IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v80y2019icp75-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bargaining local compensation payments for the installation of new power transmission lines

Author

Listed:
  • Joalland, Olivier
  • Pereau, Jean-Christophe
  • Rambonilaza, Tina

Abstract

This paper analyzes transmission system operator (TSO)-host community negotiations over an efficient and socially-optimal compensation payment for the installation of new electric power transmission lines. We consider that the TSO has an incentive to negotiate over a transfer that will become a function of final demand. We thus develop a bargaining game within a vertical relationship framework to include the distribution system operator (DSO) and the end-users at the downside of the bargaining problem. We determine the equilibrium of the game, for three negotiation protocols (sequential, bilateral, and multilateral) as an alternative to the non-cooperative situation. We show that when the number of municipalities involved in the process is higher than 5, the multilateral bargaining procedure is the most profitable for all agents, including the municipalities. Inversely, when the number of municipalities is lower than 5, different cases can arise. A single municipality will prefer the non-cooperative outcome while municipalities will prefer the sequential case when there are 2 or the bilateral case when there are 3 or 4. However, from the TSO standpoint and for the society, multilateral negotiations are always the best outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Joalland, Olivier & Pereau, Jean-Christophe & Rambonilaza, Tina, 2019. "Bargaining local compensation payments for the installation of new power transmission lines," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 75-85.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:75-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.12.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988318304894
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.12.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    3. Gately, Dermot, 1974. "Sharing the Gains from Regional Cooperation: A Game Theoretic Application to Planning Investment in Electric Power," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 15(1), pages 195-208, February.
    4. Jed Cohen & Klaus Moeltner & Johannes Reichl & Michael Schmidthaler, 2016. "An Empirical Analysis of Local Opposition to New Transmission Lines Across the EU-27," The Energy Journal, , vol. 37(3), pages 59-82, July.
    5. Glachant, Jean-Michel & Ruester, Sophia, 2014. "The EU internal electricity market: Done forever?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 221-228.
    6. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    7. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, January.
    8. Oliver Hart & Jean Tirole, 1990. "Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 205-286.
    9. Hasan, Kazi Nazmul & Saha, Tapan Kumar & Chattopadhyay, Deb & Eghbal, Mehdi, 2014. "Benefit-based expansion cost allocation for large scale remote renewable power integration into the Australian grid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 836-847.
    10. Paul L. Joskow, 2014. "Incentive Regulation in Theory and Practice: Electricity Distribution and Transmission Networks," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 291-344, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Banez-Chicharro, Fernando & Olmos, Luis & Ramos, Andres & Latorre, Jesus M., 2017. "Estimating the benefits of transmission expansion projects: An Aumann-Shapley approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1044-1054.
    12. Wenche Tobiasson & Christina Beestermöller & Tooraj Jamasb, 2016. "Public engagement in electricity network development: the case of the Beauly–Denny project in Scotland," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(2), pages 105-126, June.
    13. Joseph J. Spengler, 1950. "Vertical Integration and Antitrust Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4), pages 347-347.
    14. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    15. Fetz, Aurelio & Filippini, Massimo, 2010. "Economies of vertical integration in the Swiss electricity sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1325-1330, November.
    16. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    17. Clark, Derek J. & Pereau, Jean Christophe, 2009. "Fragmented property rights and royalty bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 546-553, October.
    18. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
    19. Glachant, Jean-Michel & Ruester, Sophia, 2014. "The EU internal electricity market: Done forever?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-7.
    20. Patrick Rey & Thibaud Vergé, 2004. "Bilateral Control with Vertical Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 728-746, Winter.
    21. Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling, 1996. "The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 601-622.
    22. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.
    23. Laura Keir & Richard Watts & Shoshanah Inwood, 2014. "Environmental justice and citizen perceptions of a proposed electric transmission line," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 107-120, May.
    24. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    25. Clark Derek J & Pereau Jean-Christophe, 2008. "Passing the Buck in Sequential Negotiation," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, December.
    26. Vijay Krishna & Roberto Serrano, 1996. "Multilateral Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(1), pages 61-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allan Collard-Wexler & Gautam Gowrisankaran & Robin S. Lee, 2019. ""Nash-in-Nash" Bargaining: A Microfoundation for Applied Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 163-195.
    2. Carlton, Dennis W., 2020. "Transaction costs and competition policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Venkat Venkatasubramanian & Yu Luo, 2018. "How much income inequality is fair? Nash bargaining solution and its connection to entropy," Papers 1806.05262, arXiv.org.
    4. Daniel P. O'Brien, 2014. "The welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination in intermediate good markets: the case of bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 92-115, March.
    5. Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-685, April.
    6. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2022. "The Bargaining Trap," CESifo Working Paper Series 9903, CESifo.
    7. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    8. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    9. Johannes Münster & Markus Reisinger, 2021. "Sequencing Bilateral Negotiations with Externalities," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 096, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    10. G. Rossini, 2004. "Vertical integration in a stochastic framework and a nonsymmetric bargaining equilibrium," Working Papers 527, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Kunter, Marcus, 2012. "Coordination via cost and revenue sharing in manufacturer–retailer channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 477-486.
    12. Moellers, Claudia & Normann, Hans-Theo & Snyder, Christopher M., 2017. "Communication in vertical markets: Experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 214-258.
    13. Matthew Backus & Thomas Blakee & Brad Larsen & Steven Tadelis, 2020. "Sequential Bargaining in the Field: Evidence from Millions of Online Bargaining Interactions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1319-1361.
    14. Skartados, Panagiotis, 2022. "Disclosure regime of contract terms and bargaining in vertical markets," UC3M Working papers. Economics 34144, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    15. Shady S. Atallah & Miguel I. Gómez & Jon M. Conrad, 2017. "Specification of Spatial-Dynamic Externalities and Implications for Strategic Behavior in Disease Control," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 209-229.
    16. Michael Polemis & Konstantinos Eleftheriou, 2018. "To Regulate Or To Deregulate? The Role Of Downstream Competition In Upstream Monopoly Vertically Linked Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 51-63, January.
    17. Liang Guo & Ganesh Iyer, 2013. "Multilateral Bargaining and Downstream Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 411-430, May.
    18. Suchan Chae & Seho Kim, 2019. "The effects of third-party transfers in sequential anchored bargaining," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 143-155, March.
    19. Hanato, Shunsuke, 2019. "Simultaneous-offers bargaining with a mediator," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 361-379.
    20. Rey, Patrick & Vergé, Thibaud, 2016. "Secret contracting in multilateral relations," TSE Working Papers 16-744, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Dec 2020.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transmission planning; Compensations; Damages; Local acceptance; Nash bargaining solution; Negotiation protocols;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • L43 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:75-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.