Determining the Competitiveness of Wholesale Electricity Markets

It Starts with Defining the Markets*
  • David Hunger
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 40)


In this paper, I examine market definition in the context of FERC’s assessment of the competitiveness of wholesale electricity markets as part of its mandate to ensure “just and reasonable” rates under the Federal Power Act. The Commission has the statutory obligation to determine the competitiveness of wholesale electricity markets in two contexts: (1) in order to ensure “just and reasonable” rates under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and (2) to determine the effect of a merger or acquisition on competition in the affected markets under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act. In both cases, it needs to define the product and determine the geographic scope of the market in order to make that determination.


Electricity Market Ancillary Service Market Definition Geographic Market Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. De Vany, Arthur S. and W. David Walls. 1999. “Cointegration analysis of spot electricity prices: insights on transmission efficience in the western US.” Energy Economics 21: 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,75 FERC ¶1161,208, (May 29, 1996) (Order 888).Google Scholar
  3. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 (1999) (Order 2000).Google Scholar
  4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Merger Policy Statement Order No. 592-A, 62 Fed. Reg. 33,341, 79 FERC ¶ 61,321 (1997).Google Scholar
  5. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Order No. 642, 65 Fed. Reg. 70,984 (Nov. 28, 2000); III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,111 (Nov. 15, 2000), reh’g denied.Google Scholar
  6. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Orion Power Holdings, Inc. (Reliant/Orion). 98 FERC ¶ 61, 136 (February 13, 2002).Google Scholar
  7. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Order Conditionally Approving Disposition of Facilities, Dismissing Complaint As Moot, and Denying Request for Consolidation,” Enova Corporation and Pacific Enterprises, (Enova). June 25, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Consolidated Edison, Inc. and Northeast Utilities, 92 FERC ¶ 61,225 (2000), reh’g denied, 92 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2000) (ConEd/NU)Google Scholar
  9. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Energy East Corp. and CMP Group, 91 FERC ¶ 61,001 (2000) (Energy East/CMP).Google Scholar
  10. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Northwest Natural Gas Company and Portland General Electric Company 98 FERC ¶ 61, 134 (February 13, 2002) (Portland General).Google Scholar
  11. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wisvest-Connecticut LLC and NRG Connecticut Power Assets. LLC (Wisvesf), 96 FERC ¶ 61,101 (July 25, 2001).Google Scholar
  12. Frankena, Mark W. 2001. “Geographic market delineation for electric utility mergers.” The Antitrust Bulletin (Summer): 357–402.Google Scholar
  13. Kleit, Andrew. 2001. “Defining Electricity Markets: An Arbitrage Cost Approach.” Resource and Energy Economics 23: 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michaels Robert J. 1996. “Market Power in Electric Utility Mergers: Access, Energy and the Guidelines.” Energy Law Journal 17 (2): 401–424.Google Scholar
  15. Morris, John R. 2000. “Finding Market Power in Electricity Markets.” International Journal of Economics and Business 7 (2): 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. New England Power Pool. FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 6. Market Rules and Procedures. Section 7. Automatic Generation Control Market.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Department of Justice Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 57 Fed. Reg. 41,552 reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 13,104 (April 2, 1992).Google Scholar
  18. Willig, Robert D. 1991. “Merger Analysis, Industrial Organization Theory, and Merger Guidelines.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hunger
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionUSA

Personalised recommendations