• Energy Research

There is no consensus on the method to set transmission tariffs for natural gas. The entry–exit system is widely used in European markets because it is cost reflective, it allows the network users to separately book capacity for entry and exit points, beyond its pro-competitiveness characteristics. Some authors, however, defend the adoption of the postage stamp (where a single tariff is charged regardless of the origin of the gas), due to its simplicity. Our goal is to compare these two mechanisms of transmission tariff with respect to the impacts on welfare. We find that the welfare effects crucially depend on the size of the internal market and the fixed costs supported by the incumbent firm. If the domestic market is sufficiently large and there are imports from abroad, consumer surplus is higher under the postage stamp system.

In the last decades, the weight of renewable energies sources (RES-E) in the electricity generation mix of most European countries has considerably increased, constituting an important contribution to the transition towards a low-carbon economy. Until very recently, RES-E were supported by favorable investment mechanisms specially designed to endorse investment in RES-E. More recently, as RES-E are becoming increasingly more competitive (especially wind and solar photovoltaic), RES-E are starting to be remunerated according to market mechanisms. This has generated a lively debate on the economic pros and cons of dispatching RES-E in the market. This paper contributes to this debate by developing a game theoretical model in the context of which we analyze how the inclusion of RES-E in the electricity wholesale market affects equilibrium outcomes under demand and supply uncertainty. Then, we examine how the inclusion of RES-E in the electricity wholesale market impacts firms’ incentives to invest in conventional energy sources, characterizing the optimal investment under demand and supply uncertainty. We find that, when RES-E capacity and asymmetry in firms’ marginal production costs are sufficiently high, RES-E producers may strategically reduce the market price, in order to evict the less efficient conventional source in that period. Although, in the short-run, this strategy may actually favor energy consumers (since prices are lower), the expectations of inactivity periods (regardless of whether they arise for strategic or market reasons) may negatively affect investment in back-up capacity, possibly leading to an increase in future prices (since less back-up capacity is available). Finally, we provide an analytical characterization of optimal investment levels in conventional energy sources under demand and supply uncertainty.

In this paper, we develop a theoretical model that enriches the literature on the pros and cons of ownership unbundling vis-a-vis lighter unbundling frameworks in the natural gas markets. For each regulatory framework, we compute equilibrium outcomes when an incumbent firm and a new entrant compete a la Cournot in the final gas market. We find that the entrant’s contracting conditions in the upstream market and the transmission tariff are key determinants of the market structure in the downstream gas market (both with ownership and with legal unbundling). We also study how the regulator must optimally set transmission tariffs in each of the two unbundling regimes. We conclude that welfare maximizing tariffs often require free access to the transmission network (in both regulatoy regimes). However, when the regulator aims at promoting the break-even of the regulated transmission system operator, the first-best tariff is unfeasible in both regimes. Hence, we study a more realistic set-up, in which the regulator’s action is constrained by the break-even of the regulated firm (the transmission system operator). In this set-up, we find that, for a given transmission tariff, final prices in the downstream market are always higher with ownership unbundling than with legal unbundling.