Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 308–335 | Cite as

Merchant and regulated transmission: theory, evidence and policy

Original Article


Economists acknowledge the problems of regulated transmission but have different views on the likely efficiency of merchant transmission. This paper first examines the evidence on alleged market failure and regulatory failure as experienced in practice in Australia, where there have been both regulated and merchant interconnectors. Merchant transmission has generally not exhibited the standard examples of market failure but regulated transmission generally has exhibited the standard examples of regulatory failure. Imperfect information—more specifically, in the form of lack of coordination—has often been a challenge whatever the approach. Experience in Argentina suggests that transactions costs are not a barrier to negotiation and efficient investment determined by users. Policy should seek to improve the regulatory framework and to remove barriers to private initiatives. An important role for regulation is to facilitate coordination between potential providers and users of transmission lines.


Merchant transmission Regulation Negotiated settlements Market failure Regulatory failure Public contest method 

JEL Classification

L33 L51 L94 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Booth R. R. (2003) Warring tribes, the story of power development in Australia (Revised ed). Bardak Group, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunekreeft G. (2005) Regulatory issues in merchant transmission investment. Utilities Policy 13(2): 175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunekreeft G., Neuhoff K., Newbery D. (2005) Electricity transmission: An overview of the debate. Utilities Policy 13(2): 73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bushnell J., Stoft S. (1996) Electric grid investment under a contract network regime. Journal of Regulatory Economics 10(1): 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushnell J., Stoft S. (1997) Improving private incentives for electric grid investment. Resource and Energy Economics 19: 85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao H. P., Peck S. (1996) A market mechanism for electric power transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics 10(1): 25–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisari O. O., Dal-Bó P., Romero C. A. (2001) High-tension electricity network expansion in argentina: Decision mechanisms and willingness-to-pay revelation. Energy Economics 23: 697–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coase, R. H. (1946). The marginal cost controversy. Economica, n.s. Vol. 13. Page numbers to the reprint in Coase, R. H. (1988). The firm, the market and the law, London:Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coase, R. H. (1955). The regulated industries—discussion. In American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May, pp. 194–197.Google Scholar
  10. Coase R. H. (1988) Notes on the problem of social cost. In: Coase R. H. (eds) The firm, the market and the law. Chicago University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, A. S., & Coxe, R. L. (2001). A review of the financial risk profile of transmission and distribution companies in Australia, November.Google Scholar
  12. Coxe, R., & Meeus, L. (2010). Survey of non-traditional transmission development. In Presentation at IEEE 2010 power and energy general meeting, Minneapolis, July 29.Google Scholar
  13. de Hauteclocque, A., & Rious, V. (2009). Reconsidering the regulation of merchant transmission investment in the light of the third energy package: The role of dominant generators. EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2009/59, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Loyola de Palacio programme on Energy Policy, European University Institute, November.Google Scholar
  14. Demsetz H. (1968) Why regulate utilities?. Journal of Law and Economics 11(1): 55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demsetz H. (1969) Information and efficiency: Another viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics 12(1): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doucet J., Littlechild S. C. (2009) Negotiated settlements and the National Energy Board in Canada. Energy Policy 37: 4633–4644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FERC. (2008). Order on compliance filing, 125 FERC 61,068, October 16. Docket Nos. OA08-52-000, 001, 002. New York: Independent System Operator, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. FERC. (2011a). Priority access to new participant funded transmission. In Technical conference, March 15. Docket AD11-11-000.Google Scholar
  19. FERC. (2011b). Transmission planning and cost allocation by transmission owning and operating public utilities, July 21. 136 FERC 61,051, 18 CFR Part 35, Docket No. RM10-23-000, Order No. 1000.Google Scholar
  20. Hogan W. (1992) Contract networks for electric power transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics 4(3): 211–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan, W. (1999). Market-based transmission investments and competitive electricity markets.Google Scholar
  22. Hogan, W. (2003). Electricity deregulation: where to from here? In Paper presented to conference at bush presidential conference center, Texas A&M University, 4 April.Google Scholar
  23. Hogan, W. (2011). Transmission benefits and cost allocation, May 31. JFK School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Hogan W., Rosellon J., Vogelsang I. (2010) Toward a combined merchant-regulatory mechanism for electricity transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics 38(2): 113–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joskow, P. (2005). Patterns of transmission investment. Electricity infrastructure investment workshop, March 15. Paris: CRE.Google Scholar
  26. Joskow P. (2009) Deregulation: Where do we go from here?. AEI Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Joskow, P. (2010). Market imperfections versus regulatory imperfections, June 20. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  28. Joskow, P., & Tirole, J. (2003). Merchant transmission investment, May 6. Cambridge working papers in economics, CWPE 0324, CMI Working Paper 24.Google Scholar
  29. Joskow P., Tirole J. (2005) Merchant transmission investment. The Journal of Industrial Economics LIII(2): 233–264Google Scholar
  30. Kahn A. (1979) Applications of economics in an imperfect world. American Economic Review 69(2): 1–13Google Scholar
  31. Léautier T.-O. (2000) Regulation of an electric power transmission company. The Energy Journal 24(1): 61–92Google Scholar
  32. Léautier T.-O. (2001) Transmission constraints and imperfect markets for power. Journal of Regulatory Economics 19(1): 27–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Léautier T.-O., Thelen V. (2009) Optimal expansion of the power transmission grid: Why not?. Journal of Regulatory Economics 36(2): 127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Littlechild, S. C. (2003). Transmission regulation, merchant investment, and the experience of SNI and Murraylink in the Australian National Electricity Market. Harvard Electricity Policy Group 12 June at
  35. Littlechild, S. C. (2004). Regulated and merchant interconnectors in Australia: SNI and Murraylink revisited. University of Cambridge CMI Working paper 37, 13 January at
  36. Littlechild S. C. (2009a) Stipulated settlements, the consumer advocate and utility regulation in Florida. Journal of Regulatory Economics 35(1): 96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Littlechild S. C. (2009b) The bird in hand: Stipulated settlements in Florida electricity regulation. Utilities Policy 17(3-4): 276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Littlechild, S. C. (2011). The process of negotiating settlements at FERC. EPRG Working Paper 1105, revised version 17 May 2011.Google Scholar
  39. Littlechild S. C., Ponzano E. A. (2008) Transmission expansion in Argentina 5: The regional electricity forum of Buenos Aires province. Energy Economics 30(4): 1491–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Littlechild S. C., Skerk C. J. (2008a) Transmission expansion in Argentina 1: The origins of policy. Energy Economics 30(4): 1367–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Littlechild S. C., Skerk C. J. (2008b) Transmission expansion in Argentina 2: The fourth line revisited. Energy Economics 30(4): 1385–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Littlechild S. C., Skerk C. J. (2008c) Transmission expansion in Argentina 3: The evolution of policy. Energy Economics 30(4): 1420–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Littlechild S. C., Skerk C. J. (2008d) Transmission expansion in Argentina 4: A review of performance. Energy Economics 30(4): 1462–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mountain, B. R. (2011). Australia’s rising electricity prices and declining productivity: The contribution of its electricity distributors, 22 May. Melbourne: Energy Users Association of Australia.Google Scholar
  45. Mountain B. R., Littlechild S. C. (2010) Comparing electricity distribution network costs and revenues in New South Wales, Great Britain and Victoria. Energy Policy 38: 5770–5782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. NYISO. (2010a). 2009 congestion assessment and resource integration study (CARIS—Phase 1), January 12.Google Scholar
  47. NYISO. (2010b). NYISO tariffs, November 12.Google Scholar
  48. Parry, T., & Duffy, M. (2010). NSW electricity network and prices inquiry, final report, December. Industry and Investment NSW.Google Scholar
  49. Rious, V. (2006). What place for competition to develop the power transmission network? In 29th IAEE international conference, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  50. Rotger, J. A., & Felder, F. A. (2001). Reconciling market-based transmission and transmission planning. The Electricity Journal, 31–43Google Scholar
  51. Vogelsang I. (2001) Price regulation for independent transmission companies. Journal of Regulatory Economics 20(2): 141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Judge Business SchoolUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations