Computational Management Science

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 307–330 | Cite as

Leader-Follower Equilibria for Electric Power and NOx Allowances Markets

  • Yihsu Chen
  • Benjamin F. Hobbs
  • Sven Leyffer
  • Todd S. Munson
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper investigates the ability of the largest producer in an electricity market to manipulate both the electricity and emission allowances markets to its advantage. A Stackelberg game to analyze this situation is constructed in which the largest firm plays the role of the leader, while the medium-sized firms are treated as Cournot followers with price-taking fringes that behave competitively in both markets. Since there is no explicit representation of the best-reply function for each follower, this Stackelberg game is formulated as a large-scale mathematical program with equilibrium constraints. The best-reply functions are implicitly represented by a set of nonlinear complementarity conditions. Analysis of the computed solution for the Pennsylvania–New Jersey–Maryland electricity market shows that the leader can gain substantial profits by withholding allowances and driving up NOx allowance costs for rival producers. The allowances price is higher than the corresponding price in the Nash–Cournot case, although the electricity prices are essentially the same.

Keywords

Mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints (MPEC) Game theory (Stackelberg game) Economic market modelling Optimization algorithm Electric power 

MSC Classification

91B26 Market Model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anitescu M (2000) On solving mathematical programs with complementarity constraints as nonlinear programs, preprint ANL/MCS-P864-1200, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, ArgonneGoogle Scholar
  2. Bushnell J. Mansur ET, Saravia C (2005) Vertical arrangements, market structure, and competition: an analysis of restructured U.S. electricity markets, WP-126, UCEI, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen Y, Hobbs BF (2005) An oligopolistic power market model with tradable NOx permits. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dirkse SP, Ferris MC (1995). The PATH solver: a non-Monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems. Optim Methods Softw 5:123–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Entriken R, Wan S (2003a) Agent-based simulation of an automatic mitigation procedure, EPRI Technical Report (Available at www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001007733.pdf)Google Scholar
  6. Entriken R, Wan S (2003b) Pushing capacity payments forward: agent-based simulation of an available capacity market, EPRI Technical Report (Available at www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001007755.pdf)Google Scholar
  7. Farrel AR, Carter R, Raufer R (1999) The NOx budget: market-based control of tropospheric ozone in the northeastern United States. Resource Energy Econ. 21(2):103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferris MC, Munson TS (2000) Complementarity problems in GAMS and the PATH Solver. J Econ Dyn Control 24:165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher R, Leyffer S (2002) Nonlinear programming without a penalty function. Math Program 91:239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher R, Leyffer S, Ralph D, Scholtes S (2002) Local convergence of SQP methods for mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. University of Dundee Report NA\ 209Google Scholar
  11. Fletcher R, Leyffer S (2004) Solving mathematical program with complementarity constraints as nonlinear Programs. Optim Methods Softw. 19(1):15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fourer R, Gay D, Kernighan B (2003) AMPL: a modeling language for mathematical programming. Brooks/Cole–Thomson Learning. Wiley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game Theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbons R (1992) Game theory for applied economists. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Gill PE, Murray W, Saunders MA (2002) SNOPT: an SQP algorithm for Large–Scale constrained optimization. SIAM J optim 12(4):979–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green RJ (1999) The electricity contract market in England and Wales. J Indus Econ. 47(1): 107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs BF (2001) Linear complementarity models of Nash–Cournot competition in bilateral and POOLCO power markets. IEEE Trans Power Systems. 16(2):194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobbs BF, Metzler CB, Pang J-S (2000) Strategic gaming analysis for electric power systems: an MPEC approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst. 15(2):638–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobbs BF, Rothkopf MH, Hyde LC, O’Neill RP (2000) Evaluation of a Truthful Revelation auction in the context of energy markets with nonconcave benefits. J Regulatory Econ. 18(1):5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu X, Ralph D, Ralph EK, Bardsley P, Ferris MC (2004) Electricity generation with looped transmission networks: bidding to an ISO. Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge University, Research Paper No.2004/16Google Scholar
  21. Kolstad JT, Wolak FA (2003) Using environmental emission permit prices to raise electricity prices; Evidence from the California electricity market. power Con. University California Energy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  22. Leyffer S (2003a) Complementarity constraints as nonlinear equations: theory and numerical experiences, Preprint ANL/MCS-P1054-0603, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, ArgonneGoogle Scholar
  23. Leyffer S (2003b) Mathematical programs with complementarity constraints. SIAG Optim Views News. 14(1):15–18Google Scholar
  24. Luo Z-Q, Pang J-S, Ralph D (1997) Mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Mansur ET (2001) Pricing behavior in the initial summer of the restructured PJM wholesale electricity market, POWER Working Paper PWP-083, UCEI. University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Mansur ET (2003) Vertical integration in restructured electricity markets: measuring market efficiency and firm conduct, CSEMPW-117, UCEI. University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Metzler C, Hobbs BF, Pang J-S (2003) Nash–Cournot equilibria in power markets. on a linearized DC network with arbitrage: formulations and properties. Netw Spatial Theory. 3:123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. PJM Market Monitoring Unit, (2001) PJM interconnection state of reportGoogle Scholar
  29. Newell RG, Stavins RN (2003) Cost heterogeneity and the potential savings from market-based policies. J Regulatory Econ. 23(1):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pepermans G, Willems B (2005) Ramsey pricing in a congested network with market power in eneration: a numerical illustration for Belgium, CSEM Working Paper WP-145, UCEI. University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  31. Stavins RN (1995) Transaction costs and tradable permits. J Environ Econ and Manage. 19(2):133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sartzetakis ES (1997) Raising rival’s costs strategies vis emission permits Markets. Rev Indus Organ. 12(5–6):751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheel H, Scholtes S (2000) Mathematical program with complementarity constraints: stationarity, optimality and sensitivity. Math Opera Res. 25:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schweppe FC, Caramanis MC, Tabors RD, Bohn RE (1988) Spot pricing of electricity. kluwer, dordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Shanbhag UV, Glynn PW, Infanger G (2004) On the solution of stochastic equilibrium problems in electric power networks. In: Forty-Second Annual Allerton conference on communication, control and computing. SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  36. Titetenberg T (2003) Environmental and natural resource economics, 6 edn. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  37. Tirole J (1998) The Theory of Industrial organization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Viscusi WK, Vernon JM, Harrington Jr JE (1995) Economics of regulation and antitrust, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolf DD, Smeers Y (1997) A stochastic version of a Stackelberg-Nash-Cournot Equilibrium Model. Manag Sci. 43(2):190–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yao J, Willems B, Oren S, Adler I (2005) Cournot Equilibrium in price-capped two-settlement electricity markets. In: Proceeding of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences HICSS38. Big Island, Hawaii, January 3–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yihsu Chen
    • 1
  • Benjamin F. Hobbs
    • 1
  • Sven Leyffer
    • 2
  • Todd S. Munson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Mathematics and Computer Science DivisionArgonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA

Personalised recommendations