Reserve and energy scarcity pricing in United States power markets: A comparative review of principles and practices
Here, errors in forecasting load and renewable-based generation in restructured power systems mean that independent system operators (ISOs) must procure sufficient operating reserves to keep the real-time operation of the system reliable and secure. But when procured reserves turn out to be insufficient in real-time due to the lack of resource capacity or ramp capability, operators often set higher prices for reserves and energy to encourage more supply, and to motivate consumers to decrease usage or shift it to other times. This procedure, which is called scarcity or shortage pricing, is a core feature of U.S. electricity markets. It is receiving increased attention from market designers and stakeholders because scarcity will become more important for spot price formation in the future with the increased penetration of zero-marginal cost renewables, and the shrinking role of fuel costs in setting prices. Scarcity pricing is implemented in various ways by different ISOs. These differences have practical implications for the level of prices and incentives for investment, operations, and demand modification. In this paper, general approaches and specific calculation procedures for reserve and energy scarcity pricing practices and calculations across the seven ISO-based U.S. power markets are reviewed and compared. A consistent terminology is used to facilitate the comparison. Current scarcity pricing practices are grouped into three approaches: (1) imposing an adder after the spot market is run; (2) including stepwise demand curves within market clearing procedures for non-contingency reserve products (e.g., the novel flexiramp product), which tends to yield longer right tails for energy scarcity premium curves; and (3) having stepwise demand curves for traditional contingency reserve products only, which results in shorter right tails in energy scarcity curves. A generic numerical example is presented to highlight the large practical differences among the reserve scarcity pricing approaches and specific implementations. To further investigate factors that contribute the most to demand curves differences among ISOs, a sensitivity analysis is performed. This analysis shows that the largest source of differences among the curves is the scarcity prices assumed in the case of severe scarcity, while the number of steps used and whether flexiramp is considered also yields important differences in scarcity prices. As renewable penetration increases, it will become increasingly crucial to employ administrative demand curves so that spot prices more effectively motivate supply and demand adjustments exactly when and where they are needed. This study shows that the different assumptions yield very different scarcity premiums for reserves and energy, and are likely to provide divergent incentives for resources to respond to shortages. It is concluded that to promote market efficiency, a reserve shortage demand curve should have at least three features: inclusion of the marginal value of reserve products at each shortage level, consideration of the magnitude and probability of supply contingencies, and avoidance of abrupt price discontinuities that can cause excessively volatile market outcomes.