Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 196–213 | Cite as

The NOME law: implications for the French electricity market

Original Article


In December 2010, France approved the law “Nouvelle Organisation du Marché de l’Electricité” (or NOME law) to promote competition in the retail electricity market. In practice, the law allows retailers to buy nuclear production from the incumbent, at a regulated access price. This mechanism works up to a ceiling of 100 terawatt hours, which represents one quarter of the incumbent’s production from nuclear plants. Each retailer is assigned a share of that amount proportionally to its portfolio of clients. We contribute to the debate raised by the NOME law regarding the evolution of retail market prices. We show that a price decrease results if the ceiling is sufficiently high compared to the market share of the retailers competing with the incumbent. This pro-competitive effect is stronger when the incumbent’s rivals take into account the impact of their market strategy on the redistribution rule. Finally, we find that, if the regulated price of the NOME electricity is set above the nuclear cost, the incumbent realizes a gain that may result in strategic withholding, weakening the pro-competitive effects of the law.


Electricity markets Retail competition NOME law 

JEL Classification

D43 L50 L94 



We gratefully acknowledge the intellectual and financial support from CEPREMAP and the Chair Business Economics from Ecole Polytechnique. We wish to thank participants to the meeting ‘La Loi NOME, une perspective économique,’ June 2010, Ecole Des Mines, Paris for insightful discussions.


  1. Ausubel, L., & Cramton, F. (2010). Virtual power plant auctions. Utilities Policy, 18, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bushnell, B., Mansur, E., & Saravia, C. (2008). Vertical arrangements, market structure and competition: An analysis of restructured U.S. electricity markets. American Economic Review, 98(1), 237–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Champsaur Report. (2009). Rapport de la Commission sur l’Organisation du Marché de l’Electricité Présidée par Paul Champsaur’, rapport pour le MEDDAT et le Ministère de l’Economie. Manchester: Ministère de l’Economie.Google Scholar
  4. Conseil de la Concurrence. (2010). Avis 10-A-08 du 17 mai 2010 Relatif au Projet de Loi Portant Nouvelle Organisation du Marché d’Electricité. Paris: Conseil de la Concurrence. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from
  5. Crampes, C., Glachant, J.-M., von Hirschhausen, C., Lévêque, F., Newberry, D., Perez-Arriaga, I., et al. (2009). Where the Champsaur commission has got it wrong. The Electricity Journal, 22, 81–86.Google Scholar
  6. CRE. (2010). Observatoire des Marchés de l’Electricité et du Gaz, 1er trimestre 2010. Retrieved November 9, 2010 from
  7. CRE. (2011). Décryptages no. 25. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from
  8. Defeuilley, C. (2009). Retail competition in electricity markets. Energy Policy, 37(2), 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixit, A. (1980). The role of investment in entry-deterrence. Economic Journal, 90, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixit, A. (1986). Comparative statics for oligopoly. International Economic Review, 27(1), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finon, D. (2010). Le Projet de Loi NOME : l’Invention d’une drôle de concurrence à prix de marché imposé. Cedex: Note de travail CIRED.Google Scholar
  12. Green, R. (2003). Retail competition and electricity contracts. Working Paper of the University of Hull, Cottingham.Google Scholar
  13. Joskow, P., & Tirole, J. (2006). Retail electricity competition. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(4), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lévêque, F. (2011). Can government get beyond greedlock? The Electricity Policy, 24, 2.Google Scholar
  15. Lévêque, F., & Saguan M. (2010). Analyse Critique de l’Etude d’Impact de la Loi NOME. CERNA Working Paper 2010–09, Cerna.Google Scholar
  16. Littlechild, S. (2009). Retail competition in electricity markets: Expectations, outcomes and economics. Energy Policy, 37(2), 759–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mansur, E. (2007). Upstream competition and vertical integration in electricity markets. Journal of Law & Economics, 50(1), 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quirion, P. (2009). Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable allowances: A survey. Climate Policy, 9, 575–592.Google Scholar
  19. Solier, B. (2010). La Réforme du Marché de l’Electricité Françcais : Quels Impacts pour la Tarification et la Concurrence ?’, Les Cahiers du PREC, 4. Paris: Série Information et débats.Google Scholar
  20. Von Dehr Fehr, N., & Hansen, P. (2010). Electricity retailing in Norway. The Energy Journal, 31(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
  21. Weigt, H., & Neumann, A. (2009). Divestitures in the electricity sector: Conceptual issues and lessons from international experiences. The Electricity Journal, 22(3), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Creti
    • 1
  • Jerome Pouyet
    • 2
  • María-Eugenia Sanin
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.U. Paris Ouest and Ecole PolytechniqueParisFrance
  2. 2.Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance
  3. 3.University of Montpellier 1, UMR5474 LAMETA, and Ecole PolytechniqueMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.UFR EconomieMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations