BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Central- versus Self-Dispatch in Electricity Markets - Pär Holmbe
 rg (None / Other)
DTSTART:20190110T143000Z
DTEND:20190110T153000Z
UID:TALK116803@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:INI IT
DESCRIPTION:In centralized markets\, producers submit detailed cost data t
 o the day-ahead market\, and the market operator decides how much should b
 e produced in each plant. This differs from decentralized markets that rel
 y on self-commitment and where producers send less detailed cost informati
 on to the operator of the day-ahead market. Ideally centralized electricit
 y markets would be more effective\, as they consider more detailed informa
 tion\, such as start-up costs and no-load costs. On the other hand\, the b
 idding format is rather simplified and does not allow producers to express
  all details in their costs. Moreover\, due to uplift payments\, producers
  have incentives to exaggerate their costs. As of today\, US has centraliz
 ed wholesale electricity markets\, while most of Europe has decentralized 
 wholesale electricity markets. The main problem with centralized markets i
 n US is that they do not provide intra-day prices which can be used to con
 tinuously up-date the dispatch when the forecast for renewable output chan
 ges. Intra-day markets are more flexible and better adapted to deal with r
 enewable power in decentralized markets. Iterative intra-day trading in a 
 decentralized market can also be used to sort out coordination problems re
 lated to non-convexities in the production. The downside of this is that i
 ncreased possibilities to coordinate increase the risk of getting collusiv
 e outcomes. Decentralized day-ahead markets in Europe can mainly be improv
 ed by considering network constraints in more detail.
LOCATION:Seminar Room 1\, Newton Institute
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR