United States: Response To U.S. Senators' Capacity Market Questions

May 5, 2016

Dr. Frank Rusco
Director of Natural Resources and Environmental Issues
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20548
(202) 512-3841

cc: Senator Lisa Murkowski
Senator Maria Cantwell

Re: Response to U.S. Senators' Capacity Market Questions

Dear Dr. Rusco:

On November 19, Senators Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell from the U.S. Senate's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources issued a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that the GAO examine the efficacy of U.S. electricity capacity markets.1 The letter asked how capacity markets affect reliability, costs, and the generation mix compared to traditionally-regulated systems. We offer below our responses to each of Senators' questions as an input to your assessment. Our responses are informed by many years of consulting experience analyzing the very issues raised by the Senators, conducted on behalf of clients from all sectors of the electricity industry.2 We provide references to additional information and industry studies where possible.

The following responses to the Senators' questions use the same numbering convention, with the original questions repeated for reference.

1. We are concerned about the relationship of the increments of new capacity cleared in an auction and the increments of new capacity actually installed. Two recent surveys suggest that only a small fraction of new capacity has been built in organized markets except under bilateral power purchase agreements or direct ownership by LSEs [Load Serving Entities].3 Additionally, it is our understanding that except for one sub-region within PJM, capacity has never cleared above the "cost of new entry" in PJM or MISO. These observations prompt us to ask a central overarching question:

1a. Since their establishment, how effectively have capacity markets influenced the construction, maintenance, or retirement of generation in order to ensure resource adequacy and reliability in a cost-effective manner?

After more than a decade of experience, the U.S. capacity markets have demonstrated that they generally fulfill the design objective of meeting "resource adequacy" requirements cost effectively.4 They do so by establishing the quantity of capacity needed, and procuring that capacity through a competitive auction that is open to all types of resources. This auction-based, competitive format has proven effective at leveraging competitive forces to attract the lowest-cost combination of available resources, including demand response resources and the refurbishment and upgrades of existing resources. Capacity markets have created a level playing field that enables competition among new and existing generators, incumbents and new entrants, internal supply and imports, traditional and new types of technology, generation and demand-side resources, and centralized and distributed resources. These competitive forces have consistently achieved required reserve margins at prices below the system operators' estimates of the long-run costs of new generating plants.5

The success of capacity markets to date does not mean that they cannot be improved. In fact, each of the markets has encountered challenges that needed to be addressed over time, and has areas for improvement.6 We anticipate the future will continue to pose new challenges as market forces evolve. As long as these solutions comport with fundamental economic principles and rely on sound analyses, we anticipate that capacity markets will continue to perform well.

The PJM experience provides a good example of capacity market performance in achieving reliability objectives cost-effectively. That capacity market was instituted in 2007 at a time when PJM anticipated impending shortfalls in capacity, especially in import-constrained areas.7 By implementing the capacity market, PJM was able to procure enough capacity to meet and exceed the requirement by attracting a substantial influx of new, low-cost resources. These resources included increases in net imports, uprates to existing generation, and demand response resources. Few analysts had anticipated so many low-cost resources. Their entry is a testament to the creativity of competitive markets.

Securing a large quantity of low-cost resources postponed the need for new generation investments for almost a decade. More recently, new generating capacity has been needed due to load growth, retirements, and limited additional capacity available from existing resources. Capacity prices have risen sufficiently to attract those investments. Even so, capacity prices remain substantially below the system operator's estimates of the long-run cost for new generating plants. For example, PJM's recent auction for the 2017/18 delivery year attracted nearly 6,000 MW of new generation commitments at prices that were 35–41% of PJM's estimated net cost of new entry (Net CONE).8 This further demonstrates the competitive market's success in maintaining resource adequacy in a cost-effective manner.

We now address the specific concerns noted in the Senators' question:

  • Increments of New Generation Cleared versus Built. The Senators state that they are concerned that less generating capacity will actually get built than has cleared in PJM and ISO New England's forward capacity markets. It is true that that some of the capacity commitment cleared in the forward auctions will likely be bought out in incremental auctions and thus not get built; some of it may also come online with a one or two year delay.9 While one of the APPA reports referenced by the Senators suggests that a lower quantity of realized capacity additions would demonstrate that FERC and the system operators have to revisit the resource adequacy procurement mechanisms, we are less concerned.10

    First, we note that there generally will be a difference between the quantities cleared and built. The magnitude of that difference is likely to be modest or consistent with a decline in load forecasts for the delivery year. The APPA reports do not attempt to quantify this magnitude or explain the reason for any difference, perhaps because the timing of the reports would have made such a comparison impossible. The latest APPA report was issued in 2014, but it was not until the 2015 delivery year that significant new generation was committed to come online (a point acknowledged in the report).11,12 It is still too early for a complete comparison of the quantities cleared in forward capacity markets versus the generation actually built. But as a partial comparison, approximately 18,000 MW of new (not refurbished or life-extended) traditional thermal capacity has cleared PJM's capacity auctions starting with the delivery year 2015/16.13 That compares to 13,500 MW that have either come online or are currently under construction.14 In other words, the majority of the plants committed in prior capacity auctions are online or are being built; and others have additional time before they will need to begin construction to fulfill their future commitments.

    Second, if there is some discrepancy between original commitments and actual construction, it is most likely related to the fact that PJM's three-year load forecasts have been overstated compared to the subsequently-revised forecasts for the delivery year. As a result, PJM has procured more capacity in the three-year forward auction than what was actually needed.15,16 As load forecasts for the delivery year have been revised downward, some of the new generating units that cleared in the auction can buy out of their commitments or postpone their online dates. This is a more cost-effective outcome than requiring the originally-committed plant to proceed with construction if the plant is no longer needed based on the updated load forecast. However, persistently over-forecasting loads imposes additional costs and is therefore undesirable. Recognizing this concern, PJM has been working to address the issue through enhancements to its load forecasting methodology.
  • Prices Below the Net Cost of New Entry (Net CONE). As the Senators noted, prices have been below the administrative estimates of Net CONE in most of the capacity markets for most auction years in ISO New England, New York, and PJM.17 We do not see this as a concern for these three markets. Rather, we view this as evidence of beneficial competitive market performance. It may be disappointing to generation owners hoping for more financial support from these markets; but, from a customer's point of view, quality of service has been high and less expensive than if prices were clearing at the administrative estimate of Net CONE. Each of these markets has maintained low prices while meeting or exceeding reliability requirements, thus over-performing in both dimensions. We anticipate that in future years, average prices will rise to levels that are sustainable in the long run, but market forces will determine whether that long-run average price is above, below, or exactly at the administrative Net CONE estimate.18

    In the Midcontinent ISO (MISO), however, we take a different view. Prices in MISO's capacity auction have been consistently near zero and are not likely to rise sufficiently to attract new generation investments when needed. In most of MISO, capacity needs are satisfied through state resource planning efforts by regulated, vertically-integrated utilities such that there is no need for additional capacity to be attracted through MISO's capacity auction. That is, the capacity market in MISO is not really the prime driver of entry or expansion decisions. Rather, it is more of a balancing market for temporary variance in the timing or performance of assets being developed for other reasons, under state requirements. However, a modest portion of MISO LSEs do need to rely on market-based capacity, and so may fall short of their requirements if prices cannot rise sufficiently to attract entry once the current capacity surplus is depleted. MISO has identified this concern, and we recommended a series of reforms to address the issues.19 MISO has recently issued its own proposal to stakeholders.20
  • Generation Being Built Under Contract with Load Serving Entities (LSEs). It is not correct that new generating capacity has been built only under bilateral agreements with LSEs or under direct ownership by LSEs, although this was likely the case up until the 2011 and 2013 periods examined by the APPA studies. Until those years, competition from lower-cost resources had postponed the need for new generation, which meant that no private entity would make an investment without a long-term contract. Thus, in those years with excess supply, only regulated entities with cost recovery were building generation or signing contracts to build new generating plants.

    More recently, we have seen substantial investments in new merchant generation resources. Of the 13,500 MW of traditional thermal capacity recently built and now under construction, approximately 11,000 MW are new merchant generation.21 In ISO-NE, 4,050 MW of new generation has cleared in the last five auctions.22 As mentioned previously, most of these resources have now begun construction.

To read this letter in full, please click here.


1 Murkowski and Cantwell (2015).

2 This letter is not sponsored by any client company. It reflects the views of the letter's authors and not necessarily the views of other members of The Brattle Group or any of its clients.

3 American Public Power Association (2012); American Public Power Association (2014).

4 The purpose of capacity markets is to procure sufficient capacity to meet resource adequacy requirements, and to do so cost effectively by allowing all qualified MW competing to meet the need. These markets were never intended to directly address other policy objectives, such as fuel diversity or environmental quality. Such other objectives have to be addressed through other means, which can be implemented to complement capacity markets.

5 For a review of the experience with the first decade of capacity market operations, see Spees, Newell, and Pfeifenberger (2013).

6 For examples of recommendations to improve the existing capacity market designs, see Pfeifenberger, et al. (2014); Spees, Newell, and Lueken (2015); and Pfeifenberger, Spees, and Newell (2012).

7 See a more detailed discussion of this history in Pfeifenberger, et al. (2011) and PJM Base Residual Auction Results.

8 See Newell, Oates, and Pfeifenberger (2015).

9 New York ISO will not have any similar cases given its near-term capacity market design.

10 American Public Power Association (2014), p. 5.

11 Neither of the two pieces of evidence cited in the APPA report demonstrates any difference between the quantity cleared and the quantity built. The first APPA point was that a non-public internal projection from a third-party consulting firm (ICF) assumed that not all of the cleared capacity would get built. This assumption may prove accurate or inaccurate in retrospect. Even if accurate, this does not indicate whether this would be a problematic outcome. The second APPA point was that more generation projects were cancelled than built between 2008 and 2012. This does not acknowledge that it is common in all regions that many more projects will be proposed than completed. As in other industries, only the most competitive projects will tend to move forward. The report fails to note that no new generation was actually needed over that period as discussed above.

12 As noted in the second report "the 7,700 MW of planned merchant generation that cleared the last two auctions in PJM appears to mark a dramatic change in the pattern reported in this study." American Public Power Association (2014), pp. 4–5.

13 See PJM Base Residual Auction Results.

14 These resources are primarily natural gas-fired combined-cycles in the range of 300 to 900 MW in size, as well as 120 MW of combustion turbines. We identified units as being non-merchant if they were owned by a public power entity, were listed as "regulated," or were owned by the traditionally-regulated Dominion utility. We believe that this has screened out resources that are supported by regulated cost recovery, but we have not undertaken a more thorough review of each project. Data source: ABB, Inc., Energy Velocity Suite.

15 As an illustration of the magnitude of over-forecasting, see Newell, Oates, and Pfeifenberger (2015), p. 9. Drivers of the downward revisions in load forecasts include recognition of the long-term effects of the economic recession, policy-driven energy efficiency investments, and lower energy intensity associated with new economic growth.

16 A much more problematic situation would be if a substantial quantity of new generating capacity were committed and actually needed for the delivery year but failed to come online without procuring replacement capacity. We have not yet observed such outcomes, except under an ISO-NE provision that explicitly allows for a delayed online date in certain circumstances. PJM and ISO-NE have included measures in their market designs to protect against such outcomes, through qualification requirements, credit requirements, milestone tracking during construction, and penalties for non-delivery. If such undesirable outcomes were to arise, these market design elements would need to be refined.

17 The statement that prices have exceeded Net CONE only once is not correct. ISO-NE prices exceeded Net CONE in the 2016/17 auction for new and existing resources in NEMA and in the 2017/18 auction for new resources in the whole ISO and existing resources in NEMA. PJM prices have exceeded Net CONE in the ATSI Zone in the 2015/2016 auction and above zonal Net CONE for numerous MAAC regions in the 2013/14 auction.

18 It is somewhat unclear why prices in these markets have remained consistently below administratively estimated Net CONE, despite new capacity being built, and the reasons likely differ by market. Capacity offers reflect how much the entrant needs to be paid in the capacity market to be willing to enter, given its costs and its anticipated net revenues from energy and ancillary services markets as well as future capacity prices. Offers may differ from administrative estimates of Net CONE for a variety of reasons. The relatively low offers could reflect lower capital costs, lower financing costs, higher anticipated net energy revenues, technological innovation, different technology types, or greater optimism about future capacity prices than assumed by the system operator in these estimates. It may be that the relatively lower net costs could be a transitional effect as low-cost opportunities are developed first.

19 The concerns are driven by a combination of a vertical demand curve, a non-forward market, and a low price cap. These issues do not affect the ability to meet capacity needs in most of the MISO footprint where regulated utilities build new generation under traditional resource planning processes. These are likely to raise resource adequacy concerns for the approximately 9% of the loads in MISO that will rely on market-based investments to meet capacity needs. We have recommended reforms to address these concerns in a recent report see Spees, Newell, and Lueken (2015).

20 See MISO (2016).

21 We identified units as being non-merchant if they were owned by a public-power entity, were listed as "regulated," or were owned by the traditionally-regulated Dominion utility. We believe that this screened out resources that are supported by regulated cost recovery but have not undertaken a more thorough review of each project. Data source: ABB, Inc., Energy Velocity Suite. As another comparison point, for the past three PJM auctions spanning delivery years 2016/17 to 2018/19, PJM's capacity auctions cleared 13,600 MW of new generation and uprates in total, of which 11,230 MW was merchant and 2,370 MW was LSE built or contracted. Prior to those years, a substantial quantity of new generation did clear in prior PJM auctions, but the large majority of those resources were likely LSE self-supply (although PJM did not report precise statistics on the portion designated as merchant until the 2016/17 auction). See PJM Base Residual Auction Results.

22 ISO-NE Forward Capacity Auction Results, see ISO-NE (2016).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Duane Morris LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Duane Morris LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions