IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/enejou/v37y2016i2p201-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Money for Nothing? Why FERC Order 745 Should have Died

Author

Listed:
  • Xu Chen
  • Andrew N. Kleit

Abstract

Customer baseline load (CBL) measurement is designed to represent participants’ expected usage in a number of electricity demand response (DR) programs. Our empirical results, however, show that CBLs can be systematically higher than DR participants’ estimated load, especially for those experienced in DR activities, likely due to manipulation behaviors. Thus, the integrity of CBL may degrade over time. With an inflated CBL, the impact of DR programs may therefore be highly exaggerated, and consumers can be paid money when they are not actually reducing their demand. In particular, we design a manipulation-indicating variable “seemingly unattractive free-money opportunity†(SUFO) and discover systemwide manipulative behaviors that increase with time and are widely adopted by experienced DR participants. We suggest that policy makers in FERC, RTOs, and states regulatory agencies consider the threat of manipulation when modifying DR market rules following the Supreme Court’s recent upholding of FERC Order 745.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu Chen & Andrew N. Kleit, 2016. "Money for Nothing? Why FERC Order 745 Should have Died," The Energy Journal, , vol. 37(2), pages 201-222, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:37:y:2016:i:2:p:201-222
    DOI: 10.5547/01956574.37.2.xche
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/01956574.37.2.xche
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5547/01956574.37.2.xche?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:enejou:v:37:y:2016:i:2:p:201-222. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.