Talk:Electricity market/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"successful"

The statement "successful wholesale electricity markets" can lead to some debate about the success of the markets, especially those in California and Ontario. It may be better to leave out the word "successful".

There is no need to include failures among the list of successful wholesale markets. Removing the links to Ontario and California would remove the problem Tiles 10:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Argentina unqualified success

The use of "unqualified success" to describe Argentina's privatization seems unwarrented, even if it is only referring to the success in attracting capital. I think that many Argentines would take issue with that description, especially when the only negative comment is on the loss on investment by foreigners. A large part of the capital (71% according to the Organizacion Internacional de Trabajo) was paid in titles to foreign debt at nominal value but bought at real value. According to my professor at the University of Buenos Aires, bonds for Argentine nacional debt were trading at 11% of their nominal value in 1991, meaning that the actual capital expenditures were much smaller than those claimed by the government. Are the two sentances on capital even relevant? Elnocturno 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

derinig

There is a misspelled word: "derinig". Is this word: rendering? deriving? during?
Mikiemike 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Market Structure.

Hello, I'm kind of new to this page editing. I am currently working on a presentation to perform a training seminar regarding the power market and power plants. My company is involved in the repair and maintenance of power plants and I'm trying to link these applications to the market to show the shareholders how they can save money.

My questions are, Is there a Grid company that takes care of all the distribution and matching demand and supply?

How does this company if it exists deal with power plants and power companies like FPL or Southern Company.

If the company doesn't exist then how is it distributed and how are supply and demand mismatches handled?

Please, I'm not very knowledged in this subject and need all the help I can get.

Thanks in advance for the help. (Alkaroth (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

explain the word "out-of-merit" and add link to "spinning reserve".

It is hard for me to understand what is out-of-merit. And the page seems wrong by saying the system operator "exclude" the "out-of-merit" in the calculation of LPM since "spinning reserve" is not in the supply at all, and hence no need to exclude it. I might be wrong, and I am looking for clarification. Thanks. The "spinning reserve" can be linked to the page \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_reserve}{Operating Reserve} for reader's convenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patiobarbecue (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

International market not covered at all

Ladies and gentlemen, there are several international wholesale electricity markets on the planet, including at least two in Eurasia: the EU grid and the CIS common market. Some countries (notably Ukraine and Georgia) are significant net exporters of electricity. Not a word on that do we have. Ukrained2012 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes; that's a good point; we should cover the world more thoroughly. Got any good sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Electricity market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Typical daily consumption" Chart

The chart is neither "typical" nor sensical at all. There has been a debate about its factual inaccuracies in German here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tagesgang.png. They came to the conclusion that it's wrong and misleading, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.23.119.132 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Holmberg's comment on this article

Dr. Holmberg has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The history section and many other parts entirely focuses on America and Commonwealth countries, while I think that most of the deregulations during the 90s took place in Europe. In particular Europé was first to design electricity markets that spanned several countries. Norway deregulated already in 1991.

The article makes some subjective statements that should be supported by citations, such as "The World Bank was active in introducing a variety of hybrid markets in other Latin American nations, including Peru, Brazil, and Colombia, during the 1990s, with limited success." and "In the USA the traditional model of the vertically integrated electric utility with a transmission system designed to serve its own customers worked extremely well for decades", where I am unsure about the subjective phrases "limited success" and "extremely well". Near the end of the article it is stated that "the "missing money" problem has to date proved intractable", where I find that "intractable" is a bit too strong. In my view there are (nearly) energy-only markets in operation, such as in the Nordic countries, where missing money has not been a major problem.

Although supported by an article by Hogan, I also find that the following paragraph is too drastic: "For an economically efficient electricity wholesale market to flourish it is essential that a number of criteria are met, namely the existence of a coordinated spot market that has "bid-based, security-constrained, economic dispatch with nodal prices". These criteria have been largely adopted in the US, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore." I personally also favour nodal pricing, but most markets do not use nodal prices, especially not in Europé and not exactly in Australia either. One potential problem with nodal pricing is that it may make markets illiquid. Also I find that this paragraph is somewhat ill-phrased as these criteria will supposedly give an economically efficient wholesale electricity market.

I would like to see more references of works by authorities such as Peter Cramton, Paul Joskow, Robert Wilson, William Hogan, Fred Schweppe, James Bushnell, Shmuel Oren, Frank Wolak, Steven Stoft, David Newbery, Richard Green, Yves Smeers, Karsten Neuhoff, Michael Pollit and Nils-Henrik von der Fehr, who have all contributed to academic electricity market research and who all have helped policy makers to design of electricity markets around the world.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Holmberg has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Holmberg, Par & Philpott, Andrew, 2012. "Supply Function Equilibria in Networks with Transport Constraints," Working Paper Series 945, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Capacity market

Capacity market redirects here, but was not in the article, so I have added it. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added a new section. Please expand it if you can. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
To User:Sphilbrick - I think you are being a bit trigger-happy over copyright. I think it is fair use. Roberttherambler (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The usage make qualify under the law as fair use but we deliberately take a more conservative approach in Wikipedia. In general, phrases as short as a part of the sentence that are exact sequences of words are problematic.

Material that is exactly quoted is an exception, if it is appropriate to use an exact quote however the material should be in quote marks or in a block quote. I confess I missed that you stated that the items were being quoted.

I haven't seen that construction being used and I don't think it's acceptable but helping one of our copyright experts for a second opinion. @Diannaa: Without opining on whether this material belongs in this article, I agree that if someone is going to use definitions, it makes sense to use the exact definitions rather than a paraphrase. However, I've always seen such exact quotes either surrounded by quote marks, or in a block quote. I can't every call seeing a construction such as this where text is used to indicate that some subsequent material is being quoted. Do you think this is acceptable?

The article is Electricity market, the edit in question is here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The way it was done does not make it clear (in my opinion) that the material has been quoted. I suggest that you re-structure structure the format so that it's crystal clear that the material is a quotation rather than original prose. For example, do this: "The National Grid 'Guidance document for Capacity Market participants' provides the following definitions:" and then put the material in a block quote, or if a bulleted list is desired, put each individual definition in quotation marks. Add the citation after each definition. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Roberttherambler: Sounds like a good plan to me. Robert, I had revision deleted the edit you made but I ended that so you can access the material without going to the original.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Done. Roberttherambler (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electricity market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Gobbledegook

This is long and yet useless for an average person looking into how the process that ends up on their bill works. I came looking for more about electricity auctions, which I think it's good to know about since we have people showing up at our door trying to get us to change retailers on a regular basis. Good information is a good defense against salespeople who misrepresent how the market works. Auctions are a basic part of the market. There is nothing in the article that pertains to auctions other than a bit on the UK market with a dead link and 3 pdfs, only one of which seems to work. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Bid-based, security-constrained, economic dispatch with nodal prices

This section describes one of the ways to make the centralized market work. This fact shall be reflected in the text IMO. --Викидим (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Wholesale electricity markets

There is an unorganized list of the wholesale markets in a dedicated section Electricity market#Wholesale electricity markets, the criteria for selection are unclear. I have added an RS-based table of representative wholesale markets classified by their important characteristics and therefore hereby propose to remove this section altogether. Викидим (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the existing list does not help this article, and contributes to the article being rather long and difficult to read. However, instead of simply deleting this content, how about splitting the content to a new list article (along with some improvements, if possible).--Marshelec (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I cannot promise the latter, hereby inviting the editor Somebody "Notme" Else (talk · contribs) to the discussion. A lot of work would be involved to make a decent list out of this section. However, I will naturally try to find an RS with a list of deregulated markets. --Викидим (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In its current state, the list appears to be a duplication of Category:Electricity markets, so I will check the list against the content of the said category. --Викидим (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    I am thinking of adding Turkey. I know the Electricity sector in Turkey has intraday trading - so if I understand right that means it is decentralized? Also I know we don't have nodal pricing but I don't understand why there is a word in brackets after "No" Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Only neoliberal policy makers believe that electricity is a tradable commodity

The opening of this lemma suggests that it is a universal economic truth that electricity is a market tradeable commodity, where in reality that's true only under the neoliberal point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.176.6 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Provide a source to back up your additions. Wikipedia doesn't accept things simply because you or I say it is so. Provide a source or what you are doing is adding WP:OR. --ARoseWolf 13:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • After the California debacle in the early 2000s, there were plenty of reputable papers and books in 2005-2008 explaining why the electricity markets are set up for failure. Since then, at a cost of (great) additional complexity, the markets were made to work, and the idea of the impending doom is no longer mainstream. I do not think that it would be meaningful to write a critique section based on relatively old research (except to mention the fad in passing). However, the US provide an interesting material for comparison, as some states kept their vertically integrated utilities. If you happen to know a good research paper on the electricity price comparisons between the states that did and that did not, please let me know. --Викидим (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding the question "is the electricity a public service or a commodity?", the jury is still out (literally: the US courts tend to randomly classify it both ways, sometimes like a good, sometimes like a service, see [1]). Obviously, these two views correspond to two designs of the market. I have removed the phrase that you have objected to and replaced it with a sentence that states the fact that the debate is still ongoing, and its links to the market design. It is very easy to provide multiple citations (see, for example, [2]), but I did not find a truly good one yet, so I have kept a cite request at the end of the new sentence. --Викидим (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    • This is obviously a very politically charged issue, so academics tread very carefully. I had provided a (very scholarly) cite that (on its very first page) delicately points to a link between a view of energy as a good or a service and the deregulation. I had to alter the sentence, so now it matches the source better, but grasping the idea now requires more effort from the reader. If anyone has a better (scholarly!) source that states the obvious (to me) points that (1) deregulation battle is not over (2) the difference of opinions is partially driven by the good/service divide, they are very welcome to add the cite and alter the text if necessary. --Викидим (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
      The criterion for centralization appears to be "unit bidding" vs. "portfolio bidding". In Turkey, do they bid to deliver so many MW at particular time from a particular generation unit or just to deliver so many MW at particular time? Викидим (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
      If you have time perhaps you could spend a couple of minutes reading at https://www.epias.com.tr/en/ in case I missed something. I did not spot anything about particular generation units so I think we must be "decentralized". As you don't want me to add Turkey to the table I will add only in the country article. But I still don't understand why there is a word in brackets after "No" in the table. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
      Sorry, you have misunderstood me. I see no problem adding Turkey to the table, provided we can find the bidding way and pricing (zonal? nodal?) is some RS. Викидим (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

International trading

The section on international trading shall be globalized, the sources are easily available: [3]. Викидим (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Grammar pedant says that "shall be" means that you know someone will do it. Perhaps you intend to do it yourself or perhaps you meant "should be". Anyway it would be great if more people got involved and improved this topical and important article to complement your hard work on it. I have asked for help at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy#Can_anyone_help_with_electricity_market? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I approach "shall" and "should" from a different angle, similar to [4]: "shall" is "there is no escape", while "should" is "recommended". Unless it bothers you, I would prefer to keep this usage (in my comments). Викидим (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

FoK

To keep the reader going through this very dry and difficult info should we add FoK somewhere in the depths of the article - as described at https://www.epias.com.tr/en/intra-day-market/orders/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what an FoK is, but a friendlier lead or (even better) introduction section would not hurt. This is not a very hard or very large text yet, on a scale where Ball is 0 and Maxwell equations is 10, this article so far is about 2, IMHO. Викидим (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Borenstein's article

I have restored the link to it. I have no opinion on the need for this link, but there are few copies freely available on the Internet, so a "dead link" is not a valid reason to delete, cf. WP:LR. Викидим (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Global view, scientific sources

@Chidgk1: I have a pair of comments:

  1. Let's try to keep the global view as much as possible. There are essentially two types of competitive markets: centralized (US-like) and decentralized (EU-like), and can be describe as such. My suggestion is not to clutter the article with a single country specifics (unless we have a source that covers multiple countries individually, but in one place). Each country ABC deserves an article "Electricity market in ABC", let's not make this article a collection of such diverse information (there are more than 100 countries that definitely are worthy of such an article);
  2. The subject of this article is not a news event, so we should stick primarily to research work as sources. Using mass media as sources will quickly lead us to additional contradictions as journalism has no concept of peer review.

Викидим (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Re 1) I agree with you about keeping a global view. I did not know about centralized and decentralized before I read this article - if you can answer my question above I will add the info to Electricity sector in Turkey rather than here.
Re 2) I only partly agree with you. Although we should not include news of every government "quick fix" we should mention if there is some kind of trend amongst many countries - for example it seems that capping wholesale prices might be a trend - so I mentioned the EU cap as an example. Although research work is good to cite as you say, it may sometimes be useful to have both a research cite and a mass media cite for the same important sentence, because non-experts like me may find it hard to understand the research cite. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I 100% agree with you on the capping. Since it is indeed a global trend, we should be able to find an RS that says so, presumably with some examples of the markets in the said RS uses to support the thesis. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I just cited academics against capping but the only one I found in favor was about capping the price of Russian gas Chidgk1 (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Every electricity market started without capping, then started capping after some major pricing disaster (note that there are two caps: for wholesale and retail, the latter in some countries have no cap, or at least not had until 2022). So for me capping is like rain: unpleasant but essential to the nature. I would therefore look not for articles that say rain is bad, but the ones that explain why the rain happens. Викидим (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Carbon pricing

Carbon offsets deserve a mention, but in a globalized way - and as part of the electricity costs. Викидим (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I don't quite understand what you mean here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the electricity market, carbon price is just a component of an "input" price, similar to, say, oil price. Is it related to the topic or not? - I do not know, but in order to write about carbon price here, we need to find an RS that explicitly links the carbon price to electricity market. CBAM, IMHO, is just a protectionist import tariff measure disguised in this way to avoid issues with WTO. Again, it might be described here if there is a scientific RS that ties it to the electricity market in some way, and only to the extent of such a tie-in. Викидим (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not an economist but as I understand it in countries, such as the US, without a carbon price the economic damage caused by coal-power and gas-power greenhouse gas emissions is a negative externality of the electricity market.
Whereas in places with a carbon price some (perhaps all) of that externality has been internalized to become part of the electricity market.
The problem is the interconnection of an electricity market which does include it with one which does not: this is in scope of this article I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You have convinced me, let's look at the articles that explicitly tie the carbon offsets to electricity markets. Викидим (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Perspectives questioning the whole paradigm of "electricity markets" are necessary in this article.

Although I appreciate the essentially political view expressed in this article of those who believe that there should be "electricity markets", this article does not account or grant prominence to the view perhaps expressed best by S. David Freeman (quoted from the California electricity crisis article):

"There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy’s Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state “any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.” And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control."

"Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power, we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the lights on. We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs..."

In particular, I believe that this article has a fundamental bias: that there ought to be "electricity markets", when the existence of such markets in no way is inevitable or even wanted by consumers (including most businesses). Electricity has been historically a regulated monopoly, at least in the United States, and most people just care that the lights stay on, and that their rates don't go all over the place (but especially drastically up). They don't care about Pareto efficiency or perfect competition, nor do they want Wall Street to unleash market forces on their energy use or to be shanghaied into some kind of weird commodity-market based rate-setting game, which has already been pre-rigged for the private benefit of Kenny Boy.

There ought to be equal space given to the failures of these particular markets as well as the view that electricity is a natural monopoly and ought to be subject to regulation for the public good (with a guaranteed reasonable rate of return for investors) in addition to the extant arguments, which represent one perspective--a perspective that can be argued to be a manifestation of free-market fundamentalism.
Katana0182 (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. In fact from the development of mass produced electrical power in the late nineteenth century there have been a variety of approaches to organising the market or for that matter organising municipal power generation. This has sadly been ignored in this article. Leutha (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
this article is written under the neoliberal point of view, everything can be traded and speculated upon. and since neoliberalism is the dominating paradigm of our times, there's no room for opposing views. 79.166.176.6 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I see no problem listing the benefits of non-competitive markets based on solid - and modern - RS (a lot of critique is based on California problems in early 2000s that had been since tamped down). Do you have any particular peer-reviwed research in mind? Викидим (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In the table why is there a word in brackets after "No"?

I see the table here has been copied directly from table 1 in the cite but could someone who understands the cite better explain please.

If nobody knows I will delete "(zonal)" and "(regional)" otherwise they will confuse readers Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If the nodal (LMP) pricing is not used, there are three options left: (1) zone-by-zone ("zonal") pricing, the regional variation of it, and the uniform price (UMP). The comments in parenthesis disambiguate all four choices, and thus should be kept. The only badly explained is the regional variety. Feel free to add more explanations for all four. Викидим (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Викидим I don't understand - for example as far as I know GB does not have zonal pricing so why is that word in brackets? I mean all GB is one price zone so that would be your UMP above. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You are right, this is apparently a typo. Ofgem plans to go LMP or zonal, but is not there yet. Removing the qualification for GB. Викидим (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GB in the table

Possibly the author of the cite was thinking of https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63205245 when they wrote “zonal’ Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Current failure of the European electricity market

why isn't there any mention to the current failure of the european electricity market? 79.166.176.6 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  • The researchers have not yet written good papers on relative merits of pay-as-clear (used in EU) and pay-as-bid in the presence of inelastic demand and the implications for the European electricity markets, so it is hard to write a text on this subject (very relevant to your question) for an encyclopedia. Note that we currently are missing here even the clear definitions of both terms (an attempt at the second can be found in Multiunit auction), this article lacks even cursory descriptions of market clearing procedures used. These latter omissions, time and God permitting, I plan to rectify relatively soon (a year?), but answer to your original question will have to wait (science takes time). In the meantime, like the protagonist in the Terminal (movie), I will wait. You might want to do the same: writing an encyclopedia article based on mass-media sources does not look like a good idea to me. --Викидим (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
79.166.176.6 Correct me if I am wrong but I thought there was more than one electricity market in Europe. If you are just talking about the EU you could expand Electricity in the EU from a redirect into an article.
If you are talking about Europe as a continent then UK is still in so you could read some early research at https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-electricity-market-design-expert-group/
and see if there is anything there that you should mention in this general article as well as Electricity sector in the United Kingdom
Anyway it would be great if you could improve this article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
We need something like this [5], but peer-reviewed. Викидим (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have decided to take a risk and added this preprint to the list of sources. Objections are welcome. Викидим (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Retail electricity market" section be moved to main article?

For example to the lead of Electricity retailing as it is so short. Then the lead of that article could be excerpted back here Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We need to look wider. Essentially, originally the electricity market looked to the reformers as a primarily wholesale market; this article, until recently, reflected this outdated view. In the current mind-boggling complexity, the electricity markets (note the plural) are better described in a main (this) article that provides an overview of the multiple markets and their connections, and a few subordinate articles like Retail electricity market, Wholesale electricity market, Ancillary services markets, Capacity market, etc. In its current state, this article concentrates too much on the wholesale (for the purely historical reasons). Prior to embarking on this mission, we would need an RS for the overview. I do not currently know of any peer-reviewed work that encompasses the necessary breadth of scope. Any suggestions? Викидим (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry no idea - I am just dabbling here and other articles to avoid the hard work of getting Oil and gas in Turkey up to GA Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

criteria

I believe the statement "For an economically efficient electricity wholesale market to flourish it is essential that a number of criteria are met." is unsupported, perhaps it should be stated that, "Economically efficient electricity wholesale markets do not always flourish (see California and Ontario), however, economists listed below have suggested that success could be encouraged through certain criteria."

I don't know who made the comment above but I add my date here so it will eventually be archived Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate and off-topic phrases in the lead

I am thinking of removing the phrases These markets developed as a result of the restructuring of electric power systems around the world. This process has often gone on in parallel with the restructuring of natural gas markets. from the lead. The first one is a duplicate of an earlier, sourced, information. The second is slightly off-topic. If the latter is important, perhaps, it can be added earlier in a shorter form? Викидим (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Two weeks, and no objections. Deleting. Викидим (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed windfall tax for Germany

The German economics ministry is currently developing a "windfall tax" for electricity sales. These measures are to be applied at the point of trading and not on subsequent profit reporting. And thus, establishing the counterfactuals against which to determine excess margins is difficult and tangled up with prevailing forward contracts and so on. When these measures become formalized and enacted, they will no doubt deserve some coverage here. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea of windfall tax on generation is not new, see the events in the UK in 1997 (Windfall tax (United Kingdom)). However, I cannot find even a single preprint discussing this truly exciting Teutonic arrangement - can you point me to something non-journalistic? That said, I would expect in the end something along the lines of pay-as-bid, with bids in addition possibly fixed at (incremental cost+allowed profit) by some public utility commission, not an outright confiscation. AFAIK, UK and Nord Pool are using pay-as-bid (instead of pay-as-clear) already. Викидим (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electricity_market/Archive_1&oldid=1218067378"