Advertisement

Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 129–149 | Cite as

Auctions for PURPA purchases: A simulation study

  • Edward P. Kahn
  • Michael H. Rothkopf
  • Joseph H. Eto
  • Jean-Michel Nataf
Article

Abstract

Competition was introduced into the electric utility industry with the passage of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978. Increasing interest has appeared in structuring the PURPA purchase market into an auction system. This paper addresses the design issues associated with setting up such markets and introduces a simulation model to study them. The simulation analysis is guided by theoretical issues such as the alleged inefficiency of first-price auctions. We find that efficiency concerns raised about first-price auctions turn out to be less important than simple theoretical concerns would suggest.

Keywords

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Acceptance Rule Vickrey Auction Average Cost Curve Front Loading 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boston Edison Company. 1988. “Request for Proposals.” Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Docket No. 84-276 (November).Google Scholar
  2. California Public Utilities Commission. 1986. “Decision No. 86-07-004”. (July 2).Google Scholar
  3. California Energy Commission. 1985. “Appendix F to Commission Decision on the Gilroy Cogeneration Project”. Docket No. 84-AFC-4 (November).Google Scholar
  4. California Energy Commission. 1986. “1986 Electricity Report.”Google Scholar
  5. Devine, M., M. Chartock, E. Gunn, and D. Huettner. 1987. “PURPA 210 Avoided Cost Rates: Economic and Implementation Issues.” Energy Systems and Policy 11:85–101.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, L. 1956. “A Competitive Bidding Strategy”. Operations Research 4:104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilley, O., and G. Karels. 1981. “The Competitive Effect in Bonus Bidding: New Evidence”. Bell Journal of Economics 12:637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, R.G. 1986. “Sealed-Bid Versus Open Auctions: The Evidence”. Economic Inquiry 24:125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joskow, P., and D. Jones. 1983. “The Simple Economics of Industrial Cogeneration.” Energy Journal 4:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jurewitz, J. 1986. “Testimony on Behalf of Southern California Edison Company in CPUC Appl. No. 82-04-046.”Google Scholar
  11. Kahn, E., and C. Goldman. 1987. “Impact on Tax Reform on Renewable Energy and Cogeneration Projects.” Energy Economics 9:215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marcus, D. 1986. “Appendix A to Supplemental Testimony on Behalf of the Crockett Cogeneration Project.” California Energy Commission Docket No. 84-AFC-3.Google Scholar
  13. McCabe, K., S. Rassenti, and V. Smith, (forthcoming). “Designing ‘Smart’ Computer-Assisted Markets:An Experimental Auction for Gas Networks.” European Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
  14. Myerson, R.B. 1981. “Optimal Auction Design.” Mathematics of Operations Research 6:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. 1987. “An Assessment of Cogeneration and Small Power Production Policy in New Jersey. 1981–1986.”Google Scholar
  16. New York Department of Public Service. 1987. “Staff Position Paper on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Bidding and Avoided Cost Pricing Alternatives Relative to the Current System for the Provision of Electricity Supplies.” jtCase 29409.Google Scholar
  17. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 1987. “Common Forecasting Methodology 7, v. 1 Resource Planning Approach.”Google Scholar
  18. Pfeffer, Lindsay, and Associates}. 1986. “Emerging Policy Issues in PURPA Implementation.” U.S.D.O.E. report DOE/PE-70404-H1.Google Scholar
  19. Rothkopf, M., E. Kahn, T. Teisbert, J. Eto, and J. Nataf. 1987. “Designing PURPA Power Auctions: Theory and Practice.” LBL-23906. (Also reprinted as U.S.D.O.E. reportDOE/SF/00098-H1, 1987).Google Scholar
  20. Rothkopf, M., T. Teisberg, and E. Kahn. 1990. “Why are Vickrey Auctions Rare?” Journal of Political Economy 98:94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1988. “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regulations Governing Independent Power Producers.” Docket No. RM 88-4-000 (March 16).Google Scholar
  22. Vail, G. 1986. “A Summary of Auction Economics: Application to the OIR-2 Proceedings.” Southern California Edison Company.Google Scholar
  23. Vickrey, W. 1961. “Counterspeculation, Auctions and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16:8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Western Massachusetts Electric Company. 1986. “Request for Proposals.” Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Docket No. 84-276-B.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward P. Kahn
    • 1
  • Michael H. Rothkopf
    • 2
  • Joseph H. Eto
    • 3
  • Jean-Michel Nataf
    • 3
  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Energy Analysis ProgramBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers University RUTCOR, Rutgers Center for Operations Research, Hill Center for the Mathematical SciencesNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations