The traditional approach to demand response of paying for a customer’s electricity consumption reductions relative to an administratively set baseline is currently being advocated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as a way to foster the participation of final consumers in formal wholesale markets. Although these efforts may lead to greater participation of final consumers in traditional demand response programs, they are likely to work against the ultimate goal of increasing the benefits that electricity consumers realize from formal wholesale electricity markets, because traditional demand response programs are likely to provide a less reliable product than generation resources. The moral hazard and adverse selection problems that reduce the reliability of the product provided by traditional demand response resources can be addressed by treating consumers and producers of electricity symmetrically in the wholesale market. Several suggestions are made for how this would be accomplished in both the energy and ancillary services markets. A specific application of this general approach to the California wholesale electricity market is also provided.

In response to Assembly Bill 32, the State of California is considering three types of carbon emissions trading programs for the electric power sector: load-based, source-based, and first-seller. They differ in terms of their point-of-regulation, and in whether in-state-to-out-of-state and out-of-state-to-in-state electricity sales are regulated. In this paper, we formulate a market equilibrium model for each of the three approaches, considering power markets, transmission limitations, and emissions trading, and making the simplifying assumption of pure bilateral markets. We analyze the properties of their solutions and show the equivalence of load-based, first-seller and source-based approaches, when power sales in both directions are regulated under the cap. A numeric example illustrates the emissions and economic implications of the models. In the simulated cases, "leakage" eliminates most of the emissions reductions that the regulations attempt to impose. Further, "contract reshuffling" occurs to such an extent that all the apparent emissions reductions resulting from changes in sources of imported power are illusory.