دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله بررسی حمایت از حقوق مالی سیستم انتقال در بازار برق

 مقاله انگلیسی رایگان

ترجمه فارسی رایگان 

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Abstract: This paper surveys the markets for financial transmission rights (FTRs) around the world. FTRs are used to hedge the costs associated with transmission congestion. Currently these rights are in use in PJM, New York and New England. A variant of financial transmission rights, which has both a physical and a financial aspect, was introduced in California in 2000. Similarly, flowgates were introduced in Texas in 2002. FTRs are also planned for introduction in New Zealand. The features of the FTRs and the design of the different FTR markets are described. The paper focuses on how FTRs can be acquired, their advantages and disadvantages, and their market performance. Keywords: Financial Transmission Rights; Auctions; Hedging; Property Rights. 1 Introduction According to Hogan (2003) transmission policy stands at the center of electricity market design. The basic principles are open access and non-discrimination. Financial transmission rights (FTRs) facilitate competitive open transmission access. The proposed standard market design in the US will reduce seams between regions and markets. Certain critical market activities require standardization in order to support efficient operation with open access and non-discrimination. The design includes an independent transmission provider, which administers a single tariff and operates the transmission system to support essential services. There should be a coordinated spot market for energy and ancillary services, which employs bid-based security constrained economic dispatch with locational marginal cost pricing. The design includes bilateral contracts with a transmission usage charge for each transaction based on the difference in the locational prices at the points of injection and withdrawal. In these electricity markets, generators receive the locational price at the point where they inject power into the market and loads pay the locational price at the point where they have withdrawn power from the market. When the locational price differs between the generator and the load, the load or generator may be subject to congestion fees. FTRs as described by Hogan (1992) entitle the holders of FTRs to receive the value of congestion as established by the locational price difference. Thus a holder of an FTR between a generator located at point A serving load at point B would be indifferent to any difference in the locational prices between the generator and load locations. The FTR would effectively reimburse the holder the same amount it pays in congestion fees. In the case of an FTR option the payoff would be non-negative. FTRs are assumed to redistribute congestion fees (or the congestion costs of market players), which can be considerable in the US power markets as illustrated in Figure 1-1. In PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland), FTRs are called fixed transmission rights, in New York transmission congestion contracts (TCCs), in California firm transmission rights and in New Zealand and New England financial transmission rights. In Texas the flowgates are named transmission congestion rights (TCRs). __ Congestion Costs 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 New York PJM NE CAISO $ (million) 2000 2001 CAISO data excludes intra-zonal congestion New England data represents uplift costs Figure 1-1. Congestion costs in the US power markets (Singh, 2003). FTRs have been used in the PJM Interconnection since April 1, 1998, in New York since September 1, 1999, in California since February 1, 2000, and in New England since March 1, 2003. TCRs were introduced in Texas in February 15, 2002. PJM has introduced FTR obligations and options, while New York and New England have introduced FTR obligations, and are now evaluating FTR options. Various jurisdictions have chosen different FTR designs. PJM, New York, New England and Texas have chosen purely financial contracts and TransPower New Zealand plan to do the same. California has introduced contracts that have both a physical and a financial element and that have similarities to flowgate rights (FGRs) and is currently evaluating congestion revenue rights, which are similar to firm transmission rights. In this paper we firstly dicuss the properties of financial transmission rights. Next, we describe market performance criteria. Then, we survey the FTR markets in PJM, New York, California, New England, New Zealand and Texas. The emphasis is on the PJM and New York markets, since they are the most mature markets. Finally, we make some concluding remarks and compare the different markets. 2 Financial transmission rights properties Stochastic locational prices resulting in uncertain congestion charges create a demand by risk-averse market players for locational price hedging instruments. One such instrument is financial transmission rights (FTRs). The congestion rents that the independent system operator (ISO) collects are redistributed to the market players through FTRs (Hogan, 1992). Financial transmission rights define property rights and provide market players with the financial benefits associated with transmission capacity and facilitate efficient use of scarce resources. Property rights are also a mechanism to reward transmission investments. The rights will give investors a tradable contract in return. The ability to hedge transmission price is an important feature in facilitating an efficient electricity market. Efficient pricing of FTRs through liquid trading provides economic signals for location of generation, load and transmission investments.  FTRs offer instruments for converting historical entitlements to firm transmission capacity into tradable contracts that keep the owners just as well-off as economically while enabling them to cash out when others can make more efficient use of the transmission capacity covered by these contracts. An attractive public policy issue is that the FTRs offer a convenient path to competitive open transmission access. This is critical in establishing a competitive electricity market. 2.1 Financial transmission rights Because electricity flows according to Kirchoff’s laws and is difficult to trace, it is difficult to define and manage transmission usage. The first transmission capacity definition was a contract path fiction, which then evolved into flow-based paths. However because such a transaction involves the purchasing of several hedges against flowgates (Hogan, 2002a), an alternative approach is the point-to-point definition with implicit flows. Likewise, Joskow and Tirole (2000) have demonstrated analytical superiority of FTRs over physical rights. An FTR gives the holder its share of congestion rents that the ISO receives during transmission congestion. The amount of issued FTRs is decided ex ante and allocated by the ISO to holders based on preferences and estimates of future transmission capacity. The difference between the congestion rent and payments to FTR holders may be positive, resulting in a surplus to the ISO. The surplus is redistributed to FTR holders and transmission service customers. On the contrary, if payments to FTR holders exceed the congestion rent, the ISO reduces payments proportionally to FTR holders or requires that the transmission owners make up the deficit. The allocation of FTRs typically occurs as an auction, but FTRs may also be allocated to transmission service customers who pay the embedded costs of the transmission system. The design of the auction is decided by the ISO and depends on the market structure. FTRs entitle (or obligate) the holder to the difference in locational prices times the contractual volume. The mathematical formulation for the payoff is: