We apply an algorithm that optimizes the generation dispatch for a dominant firm to Colorado's electricity market and show that the dominant electricity generation firm can strategically congest transmission into the region to receive a maximum price over 50% of the time. When it does not get the maximum price, the dominant firm still receives an average markup more than 10% over the competitive price. We use this model to show how mitigation strategies such as enhancing the transmission grid, divesting the dominant firm's generation assets, and promoting entry into the generation market can lower prices in a wholesale electricity generation industry by limiting a dominant firm's market power.
BaileyElizabeth M. (1998). The Geographic Expanse of the Market for Wholesale Electricity. MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
2.
BishopChristopher M. (1995). Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BorensteinSeverinBushnellJamesStoftSteven (1999). “The Competitive Effects of Transmission Capacity in a Deregulated Electricity Market,” Rand Journal of Economics.Forthcoming.
4.
ChaoHung-poand Stephen Peck (1996). “A Market Mechanism for Electric Power Transmission.” Journal of Regulatory Economics10: 25-59.
5.
Colorado Electricity Advisory Panel (1999). Evaluation Study Report. Denver: Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
6.
Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (1999). Comments of the OCC to the Colorado Electricity Advisory Panel on Market Power: The Potential Exercise of Horizontal Market Power in a Deregulated Colorado Electricity Market. Denver: Colorado's Office of Consumer Counsel.
7.
Colorado Public Utilities Commission (2000). Decision No. C00-190, Docket No. 99A-549E. Denver: State of Colorado.
8.
DebRajatAlbertRichardHsueLie-Long (1996). Modeling Competitive Energy Market in California: Analysis of Restructuring. Los Altos, CA: LCG Consulting.
9.
Energy Information Administration (1996). Electric Power Annual, Volume J. Washington, D C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
10.
EIA (1998a). The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry: Selected Issues, 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
11.
EIA (1998b). Electric Power Annual, Volume I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
12.
FeilerThomasRabagoKarl R.WangKatherine (1999). Socio-Economic and Legal Issues Related to an Evaluation of the Regulatory Structure of the Retail Electric Industry in the State of Colorado. Econergy International Corporation.
13.
GravesFrank C.GrantE. Read, Philip Q. Hanser, and Robert L. Earle (1998). “One-Part Markets for Electric Power: Ensuring the Benefits of Competition,” Power Systems Restructuring: Engineering and Economics, ed.IlicMarijaGalianaFranciscoFinkLesterBoston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14.
HoganWilliam H. (1993). “Markets in Real Electric Networks Require Reactive Prices.” The Energy Journal14(3): 171-200.
15.
HoganWilliam H. (1998). Competitive Electricity Market Design: A Wholesale Primer. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
16.
KahnEdwardBaileyShawnPandoLuis (1997). “Simulating Electricity Restructuring in California: Interactions with the Regional Market,” Resource and Energy Economics19: 3-28.
17.
QuickDavid M. (2000). The Effect of Transmission on a Dominant Firm's Ability to Exert Market Power in the Electricity Generation Industry. PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
18.
RudkevichAleksandrDuckworthMaxRosenRichard (1998). “Modeling Electricity Pricing in a Deregulated Generation Industry: The Potential for Oligopoly Pricing in a Poolco,” The Energy Journal19(3): 19-48.
19.
StoftSteven (1997). The Effect of the Transmission Grid on Market Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
20.
Stone and Webster Management Consultants, Inc(1999). Energy and Economic Modeling Issues Related to an Evaluation of the Regulatory Structure of the Retail Electric Industry in the State of Colorado. Englewood, CO: Colorado's Electric Advisory Panel.
21.
SweetserAl (1998). “Measuring Market Power in a State with a Dominant Supplier: A Case Study,” The Electricity Journal (July): 61-70.
22.
U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (1992). Statement Accompanying Release of Revised Merger Guidelines.
23.
KipViscusi W.VernonJohn M.HarringtonJoseph E.Jr. (1998). Economics of Regulation and Antitrust.Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
24.
WolframCatherine D. (1995). Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Department of Economics, (November).
