 1992. “Contract Networks for Electric Power Transmission.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 4: 211-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 1995. “A Wholesale Pool Spot Market Must Be Administered by the Independent System Operator: Avoiding the Separation Fallacy.” Electricity Journal (December): 26-37.

  • Hogan, W. W. 1998a. “Independent System Operator: Pricing and Flexibility in a Competitive Electricity Market.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 1998b. “FERC Policy on Independent System Operators: Supplemental Comments.” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. PL98-5-000, Washington DC, May 1, 1998. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 1998c. “WEPEX: What's Wrong With Least Cost?” Public Utilities Fortnightly (January 1): 46-49.

  • Hogan, W. W. 1998d. “Getting the Prices Right in PJM: Analysis and Summary: April-June.” Electricity Journal 11 August-September 61-67.

  • Hogan, W. W. 1999a. “Getting the Prices Right in PJM. Analysis and Summary: April 1998 through March 1999, The First Anniversary of Full Locational Pricing.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 1999b. “Market Based Transmission Investment and Competitive Electricity Market.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 2000a. “Regional Transmission Organizations: Millennium Order on Designing Market Institutions for Electric Network Systems.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. 2000b. “Flowgate Rights and Wrongs.” Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Available through the author's web page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S., and G. Shuttleworth. 1996. Competition and Choice in Electricity. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joskow, P. L. 2000. “Deregulation and Regulatory Reform in the U.S. Electric Power Sector.” In Deregulation of Network Industries: The Next Steps, edited by S. Peltzman and Clifford Winston. Washington DC: Brookings Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joskow, P. L., and R. Schmalensee. 1983. Markets for Power: An Analysis of Electric Utility Deregulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Léautier, T.-O. 2001. “Transmission Constraints and Imperfect Markets for Power.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 19(1): 27-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Economic Development of New Zealand. 2000. Inquiry into the Electricity Industry. Report to the Minister of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

  • Myhra, D. 1984. Whoops/WPPSS: Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Plants. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

    Google Scholar 

  • NERC Market Interface Committee, Congestion Management Working Group. 1999. Comparison of System Redispatch Methods for Congestion Management. Princeton, NJ: NERC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. M. 1999. Privatization, Restructuring, and Regulation of Network Utilities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1979. Annual Report, NUREG-0690, Washington DC.

  • PJM, NYISO, ISONE, IMO. 1999. Press release, “Ontario's IMO and U.S. Independent System Operators Sign Agreement To Coordinate Inter-Regional Power System Operations.” December 21.

  • PJM, ISONE. 2001. Press release, “ISO New England and PJM Interconnection Propose a Standard Market Design for Wholesale Electricity Markets.” March 29.

  • Power Markets Week. 1997. (September 1) 13.

  • Rajaraman, R., and F. L. Alvarado. 1998. “Inefficiencies of NERC's Transmission Loading Relief Procedures.” Electricity Journal 11 (October): 47-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudnick, H., R. Varela, and W. W. Hogan. 1997. “Evaluations of Alternatives for Power System Coordination and Pooling in a Competitive Environment.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

  • Ruff, L. 1999. “Competitive Electricity Markets: One Size Should Fit All.” The Electricity Journal 12 (November): 20-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruff, L. 2001. “Flowgates, Contingency-Constrained Dispatch, and Transmission Rights.” The Electricity Journal January 14: 34-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweppe, F. C., M. C. Caramanis, R. D. Tabors, and R. E. Bohn. 1998. Spot Pricing of Electricity. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, P., Congressman and Chair of the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce from 1981-95, interview with the author 9/1/98.

  • Stoft, S. 1997. “What Should a Power Marketer Want?” The Electricity Journal: May (10) 34-45.

  • UK Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. 2001. “Balancing and Settlement Code.” March 1, 2001.

  • U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition.

  • Vogel, S. K. 1996. Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, C. 1999a. “Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market.” American Economic Review 89(4): 805-826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, C. 1999b. “Electricity Markets: Should the Rest of the World Adopt the UK Reforms?” Regulation 22(4): 48-53.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hogan, W.W. Electricity Market Restructuring: Reforms of Reforms. Journal of Regulatory Economics 21, 103–132 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013682825693

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013682825693

Keywords

Navigation