Skip to main content

How Industrial Electricity Prices Are Determined in a Reformed Power Market: Lessons from Great Britain for China

In collaboration with Lewis Dale

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reforming the Chinese Electricity Supply Sector
  • 288 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to unpack how the price of industrial electricity is determined within the liberalised power market in Great Britain in the context of the ongoing reform of the Chinese power sector, initiated by the March 2015 No. 9 document.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the residential sector, there is retail price cap (known as ‘safeguard tariff’). However, this is a maximum tariff. Actual tariffs can be lower than this.

  2. 2.

    Se e Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2018, (BEIS 2018).

  3. 3.

    See, for exam ple, Vona and Nicolli (2014).

  4. 4.

    Se e DECC (2011).

  5. 5.

    Se e DECC (2009).

  6. 6.

    Se e Henney (1994) for the definitive discussion of what happened (and why) at the time of privatisation to the structure of the electricity industry. For an excellent summary of the GB experience following privatisation, see Newbery (2000, 2005). For a discussion of the electricity privatisation in the context of the general privatisation programme in the UK, see Pollitt (1999), and for a discussion of electricity liberalisation in the global context of energy market liberalisation, see Pollitt (2012a).

  7. 7.

    Source: Ofgem (2018a), https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2018/10/state_of_the_energy_market_report_2018_1.pdf

  8. 8.

    https://www.elexon.co.uk/about/

  9. 9.

    S ee PA Consulting Group (2016), https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2016/07/aggregators_barriers_and_external_impacts_a_report_by_pa_consulting_0.pdf

  10. 10.

    See http://www.epexspot.com/en/membership/list_of_members

  11. 11.

    The government does own decommissioning nuclear power plants, and some test reactors. Municipalities have limited interests in local electricity companies, for example, Bristol Energy.

  12. 12.

    S ee CMA (2017),

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/624706/cma3-markets-supplemental-guidance-updated-june-2017.pdf

  13. 13.

    S ee Sweeney (2002).

  14. 14.

    For a discussion of the operation of this market, see CMA (2016a).

  15. 15.

    See London Energy Brokers Association: www.leba.org.uk

  16. 16.

    See for example: http://www.gridscientific.com/images/electricity_trading_arrangements_beginners_guide.pdf, https://www.elexon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BSCP01_v17.0.pdf and Onaiwu (2009).

  17. 17.

    See for example Sioshansi et al. (2008).

  18. 18.

    S ee National Grid (2011), https://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/default/files/documents/Managing%20Intermittent%20and%20Inflexible%20Generation%20in%20the%20Balancing%20Mechanism%20Consultation.pdf

  19. 19.

    See https://www.coreso.eu/

  20. 20.

    See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/fit/about-fit-scheme

  21. 21.

    See the discussion in Newbery (2005) an d Jamasb and Pollitt (2005).

  22. 22.

    See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/retail-market/retail-market-monitoring/understanding-profits-large-energy-suppliers. Ofgem requires the production of consolidated segmental accounts which show the profits of the large integrated firms in each segment of the GB market.

  23. 23.

    See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/wholesale-market/european-market/remit

  24. 24.

    See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/576bca94ed915d622c000077/appendix-4-1-market-power-in-generation-fr.pdf

  25. 25.

    Se e Evans and Green (2003) for analysis of what caused the fall in wholesale prices around this time.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Offer (1998).

  27. 27.

    The moratorium was short-lived and not particularly effective. It was abandoned in mid-1999 and was never a complete ban.

  28. 28.

    Se e Hirst (2018) for a discussion of the history of carbon price floor in the UK.

  29. 29.

    S ee Taylor (2007, 2016).

  30. 30.

    See Chap. 3 on Guangdong.

  31. 31.

    S ee Ofgem (2016) as an example of regulatory concerns about market liquidity.

  32. 32.

    See https://www.next-kraftwerke.com/knowledge/market-coupling

  33. 33.

    Se e Pollitt (2018a) for a discussion of the development of the single electricity market in Europe.

  34. 34.

    Se e Mansur and White (2012) on the benefits of extending the PJM market.

  35. 35.

    See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/eco/overview-previous-schemes (Accessed 27 November 2018) for more information.

  36. 36.

    Se e Henney (2011).

  37. 37.

    S ee Nillesen and Pollitt (2011) for a detailed analysis of the impact of ownership separation of the electricity distribution business from retail electricity in New Zealand.

  38. 38.

    Monthly switching has more than doubled in New Zealand since the roll-out of smart meters began. See the statistics at: https://emi.ea.govt.nz/Retail/Reports/Tagged/consumer-switching?_si=v2. Accessed 27 November 2018.

  39. 39.

    See Ofgem (2018b), https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/ofgem-annual-report-and-accounts-2017-18

  40. 40.

    See Ofgem (2018c), https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2018/07/consumer_impact_report_-_published0307.pdf

  41. 41.

    This factor was intended to include all relevant factors which might drive the level of efficient revenue (including the costs of quality, or the relative movement in labour/capital costs vis-à-vis general inflation).

  42. 42.

    For a description of Ofgem’s regulatory process for electricity distribution firms, s ee Jamasb and Pollitt (2007).

  43. 43.

    See for an example of the menu regulation scheme, Ofgem (2009a, p. 120).

  44. 44.

    Se e Ofgem (2009b, p. 63) for a discussion of quality incentives.

  45. 45.

    Se e Ofgem (2014b, p. 44), which shows that electricity distribution companies could potentially double their real returns on assets if they received the maximum possible incentive payments.

  46. 46.

    Se e National Grid (2018, p. 13).

  47. 47.

    Se e National Grid (2018, p. 8).

  48. 48.

    For a history of the discussion of locational signals within the GB power system, se e CMA (2016b).

  49. 49.

    For discussions of locational marginal prices, see Bohn et al. (1984) and Hogan (1992).

  50. 50.

    Se e Pollitt (2012b) on the history of ISOs in the US.

  51. 51.

    See https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/electricity/charging-and-methodology/balancing-services-use-system-bsuos-charges

  52. 52.

    See https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=balancing/detailprices

  53. 53.

    These offers and bids are all of the actions taken by the system operator in a half-hour period. The flagged actions in blue reflect actions taken for system specific reasons which could be due to frequency control or constraint management. The unflagged actions in orange may have been wholly or partly necessary for energy balancing. The NIV is measured looking at the net impact of all actions taken by the SO. It shows that there were 475.5 MWh of offers and 245 MWh of bids taken, so the market was short by 230.5 MWh. The system imbalance price is the marginal net imbalance offer required to solicit 230.5 MWh of net supply, which in this case is £60/MWh. Given that all those parties who were out of balance are subject to this £60/MWh charge and the system operator is on average paying less than this for taking energy balancing actions, imbalance charges result in net receipts from the metered parties (hence the negative contribution to overall balancing charges in Table 4.4).

  54. 54.

    S ee Newbery (2012) for a discussion of this.

  55. 55.

    There are t−1 years capacity auctions as well.

  56. 56.

    S ee Ofgem (2018d), https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2018/02/policy_decision_on_electricity_system_operator_regulatory_and_incentives_framework_from_april_2018.pdf

  57. 57.

    S ee Anaya and Pollitt (2018) for a discussion of co-optimisation.

  58. 58.

    Domah and Pollitt (2001) fi nd significant gains for society following the privatisation and incentive regulation of the regional electricity companies (RECs) that owned the distribution and incumbent retail assets.

  59. 59.

    Se e Pollitt (2018b) for a discussion.

  60. 60.

    S ee Küfeoğlu and Pollitt (2018) for some analysis of the impact of EVs on who pays residential distribution charges in GB.

  61. 61.

    See, for example, National Grid and UKPN’s Power Potential Project. The background issues to this project are discussed i n Anaya and Pollitt (2018).

  62. 62.

    See https://www.renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/Public/ReportManager.aspx?ReportVisibility=1&ReportCategory=0

  63. 63.

    See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/renewables-obligation-ro

  64. 64.

    S ee Grubb and Drummond (2018).

  65. 65.

    S ee Helm (2017, p. 101).

  66. 66.

    See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407465/Breakdown_information_on_CFD_auctions.pdf

  67. 67.

    See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643560/CFD_allocation_round_2_outcome_FINAL.pdf

  68. 68.

    S ee DECC (2015), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488271/decc_consultation_hydro_benefit_review_22_dec_15__2_.pdf

  69. 69.

    Se e Wilson and Staffell (2018).

  70. 70.

    Se e Newbery (2017).

  71. 71.

    Se e Bohn et al. (1984).

References

  • Anaya, K., & Pollitt, M. (2017). Regulating the electricity system operator: Lessons for Great Britain from around the world. EPRG working paper, No. 1718. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anaya, K., & Pollitt, M. (2018). Reactive power procurement: Lessons from three leading countries. EPRG working paper, No.1829. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • BEIS. (2018). Digest of UK energy statistics 2018. London: Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, R. E., Caramanis, M. C., & Schweppe, F. C. (1984). Optimal pricing in electrical networks over space and time. RAND Journal of Economics, 15(3), 360–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CMA. (2016a). Energy market investigation. Appendix 7.1: Liquidity. London: Competition and Markets Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMA. (2016b). Energy market investigation. Appendix 5.2: Locational pricing in the electricity market in Great Britain. London: Competition and Markets Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMA. (2017). Market studies and market investigations: Supplemental guidance on the CMA’s approach. London: Competition and Markets Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • DECC. (2009). Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics: 60th anniversary. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • DECC. (2011). Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics 2011. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DECC. (2015). Hydro-benefit replacement scheme and common tariff obligation, three year review of statutory schemes: Consultation. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domah, P. D., & Pollitt, M. G. (2001). The restructuring and privatisation of the regional electricity companies in England and Wales: A social cost benefit analysis. Fiscal Studies, 22(1), 107–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., & Green, R. (2003). Why did electricity prices fall after 1998? Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No.0326. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, T., Teng, F., Pollitt, M. G., & Strbac, G. (2018). A system operator’s utility function for the frequency response market. Applied Energy, 231, 562–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M., & Drummond, P. (2018, February). Industrial electricity prices: Competitiveness in a low carbon world. Report Commissioned by the Aldersgate Group. London: UCL Energy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, D. (2017). Cost of energy review. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654902/Cost_of_Energy_Review.pdf

  • Henney, A. (1994). A study of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. London: EEE Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henney, A. (2011). The British electric industry 1990–2010: The rise and demise of competition. http://alexhenney.com/order_the_book.htm

  • Hirst, D. (2018, January 8). The carbon price floor and the price support mechanism. Briefing paper No. 05927. London: House of Commons Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, W. W. (1992). Contract networks for electric power transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 4(3), 211–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamasb, T., & Pollitt, M. (2005). Electricity market reform in the European Union: Review of progress toward liberalization and integration. The Energy Journal, Special Issue on European Electricity Liberalisation, 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamasb, T., & Pollitt, M. (2007). Incentive regulation of electricity distribution networks: Lessons of experience from Britain. Energy Policy, 35(12), 6163–6187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KüfeoÄŸlu, S., Pollitt, M. (2018). The impact of PVs and EVs on domestic electricity network charges: A case study from Great Britain, EPRG working paper, No. 1814. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansur, E., & White, M. (2012). Market organization and efficiency in electricity markets. mimeo. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~mansur/papers/mansur_white_pjmaep.pdf

  • MMC. (1996a). National Power plc and Southern Electric plc: A report on the proposed merger, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Cm 3230. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • MMC. (1996b). PowerGen plc for Midland Electricity plc, A Report on the proposed merger. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Cm 3231. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Grid. (2011, September 20). Managing Intermittent and Inflexible generation in the Balancing Mechanism. National Grid.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Grid. (2018, January). Final TNUoS Tariffs 2018/19. National Grid.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Grid ESO. (2019). Power responsive: Demand side flexibility annual report 2018. National Grid ESO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. M. G. (2000). Privatization, restructuring, and regulation of network utilities: The Walras-Pareto lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. M. G. (2005). Electricity liberalization in Britain: The quest for a satisfactory wholesale market design. The Energy Journal, 26.((Special Issue: European Electricity Liberalisation), 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. (2012). Contracting for wind generation. Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 1(2), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. (2017). How to judge whether supporting solar PV is justified. EPRG working paper, No. 1706. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbery, D. M. G., & Pollitt, M. G. (1997). Restructuring and privatisation of the CEGB – Was it worth it? Journal of Industrial Economics, 45(3), 269–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nillesen, P. H. L., & Pollitt, M. G. (2011). Ownership unbundling in electricity distribution: Empirical evidence from New Zealand. Review of Industrial Organization, 38(1), 61–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Offer. (1991, December). Pool price enquiry. Birmingham: Office of Electricity Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offer. (1992). Report on constrained-on plant. Birmingham: Office of Electricity Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offer. (1993, July). Pool price statement. Birmingham: Office of Electricity Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offer. (1998). Review of electricity trading arrangements: Proposals. Birmingham: Office of Electricity Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2009a). Electricity distribution price control initial proposals, incentives and obligations. Ref. 93/09. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2009b). Electricity distribution price control final proposals. Ref. 144/09. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2009c). Regulating energy networks for the future: RPI-X@20 principles, process and issues. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2014a). RIIO-ED1: Final determinations for the slow track electricity distribution companies, detailed figures by company. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2014b). RIIO-ED1 draft determinations for slow track electricity distribution companies. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2016). Wholesale power market liquidity: Annual report 2016. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2018a). State of the energy market report 2018. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2018b). Ofgem annual report and accounts 2017–18. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2018c). Consumer impact report financial year 2017–18. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofgem. (2018d). The electricity system operator regulatory and incentives framework from April 2018. London: Ofgem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onaiwu, E. (2009). How does bilateral trading differ from electricity pool trading?. University of Dundee. https://archive.uea.ac.uk/~e680/energy/energy_links/electricity/…. 27 Sept 2012.

  • PA Consulting Group. (2016, May). OFGEM – Aggregators barriers and external impacts. London: PA Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. (1999). The survey of the liberalization of public enterprises in the UK since 1979. In M. Kagami & M. Tsuji (Eds.), Privatization, deregulation and institutional framework (pp. 120–169). Institute of Developing Economies: Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. G. (2008). The future of electricity (and gas) regulation in a low-carbon policy world. The Energy Journal, 29(S2), 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. (2012a). The role of policy in energy transitions: Lessons from the energy liberalisation era. Energy Policy, 50(November), 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. G. (2012b). Lessons from the history of independent system operators in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 47(August), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. (2018a), The European single market in electricity: An economic assessment. Energy Policy Research Group working papers No. 1815. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M. G. (2018b). Electricity network charging in the presence of distributed energy resources: Principles, problems and solutions. Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy, 7(1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M., & Haney, A. B. (2014). Dismantling a competitive retail electricity market: Residential market reforms in Great Britain. The Electricity Journal, 27(1), 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, M., & Stern, J. (2011). Human resource constraints for electricity regulation in developing countries: Developments since 2001. Utilities Policy, 19(2), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sioshansi, R., Oren, S., & O’Neill, R. (2008). The cost of anarchy in self-commitment-based electricity markets. In F. P. Sioshansi (Ed.), Competitive electricity markets: Design, implementation and performance (pp. 245–266). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stoft, S. (2002). Power system economics: Designing markets for electricity. Piscataway: Wiley-IEEE Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J. L. (2002). The California electricity crisis. Hoover Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (2007). Privatization and financial collapse in the nuclear industry – The origins and causes of the British Energy crisis of 2002. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (2016). The fall and rise of nuclear power in Britain: A history. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vona, F., & Nicolli, F. (2014). Energy market liberalization and renewable energy policies in OECD countries. IEB working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, I. A. G., & Staffell, I. (2018). Rapid fuel switching from coal to natural gas through effective carbon pricing. Nature Energy, 3, 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Additional Useful Resources on UK Electricity Reform

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Pollitt .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pollitt, M.G. (2020). How Industrial Electricity Prices Are Determined in a Reformed Power Market: Lessons from Great Britain for China. In: Reforming the Chinese Electricity Supply Sector. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39462-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics