IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2019i44p190-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anti-monopoly policy in electricity: Efficiency of capacity price auction and legitimate conduct of suppliers

Author

Listed:
  • Vasilyev, M.

    (Melentiev Energy Systems Institute, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk, Russia)

Abstract

There are requirements in Russian law to the behavior of suppliers. If some actions do not meet the requirements, the anti-monopoly authority will punish the supplier. There are different viewpoints on what behavior should be considered as well-founded. The paper considers approaches that aim to assess the behavior of power supplier from the viewpoint of a perfect competition market participant and from the viewpoint of cost recovery. The study indicates that different approaches to assess the behavior of capacity suppliers provide different results and supply curves. Capacity market in Russia requires bidding separately for each generating unit and it corresponds neither with the perfect competition model nor with dispositions of the Federal law "On competition protection", if the supplier operates more than one generating unit. Current requirements to conduct of capacity suppliers pose risk on them and do not correspond with efficient market from the viewpoint of industrial organization theory. It is suggested to change the bidding rules and conduct criteria - instead of unit-based bidding apply bidding by power plants and do not apply the criterion "monopolistically low price" to capacity supplier bids.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasilyev, M., 2019. "Anti-monopoly policy in electricity: Efficiency of capacity price auction and legitimate conduct of suppliers," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 190-207.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2019:i:44:p:190-207
    DOI: 10.31737/2221-2264-2019-44-4-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2019-44-190-207r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31737/2221-2264-2019-44-4-7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cramton, Peter & Stoft, Steven, 2005. "A Capacity Market that Makes Sense," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 43-54.
    2. Ordover, Janusz A. & Saloner, Garth, 1989. "Predation, monopolization, and antitrust," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 537-596, Elsevier.
    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. Peter Cramton & Steven Stoft, 2006. "The Convergence of Market Designs for Adequate Generating Capacity," Papers of Peter Cramton 06mdfra, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 2006.
    2. Papavasiliou, Anthony & Cartuyvels, Jacques & Bertrand, Gilles & Marien, Alain, 2023. "Implementation of scarcity pricing without co-optimization in European energy-only balancing markets," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Lindsey, Robin & West, Douglas S., 2003. "Predatory pricing in differentiated products retail markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 551-592, April.
    4. Paul L. Joskow, 2006. "Markets for Power in the United States: An Interim Assessment," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-36.
    5. Meyabadi, A. Fattahi & Deihimi, M.H., 2017. "A review of demand-side management: Reconsidering theoretical framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 367-379.
    6. Elberg, Christina, 2014. "Cross-Border Effects of Capacity Mechanisms in Electricity Markets," EWI Working Papers 2014-11, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    7. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    8. Zhiyong Liu & Yue Qiao, 2012. "Abuse of Market Dominance Under China’s 2007 Anti-monopoly Law: A Preliminary Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 41(1), pages 77-107, August.
    9. Marcel Canoy & Patrick Rey & Eric van Damme, 2004. "Dominance and Monopolization," Chapters, in: Manfred Neumann & Jürgen Weigand (ed.), The International Handbook of Competition, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Michael G. Pollitt and Karim L. Anaya, 2016. "Can current electricity markets cope with high shares of renewables? A comparison of approaches in Germany, the UK and the State of New York," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Bollino-M).
    11. Tomas J. Philipson & Richard A. Posner, 2009. "Antitrust in the Not-for-Profit Sector," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 1-18, February.
    12. Ochoa, Camila & van Ackere, Ann, 2015. "Winners and losers of market coupling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 522-534.
    13. Meyer, Roland & Gore, Olga, 2015. "Cross-border effects of capacity mechanisms: Do uncoordinated market design changes contradict the goals of the European market integration?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-20.
    14. Yang, Bill Z., 1996. "Learning, reputation and entry deterrence: A chain-store game with correlated entrants," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 561-573, July.
    15. Simshauser, Paul, 2022. "Rooftop solar PV and the peak load problem in the NEM's Queensland region," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Veit Böckers & Leonie Giessing & Justus Haucap & Ulrich Heimeshoff & Jürgen Rösch, 2012. "Braucht Deutschland Kapazitätsmechanismen für Kraftwerke?: Eine Analyse des deutschen Marktes für Stromerzeugung," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(1), pages 73-90.
    17. Deakin, Matthew & Bloomfield, Hannah & Greenwood, David & Sheehy, Sarah & Walker, Sara & Taylor, Phil C., 2021. "Impacts of heat decarbonization on system adequacy considering increased meteorological sensitivity," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    18. Rainer Nitsche, 2002. "On the Effectiveness of Anit-Predation Rules," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-12, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    19. Mastropietro, Paolo & Rodilla, Pablo & Rivier, Michel & Batlle, Carlos, 2024. "Reliability options: Regulatory recommendations for the next generation of capacity remuneration mechanisms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. Yaroslav Kryukov & Ulrich Doraszelski & David Besanko, "undated". "The economics of predation: What drives pricing when there is learning-by-doing?," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E30, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    electric power industry; capacity price auction; anti-monopoly policy; market manipulation; well-founded bidding;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • 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:nea:journl:y:2019:i:44:p:190-207. 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: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.html .

    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.