Advertisement

The Economic Evaluation of System Security Criterion in a Competitive Market Environment

  • Teoman Güler
  • George Gross
  • Eugene Litvinov
  • Ron Coutu
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

The tight coupling between system and market operations implies that there are strong inter-relationships between system security management and market performance. Therefore, the assurance by the regional transmission organization (RTO) of secure system operations strongly depends on, and directly impacts, electricity markets. We use the insights we developed into the tight coupling between market and system operations under restructuring to characterize analytically the inter-relationships between the way the power systems are operated and the performance of the electricity markets. Such characterization leads us to the development of a systematic approach that quantifies the market performance as a function of security criterion under diverse system and market conditions for single-settlement systems. We extend the approach to quantify the auction surplus attained through the multi-settlement system and evaluate the impacts of the day-ahead markets (DAMs) on market participants’ bid/offer surpluses as well as on improving the ability to facilitate real-time secure power system operations. We illustrate a set of applications of the proposed approach on the large-scale ISO-NE system using the historical 2005–2006 data—the system model and the bids/offers submitted—and the actual market clearing methodology. The ISO-NE DAM comparative study provides important insights into the role of price-responsive demand and that of the security control actions. In fact, a key finding of this study is that the economic efficiency of the electricity markets need not decrease when a power system is operated under a stricter criterion as long as there is effective price-responsive demand and appropriate control actions are deployed. In addition, the application studies on the ISO-NE multi-settlement system bear out the well known fact that the participation of financial entities leads to the convergence of the DAM and the associated RTM prices. Moreover, these studies also illustrate that such participation leads to improved forecasts of the real-time system operations, and consequently results in improving the assurance of system security.

Keywords

Market Performance Market Participant Electricity Market Price Deviation Financial Entity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    FERC (2003) Remedying undue discrimination through open access transmission service and standard electricity market design. Docket No: RM01-12-000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force (2006) Report to Congress on competition in the wholesale and retail markets for electric energy. Docket No: AD05-17-000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NERC, Reliability Standards. Available:http://www.nerc.com/~filez/standards/Reliability_Standards.html (Online)
  4. 4.
    TED Liacco (1967) The adaptive reliability control system. IEEE Trans Power App Sys vol. PAS-86, pp 517–531Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO-NE, The multi-settlement system. Available:http://www.iso-ne.com/nwsiss/grid_mkts/how_mkts_wrk/multi_settle/index.html (Online)
  6. 6.
    Cheung KW (2004) Standard market design for ISO New England wholesale electricity market: an overview. Proc IEEE Int Conf Electric Utility Deregul Restruct Power Tech, vol. 1, pp 38–43Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma X, Sun D (2005) Key elements of a successful market design. Proc IEEE/PES Trans Dist: Asia and Pacific, DalianGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green R, Newbery DM (1992) Competition in the British electric spot market. J Polit Econ 100:929–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolfram CD (1998) Strategic bidding in a multi-unit auction: an empirical analysis of bids to supply electricity in England and Wales. Rand J Econ 29:703–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mansur ET (2001) Pricing behavior in the initial summer of the restructured PJM wholesale electricity market. University of California Energy Institute, PWP-083, April 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borenstein S, Bushnell JB, Wolak FA (2002) Measuring market inefficiencies in California’s restructured wholesale electricity market. Am Econ Rev 92:1376–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torre SDl, Conejo AJ, Contreras J (2003) Simulating oligopolistic poolbased electricity markets: a multi-period approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 18:1547–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baldick R, Grant R, Kahn E (2004) Theory and application of linear supply function equilibrium in electricity markets. J Regul Econ 25:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaye RJ, Wu FF, Varaiya P (1995) Pricing for system security. IEEE Trans Power Syst 10:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu T, Rothleder M, Alaywan Z, Papalexopoulos AD (2004) Pricing energy and ancillary services in integrated market systems by an optimal power flow. IEEE Trans Power Syst 19:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arroyo JM, Galiana FD (2005) Energy and reserve pricing in security and network-constrained electricity markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20:634–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alvarado F, Hu Y, Ray D, Stevenson R, Cashman E (1991) Engineering foundations for the determination of security costs. IEEE Trans Power Syst 6:1175–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirschen DS, Bell KRW, Nedic DP, Jayaweera D, Allan RN (2003) Computing the value of security. IEE Proc Gener Transm Distrib 150:673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burns S, Gross G (1990) Value of service reliability. IEEE Trans Power Syst 5:825–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nitu P, Gross G (1993) Evaluation of reliability in power system operational planning. Proc Power Syst Comp Conf, pp 355–362Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kamat R, Oren SS (2002) Multi-settlement systems for electricity markets: zonal aggregation under network uncertainty and market power. Proc 35th Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci, pp 739–748Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kamat R, Oren SS (2004) Two-settlement systems for electricity markets under network uncertainty and market power. J Regul Econ 25(2):5–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arciniegas I, Barrett C, Marathe A (2003) Assessing the efficiency of US electricity markets. Util Policy 11:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borenstein I, Bushnell J, Knittel C, Wolfram C (2004) Inefficiencies and market power in financial arbitrage: a study of California’s electricity markets. Center for the Study of Energy Markets (CSEM), Working Paper 138Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO-NE (2004) Impact of virtual transactions on new England’s energy market, Nov. 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saravia C (2003) Speculative trading and market performance: the effect of arbitrageurs on efficiency and market power in the New York electricity market. Center for the Study of Energy Markets (CSEM), Working Paper 121Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Isomenger A (2006) The benefits and risks of virtual bidding in multi-settlement markets. Electr J 19(9):26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bulow J, Levin J, Milgrom P (2009) Winning play in spectrum auction. NBER Working Paper No. 14765, Mar. 2009. Available:http://www.nber.org/papers/w14765
  29. 29.
    Klemperer P (2004) Auctions: theory and practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Milgrom P (2004) Putting auction theory to work. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu M, Gross G (2008) Congestion rents and FTR evaluations in mixed pool-bilateral systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 30(8):447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Guler T (2009) Multiarea system reliability: the economic evaluation of system security criterion. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO-NE (2006) Operating reserves white paper, June 2006. Available:http://www.isone.com/pubs/whtpprs/operating_reserves_white_paper.pdf
  35. 35.
    Guler T, Gross G, Litvinov E, Coutu R (2007) Quantification of market performance as a function of system security. IEEE Trans Power Syst 22:1602–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guler T, Gross G, Litvinov E, Coutu R (2009) On the economics of power system security in multi-settlement electricity markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst (to be published)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teoman Güler
    • 1
  • George Gross
    • 1
  • Eugene Litvinov
    • 2
  • Ron Coutu
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.ISO New England IncHolyokeUSA

Personalised recommendations