Competition and Cooperation in Deregulated Bulk Power Markets

  • Scott R. Herriott
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 3)


A special feature in Electrical World (1988) has made it clear that the deregulation of electric power generation, previously considered by many to be merely an academic issue, is very much on the minds of utility executives. Most commentators address technical aspects of the issue, such as the interpretation of “avoided cost” under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), qualifications for cogenerating facilities under PURPA, transmission access for cogenerators and independent power producers, and the structure of competitive bidding systems for bulk power supply. Only a few have pointed explicitly to the organizational issues in deregulation. Joskow and Schmalensee (1983), for example, expressed grave doubts that the initiation of competition in bulk power markets could accommodate, without loss of economic efficiency, the organized cooperation that is necessary for least-cost planning and operation. These doubts are echoed by Martinson and Loria (1987) and by Casazza (1988).


Unit Commitment Spot Market Loop Flow Competitive Bidding Economic Interdependence 
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. Burns, Robert E. 1987. “Legal Impediments to Power Transfers.” In Nontechnical Impediments to Power Transfers, edited by Kevin Kelley. Columbus, OH: National Regulatory Research Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Casazza, John A. 1988. “Free Market Electricity: Potential Impacts on Utility Pooling and Coordination.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 121 (no. 4, February 18): 16–23.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, Linda. 1982. “A Spot Market For Electricity: Preliminary Analysis of the Florida Energy Broker.” RAND Corporation Note N-1817-DOE.Google Scholar
  4. Crew, Michael A., and Paul R. Kleindorfer. 1976. “Peak Load Pricing with a Diverse Technology.” Bell Journal of Economics 7 (1): 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crew, Michael A., and Paul R. Kleindorfer. 1986. The Economics of Public Utility Regulation. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Electrical World. 1988. “News Analysis.” (January): 11–20.Google Scholar
  7. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Power Pooling in the United States. U. S. Government Printing Office Report FERC-0049.Google Scholar
  8. Haman-Guild, Renee, and Jerry L. Pfeffer. 1987. “Competitive Bidding for New Electric Power Supplies: Deregulation or Reregulation.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 120 (no. 6, September 17): 9–20.Google Scholar
  9. Herriott, Scott R. 1985a. “The Organizational Economics of Power Brokers and Centrally Dispatched Power Pools.” Land Economics 61 (no. 3, August): 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herriott, Scott R. 1985b. “Subsidy-free Allocation of Long-run Costs in Electric Utility Power Pools.” Working Paper 84/85–4–13, Graduate School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, January.Google Scholar
  11. Howard, Jeffrey H., and Richard A. Westfall. 1988. “The FERC Opens Pandora’s Box.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 121 (no. 5, March 3): 22–25.Google Scholar
  12. Joskow, Paul R., and Richard Schmalensee. 1983. Markets for Power. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kemp, William J. 1987. “The Western Systems Power Pool: A Bulk Power Free Market Experiment.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 119 (no. 9, April 30): 23–27.Google Scholar
  14. Lookadoo, Phillip G. 1987. “What Happened in the Gas Industry Can Happen in the Electric Industry.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 119 (no. 11, May 28): 23–27.Google Scholar
  15. Martinson, Linda, and Thomas W. Loria. 1987. “The Transitional Bulk Power Market.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 120 (no. 11, November 26): 19–24.Google Scholar
  16. Meade, William R. 1987. “Competitive Bidding and the Regulatory Balancing Act.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 120 (no. 6, September 17): 22–30.Google Scholar
  17. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Public Utilities Fortnightly. 1987a. “The Midland Cogeneration Project.” 119 (no. 9, April 16): 42–45.Google Scholar
  19. Public Utilities Fortnightly. 1987b. “Competitive Bidding and Independent Power Producers.” 120 (no. 11, November 26): 43–45.Google Scholar
  20. Public Utilities Fortnightly. 1987c. “Remarkable Remarks.” 120 (no. 1, July 9): 6.Google Scholar
  21. Radford, Bruce W. 1987. “Transmission Access for Cogenerators: Why Make It a Federal Question?” Public Utilities Fortnightly 120 (no. 6, September 17): 4–6.Google Scholar
  22. Sherali, H. D., A.L. Soyster, F. H. Murphy, and S. Sen. 1984. “Intertemporal Allocation of Capital Costs in Electric Utility Capacity Expansion Planning Under Uncertainty.” Management Science 30 (no. 1, January): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. “Transaction-cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations.” Journal of Law and Economics 22 (October): 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yokell, Michael D., and Daniel M. Violette. 1988. “Market Structure and Opportunities in the Electric Utility Industry Today.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 121 (no. 1, January 7): 9–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott R. Herriott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations