We examine recent evidence on the economic performance of the U.S. independent electricity generation market. A sample of power purchase contracts for 26 independent power facilities is used as the basis of this assessment. The contracts were executed in various years between 1987-94. We describe qualitative features of the contracts, including dispatchability and allocation of fuel price risk. We standardize the price formulas of the contract sample and conduct a simple statistical analysis. Because of residual price variation and an indication that buyer willingness-to-pay is highly correlated with price, we conclude that bulk power sold by independent power producers is a heterogeneous product, and evidence for competition in market prices is weak.
BorensteinS. (1985) “Price Discrimination in Free-entry Markets,” RAND Journal of Economics16(3): 380-397.
2.
California Public Utilities Commmission (CPUC) (1990) Decision No. 90-09-088.
3.
California Public Utilities Commmission (CPUC) (1993) Decision No. 93-03-021.
4.
CameronL. (1995) “Limiting Buyer Discretion: Effects on the Price and Performance of Long Term Contracts.” Unpublished paper. Carnegie Mellon University. April.
5.
ComnesG. A.BeldenT. N.KahnE. P. (1995) The Price of Electricity from Private Power Producers Stage II: Expansion of Sample and Preliminary Statistical Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-36054. March.
6.
Consolidated Edison Company (1990) Request for Proposals for Supply Side and Demand Side Resources RFP 90-1. New York.
7.
DorrisG.MountT. (1994) “Rethinking Contracts for Purchased Power: The Economic Advantages of Dispatchability,” The Energy Journal15(4): 167-189.
8.
DoucetJ. (1994) “Coordination of Non-utility Generation Through Priority Purchase Contracts,” The Energy Journal15(1): 179-191.
9.
HallE.ParsonsJ. (1990) “The Efficient Design of Contracts to Purchase Cogenerated Power,” The Energy Journal11(2): 105-116.
10.
HelmD. (1994) “Regulating the Transition to the Competitive Electricity Market,” Regulating Utilities: The Way Forward, ed. BeesleyM.. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
11.
KahnE. (1991) “Risks in Independent Power Contracts: An Empirical Survey,” The Electricity Journal4(9): 30-45.
12.
KahnE.MamayC.BermanD. (1992) “Evaluating Dispatchability Features in Competitive Bidding,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems7(3): 1259-1265.
13.
KahnE.MealM.DoerrerandS.MorseS.(1992) Analysis of Debt Leveraging in Private Power Projects. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-32487. August.
14.
LeK.JackupsR.FeinsteinJ.ThompsonH. (1990) “Operational Aspects of Generator Cycling,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems5(4): 1194-1203.
15.
MillerE. (1993) “A Consideration of Contracting and Competitive Bidding as Alternatives to Direct Economic Regulation in Imperfect Markets,” Utilities Policy3(4): 323-332.
16.
StiglitzJ.WeissA. (1981) “Credit Rationing in Markets with Incomplete Information,” American Economic Review71(3): 393-4.
17.
United Kingdom, House of Commons Select Committee on Energy (1992) Consequences of Electricity Privatisation, HMSO.
18.
United Kingdom, House of Commons Select Committee on Energy(1992) Review of Economic Purchasing.
19.
United Kingdom, House of Commons Select Committee on Energy (1993) Review of Economic Purchasing: Further Statement.
20.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) (1993) Natural Gas 1992 Issues and Trends, DOE/EIA-0560(92). March.
21.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) (1994a) Annual Energy Review 1993, DOE/EIA-0384(93). July.
22.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)(1994b) Electric Power Annual 1992, DOE/EIA-0348(93). December.
23.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) (1995) Annual Energy Outlook 1995: With Projections to 2010, DOE/EIA-0383(95). January.
24.
YarrowG. (1994) Power Sector Reform in Europe with Special Reference to Britain and Norway. American Economic Association.
