Electricity markets in Russia, the US, and Europe

Abstract

An in-depth analysis of the restructuring processes in individual market areas requires knowledge of the initial physical and organizational state of the electricity markets. The differences in these initial states lead to a significant divergence in the restructuring processes between the different market areas. There are general textbook models for electricity market restructuring; however, more specific tools are required for a detailed analysis of the divergent market structures and restructuring mechanisms in individual market areas. To illustrate the differences in the restructuring processes, this paper provides a review of four different electricity markets; the introduced electricity markets include Russia, the Nordic countries, the France-the Netherlands-Belgium interconnection (known as the Trilateral Market Coupling area, TLC), and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland interconnection (PJM). The Nordic countries and the TLC represent two different European market structures. Russia and the PJM market area in the US, on the other hand, are examples of different approaches in terms of pricing models and market structures compared with the ones commonly applied in Europe. In this paper, the development paths of the electricity markets in these target areas are analyzed taking into account the initial situation in each of these areas.

Causality-Based Policy Learning Frameworks Derived from Russian Power Sector Liberalisation

“…Regardless, external policy learning took place in Russia, and was part of the policy-making processes of power sector liberalisation. External experiences became objects of study in Russia, with the intent to compare and contrast the policy experiences in other countries with that occurring in, and considered for, Russia [32].…”

Status of Electric Sector Reform in Russia and the United Kingdom

“…Historically,theBritishpowersectorliberalizationexampleprovidedareformrecordofprivatization (Beesley,1997),regulation (Littlechild,2000),competition (OECD,2002)andinnovativewholesale powermarketdesigns (Littlechild,2001;Newbery,2001).Therefore,althoughfutureassessments would conclude that no single liberalization example works in all circumstances (Yi-Chong, 2006),Russianpolicymakersattemptedtolearnandintegratepolicyprinciplesforthedesignand implementationofaliberalizedpowersectorfromBritainandothercountries (IEA.2005). Theexistenceofcomparativepolicyliteraturefeaturinginternationalliberalizationexperiences inrelationtotheRussianpowersectorliberalizationexperienceisaphenomenonindicativeofthe policylearningandtransferprocessesatwork.Differentapproachestopolicylearningarereflected in literature, such as defining market distinctions (Oksanen, et al, 2009); positive and negative reformexperiences (Belyaev,2011);anddrawingsimilaritiestopreviousexamplesofreformfailure (Pittman,2007).…”

Strategic bidding via the interplay of minimum income condition orders in day-ahead power exchanges

“…If one investigates trading and pricing mechanisms in various electricity markets around the globe, it may be recognized that despite local market integration advancements and the convergence implied by them, the evolution of individual markets resulted in a diverse set of mechanisms and approaches [1,2,3]. Moreover, additional allocation and pricing mechanisms emerged in relation with electricity trade, as balancing markets [4] and transmission-related allocation and pricing [5].…”