Table 2 Overall Comparison of Power Pools by Anne Ku

Table 2 Overall Comparison of Competitive Power Pools @April 1997

Country: date the pool started	degree of privatisation: % that is not government owned	degree of horizontal integration (% market share)	degree of unbundling or vertical de-integration and separation	mandatory pool (P) only or bilateral physical trading outside the pool also allowed (B)	supply only (S) or supply and demand side (S, D) bidding
England & Wales April 1990	all except Magnox nukes	duopoly to oligopoly	all	P half-hour	S price-bid
Colombia July 20, 1995	10% and growing	market share closely split between 3 largest owners remaining 28% shared by the rest	part	P hour	S cost-bid
Norway 1991	very little	there are 94 wholesale and generation utilities Top one - 31% Top five - 56.5% Top ten - 67.5%	most	P, B hour	S, D price-bid
Australia: VicPool, July 1994 NSW Pool, 1996	Vic: underway NSW: none	Victoria: 8 generators, but the larger base-load generators represent up to 25% of peak-time capacity requirement NSW: 3 portfolio generators	all	P half-hour	S, D price-bid
Argentina August 1991	80%	Generation is very spread out	all	P hour	S price-bid
Chile 1982	100%	Largest company (Endesa) has almost 50% of the market next two competitors: 20% and 10%	No unbundling Endesa owns big chunks of all three	P hour	S auditted cost-bid
Alberta January 1, 1996	none	just before 1996: three owners (60%:20%:20%) IPP's own 10% of capacity	low old utilities still own T&D facilities though internal separation	P hour	S, D (interruptible only) price-bid
New Zealand October 1, 1996	most	largely a duopoly ECNZ owns 60%	T&D is unbundled from generation	P, B half-hour	S, D price-bid