Long-term Capacity Adequacy in Electricity Markets: Reliability Contracts VS Capacity Obligations
In this paper, we study the problem of long-term capacity adequacy in electricity markets. Two investment incentive mechanisms - Capacity obligations and Reliability contracts - are analyzed and compared to the benchmark design, the energy-only market. We use the dynamic programming method and real option theory to develop two dynamic models that enable one to assess the optimal market design for ensuring sufficient generation capacity to meet future demand at efficient cost (the deterministic model) and to analyze the optimal timing of investments when uncertainties in future load and fuel prices are considered (the stochastic model). The effects of different factors on investment strategies, such as the pricing of CO2 and differences between construction delays and cost structures of the new technologies, are also analyzed. The numerical results show that: (1) the reliability contract scheme would be the more cost-efficient mechanism, ensuring the long term system adequacy and encouraging earlier and adequate new investments in the system, compared to the capacity obligation method which would result in over-investment and price manipulations; (2) short lead time technology would be preferred with the capacity obligation design, while cost competitive technology would be chosen with the reliability contract scheme; (3) the pricing of CO2 and the taking into account of uncertainties would affect investment strategies but would have no impact on the effectiveness of the reliability contracts scheme.
Rights for Authors
As further described in our submission agreement (the Submission Agreement), in consideration for publication of the article, the authors assign to Energy Studies Review all copyright in the article, subject to the expansive personal--use exceptions described below.
Attribution and Usage Policies
Reproduction, posting, transmission or other distribution or use of the article or any material therein, in any medium as permitted by a personal-use exemption or by written agreement of Energy Studies Review, requires credit to Energy Studies Review as copyright holder (e.g., Energy Studies Review © 2014).
The following uses are always permitted to the author(s) and do not require further permission from DigitalCommons@McMaster provided the author does not alter the format or content of the articles, including the copyright notification:
- Storage and back-up of the article on the author's computer(s) and digital media (e.g., diskettes, back-up servers, Zip disks, etc.), provided that the article stored on these computers and media is not readily accessible by persons other than the author(s);
- Posting of the article on the author(s) personal website, provided that the website is non-commercial;
- Posting of the article on the internet as part of a non-commercial open access institutional repository or other non-commercial open access publication site affiliated with the author(s)'s place of employment (e.g., a Phrenology professor at the University of Southern North Dakota can have her article appear in the University of Southern North Dakota's Department of Phrenology online publication series); and
- Posting of the article on a non-commercial course website for a course being taught by the author at the university or college employing the author.
People seeking an exception, or who have questions about use, should contact the editors.