A Hope, A Wing, and A Prayer: Toward a Standard Market Design for RTOs

Deck: 

On the virtues and vices of ICAP, ACAP, FTRs, hubs, flowgates, DAMs, and gaming.

Fortnightly Magazine - April 15 2002
This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.

Can energy markets have virtues and vices? You betcha. Just listen in on a few minutes from one of those technical conferences on market design held over the past several months at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The subject was FTRs-Firm Transmission Rights. The issues are rich and complex: Physical or financial? Auction or allocate? Option or obligation? Use it or lose it?

The players included Steve Naumann (v.p., transmission services, Commonwealth Edison), Steve Walton, (consultant for RTO West-formerly with PacifiCorp and Enron), Linda Manz (manager, transmission planning, for PSE&G), Michael Schnitzer (consultant, NorthBridge Group), and David Mead and Dick O'Neill (both from FERC's Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates). They debated two conflicting visions for FTRs: the model proposed for RTO West (financial rights, but linked to a physical schedule) versus the systems in place in PJM and New York (purely financial systems, but with a key difference regarding an auction of rights). Here's a condensed excerpt from the conversation:

Steve Walton: "If you have an auction right off the reel, you're asking customers to expose themselves to substantial price risk ... We had two years of debate over this issue, and it's the easiest way to break up an RTO West meeting ... It's a guaranteed killer."

This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.