Electricity and Environmental Markets

  • Steven A. Gabriel
  • Antonio J. Conejo
  • J. David Fuller
  • Benjamin F. Hobbs
  • Carlos Ruiz
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 180)


The purpose of this chapter is to provide a more in-depth exploration of applications of complementarity models to electricity markets. In doing so, we introduce two crucial features of energy markets. The first is transportation networks with capacity limits on links between different markets. The second is environmental restrictions, such as emissions markets. We address these in turn by building, analyzing, and solving models for electric power markets that incorporate these features.


Marginal Cost Equilibrium Problem Electricity Market Environmental Market Transmission System Operator 
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. 1.
    G. Bautista, M.F. Anjos, and A. Vannelli. Formulation of oligopolistic competition in ac power networks: an NLP approach. IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, 22(1):105-115, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Bautista and V.H. Quintana. Complementarity-based models for financial transmission rights. Proceedings, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, San Francisco, June 12-16, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Bautista, V.H. Quintana and J. Aguado. An oligopolistic model for an integrated market of energy and spinning reserve. IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, 21(1):132-142, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.B. Bluemel. Regional regulatory initiatives addressing GHG leakage in the USA, In M. Faure and M. Peeters, Editors. Climate Change and European Emissions Trading: Lessons for Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Celebi and D. Fuller. A model for efficient consumer pricing schemes in electricity markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22(1):60-67, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Centeno, J. Reneses and J. Barquin. Strategic analysis of electricity markets under uncertainty: a conjectured-price-response approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 22(1):423-432, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Chakkapalli and P. Poonpun. System operating limit study report, California-Oregon Intertie, Pacific DC Intertie, Path 26 and SCIT Paths, Spring 2012. California Independent System Operator, Folsom. January 31, 2012.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. P. Chao and S. Peck. A market mechanism for electric power transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 10(1):25-59, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Chen, A.L. Liu, and B.F. Hobbs. Economic and emissions implications of load-based, source-based and first-seller emissions trading programs under California AB32. Operations Research, 59:696-712, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Chen, J. Sijm, B.F. Hobbs, and W. Lise. Implications of CO2 emissions trading for short-run electricity market outcomes in northwest Europe. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 34(3):251-281, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.W. Cottle, J.-S. Pang, and R.E. Stone. The Linear Complementarity Problem. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.J. Day, B.F. Hobbs, and J.-S. Pang. Oligopolistic competition in power networks: a conjectured supply function approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 17(3):597-607, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Grubb and K. Neuhoff. Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview. Climate Policy, 6:7-30, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F.S. Hillier and G.J. Lieberman. Introduction to Operations Research. McGraw-Hill, New York, 8th edition, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.F. Hobbs. Linear complementarity models of Nash-Cournot competition in bilateral and POOLCO power markets. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 16(2):194-202, May 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B.F. Hobbs, J. Bushnell, and F.A. Wolak. Upstream vs. downstream CO2 trading: a comparison in the electricity context. Energy Policy, 38(7):3632-3643, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B.F. Hobbs, G. Drayton, E.B. Fisher, and W. Lise. Improved transmission representations in oligopolistic market models: quadratic losses, phase shifters, and dc lines. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23(3):1018-1029, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B.F. Hobbs and J.-S. Pang. Spatial oligopolistic equilibria with arbitrage, shared resources, and price function conjectures. Mathematical Programming Series B, 101(1):57-94, 2004,.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B.F. Hobbs and F.A.M. Rijkers. Modeling strategic generator behavior with conjectured transmission price responses in a mixed transmission pricing system I: formulation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 19(2):707-717, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W.W. Hogan. Contract networks for electric power transmission. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 4(3):211-242, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R.B. Johnson, S.S. Oren, and A.J. Svoboda. Equity and efficiency of unit commitment in competitive electricity markets. Utilities Policy, 6(1):9-20, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Kolstad and F. Wolak. Using environmental emissions permit prices to raise electricity prices: evidence from the california electricity market. Technical report CSEM WP-113, University of California, Berkeley, May 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Lise, B.F. Hobbs, and F. van Oostvoorn. Natural gas corridors between the EU and its main suppliers: simulation results with the dynamic GASTALE model. Energy Policy, 36(6):1890-1906, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Metzler, B.F. Hobbs, and J.-S. Pang. Nash-Cournot equilibria in power markets on a linearized dc network with arbitrage: formulations and properties. Networks & Spatial Economics, 3(2):123-150, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Niemeier, G. Gould, A. Karner, M. Hixson, B. Bachmann, C. Okma, Z. Lang, and D. Heres Del Valle. Rethinking downstream regulation: California’s opportunity to engage households in reducing greenhouse gases. Energy Policy, 36(9):3436-3447, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S.S. Oren. Economic inefficiency of passive transmission rights in congested electricity systems with competitive generation. Energy Journal, 18(1):63-83, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E.E. Sauma and S.S. Oren. Proactive planning and valuation of transmission investments in restructured electricity markets, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 30:261-290, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    F.C. Schweppe, M.C. Caramanis, R.D. Tabors, and R.E. Bohn. Spot Pricing of Electricity. Kluwer, Boston, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Sijm, K. Neuhoff, and Y. Chen. CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy, 6:49-72, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y. Smeers and J. Boucher. Alternative models of restructured electricity systems, part 1: no market power. Operations Research, 49(6):821-838, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Y. Smeers and J.-Y. Wei. Spatial oligopolistic electricity models with Cournot generators and regulated transmission prices. Operations Research, 47(1):102-112, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Takayama and G. Judge. Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    T. Tietenberg. Emissions Trading—Principles and Practice. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    T. Traber and C. Kemfert. Impacts of the German support for renewable energy on electricity prices, emissions, and firms. Energy Journal, 30(3):155-178, 2009.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Ventosa, A. Baillo, A. Ramos, and M. Rivier. Electricity market modeling trends. Energy Policy, 33(7):897-913, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    F. Wu, P. Variya, P.T. Spiller and S.S. Oren. Folk theorems on transmission open access: proofs and counter examples, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 10:5-23, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    H. Yang, C.Y. Chung, and K.P. Wong. Optimal fuel, power and load-based emissions trades for electric power supply chain equilibrium, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, to appear, 2012.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Yao, S. Oren, and I. Adler. Two settlements electricity markets with price caps and Cournot generation firms. European Journal of Operations Research, 181(3):1279-1296, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    X.-P. Zhang, Editor. Restructured Electric Power Systems: Analysis of Electricity Markets with Equilibrium Models. Wiley/IEEE Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Zhao, B.F. Hobbs, and J.-S. Pang. Long-run equilibrium modeling of alternative emissions allowance allocation systems in electric power markets. Operations Research, 58(3):529-548, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven A. Gabriel
    • 1
  • Antonio J. Conejo
    • 2
  • J. David Fuller
    • 3
  • Benjamin F. Hobbs
    • 4
  • Carlos Ruiz
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of Castilla – La ManchaCiudad RealSpain
  3. 3.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  4. 4.Department of Geography and Environmental EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.European Foundation for New Energy – EDF École Centrale Paris and SupélecChâtenay-MalabryFrance

Personalised recommendations