IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2004-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can a Newly Proposed Mechanism for Allocating Contracts in U.S. Electricity Wholesale Markets Lead to Lower Prices? A Game Theoretic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Vicki Knoblauch

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

This study of the wholesale electricity market compares the cost-minimizing performance of the auction mechanism currently in place in U.S. markets with the performance of a proposed replacement. The current mechanism chooses an allocation of contracts that minimizes a fictional cost calculated using pay-as-offer pricing. Then suppliers are paid the market clearing price. The proposed mechanism uses the market clearing price in the allocation phase as well as in the payment phase. In concentrated markets, the proposed mechanism outperforms the current mechanism even when strategic behavior by suppliers is taken into account. The advantage of the proposed mechanism increases with increased price competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicki Knoblauch, 2004. "Can a Newly Proposed Mechanism for Allocating Contracts in U.S. Electricity Wholesale Markets Lead to Lower Prices? A Game Theoretic Analysis," Working papers 2004-41, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2006.
    • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2004-41
    Note: The author would like to thank the National Science Foundation, under grant ECS# 0323685 for financial support. The author is grateful to the Engineering and Economics faculty and students at the University of Connecticut and Harvard working on the electricity project, the PI on the grant Peter Luh, David Pepyne, Shi-Chung Chang, William Blankson, Nicholas Shunda, Rimvydas Baltaduonis, Ying Chen, Feng Zhao and Yaming Ma. The author would like to thank in particular Peter Luh and William Blankson for explaining the MCP algorithm to her. The author would also like to thank Dan Kovenock for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper entitled, "Strategic Behavior in Electricity Wholesale Markets" (2004).
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2004-41r.pdf
    File Function: Full text (revised version)
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://media.economics.uconn.edu/working/2004-41.pdf
    File Function: Full text (original version)
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    2. Le Coq, Chloé, 2002. "Strategic use of available capacity in the electricity spot market," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 496, Stockholm School of Economics.
    3. Supatgiat, Chonawee & Zhang, Rachel Q & Birge, John R, 2001. "Equilibrium Values in a Competitive Power Exchange Market," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 17(1), pages 93-121, February.
    4. Alfred E. Kahn & Peter Cramton & Robert H. Porter & Richard D. Tabors, 2001. "Pricing in the California Power Exchange Electricity Market: Should California Switch from Uniform Pricing to Pay-as-Bid Pricing?," Papers of Peter Cramton 01calpx, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 27 Jan 2001.
    5. Spear, Stephen E., 2003. "The electricity market game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 300-323, April.
    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. Nicholas Shunda, 2005. "Strategic Behavior in Day-Ahead and Real-Time Markets for Electricity: Offer Cost or Payment Cost Minimization?," Working papers 2005-48, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    2. Hongpeng Guo & Zhihao Lv & Junyi Hua & Hongxu Yuan & Qingyu Yu, 2021. "Design of Combined Auction Model for Emission Rights of International Forestry Carbon Sequestration and Other Pollutants Based on SMRA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    3. John McMillan, 2003. "Market Design: The Policy Uses of Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 139-144, May.
    4. Loertscher, Simon & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2021. "A dominant strategy, double clock auction with estimation-based tatonnement," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    5. Alessandra Casella & Adam B. Cox, 2018. "A Property Rights Approach to Temporary Work Visas," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 195-227.
    6. Dan Levin, 2005. "Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 467-471, March.
    7. Pio Baake & Sebastian Schwenen & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2020. "Local Power Markets," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1904, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan, 1997. "Synergies in Wireless Telephony: Evidence from the Broadband PCS Auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 497-527, September.
    9. Holmberg, Pär & Newbery, David & Ralph, Daniel, 2013. "Supply function equilibria: Step functions and continuous representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1509-1551.
    10. Manzano, Carolina & Vives, Xavier, 2021. "Market power and welfare in asymmetric divisible good auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    11. Peter Cramton, 2022. "Fostering Resiliency with Good Market Design: Lessons from Texas," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 145, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    12. Brusco, Sandro & Lopomo, Giuseppe & Marx, Leslie M., 2009. "The [`]Google effect' in the FCC's 700Â MHz auction," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 101-114, June.
    13. Wedad Elmaghraby, 2005. "The Effect of Asymmetric Bidder Size on an Auction's Performance: Are More Bidders Always Better?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1763-1776, December.
    14. Pär Holmberg, 2017. "Pro‐competitive Rationing in Multi‐unit Auctions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 372-395, October.
    15. Ranaldo, Angelo & Rossi, Enzo, 2016. "Uniform-price Auctions for Swiss Government Bonds: Origin and Evolution," Working Papers on Finance 1609, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    16. Chonawee Supatgiat & John R. Birge & Rachel Q. Zhang, 2002. "Optimal Bidding Strategies in Non-Sealed Bid Online Auctions of Common Products with Quantity Uncertainty," Game Theory and Information 0211005, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 05 Mar 2003.
    17. Lawrence Ausubel & Peter Cramton, 2004. "Vickrey auctions with reserve pricing," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(3), pages 493-505, March.
    18. Juan Feng, 2004. "Optimal Allocation Mechanisms When Bidders Ranking for the objects is common," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 545, Econometric Society.
    19. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2006. "Multi-unit auction format design," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 1(2), pages 129-146, November.
    20. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2003. "Bidding Behavior in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation and some Theoretical Insights," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp210, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    strategic behavior; multi-unit auction; electricity; Bertrand competition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uct:uconnp:2004-41. 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: Mark McConnel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuctus.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.