IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v41y2012icp374-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Monte Carlo based decision-support tool for assessing generation portfolios in future carbon constrained electricity industries

Author

Listed:
  • Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat
  • MacGill, Iain F.

Abstract

This paper presents a novel decision-support tool for assessing future generation portfolios in an increasingly uncertain electricity industry. The tool combines optimal generation mix concepts with Monte Carlo simulation and portfolio analysis techniques to determine expected overall industry costs, associated cost uncertainty, and expected CO2 emissions for different generation portfolio mixes. The tool can incorporate complex and correlated probability distributions for estimated future fossil-fuel costs, carbon prices, plant investment costs, and demand, including price elasticity impacts. The intent of this tool is to facilitate risk-weighted generation investment and associated policy decision-making given uncertainties facing the electricity industry. Applications of this tool are demonstrated through a case study of an electricity industry with coal, CCGT, and OCGT facing future uncertainties. Results highlight some significant generation investment challenges, including the impacts of uncertain and correlated carbon and fossil-fuel prices, the role of future demand changes in response to electricity prices, and the impact of construction cost uncertainties on capital intensive generation. The tool can incorporate virtually any type of input probability distribution, and support sophisticated risk assessments of different portfolios, including downside economic risks. It can also assess portfolios against multi-criterion objectives such as greenhouse emissions as well as overall industry costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & MacGill, Iain F., 2012. "A Monte Carlo based decision-support tool for assessing generation portfolios in future carbon constrained electricity industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 374-392.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:41:y:2012:i:c:p:374-392
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511008755
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huang, Yun-Hsun & Wu, Jung-Hua, 2008. "A portfolio risk analysis on electricity supply planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 627-641, February.
    2. Marrero, Gustavo A. & Ramos-Real, Francisco Javier, 2010. "Electricity generation cost in isolated system: The complementarities of natural gas and renewables in the Canary Islands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2808-2818, December.
    3. Richard Green, 2008. "Carbon Tax or Carbon Permits: The Impact on Generators Risks," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 67-90.
    4. van der Weijde, A.H. & Hobbs, B.F., 2011. "Planning electricity transmission to accommodate renewables: Using two-stage programming to evaluate flexibility and the cost of disregarding uncertainty," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1113, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    5. Gardner, Douglas T., 1996. "Flexibility in electric power planning: Coping with demand uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(12), pages 1207-1218.
    6. Feretic, Danilo & Tomsic, Zeljko, 2005. "Probabilistic analysis of electrical energy costs comparing: production costs for gas, coal and nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 5-13, January.
    7. Shimon Awerbuch, 2006. "Portfolio-Based Electricity Generation Planning: Policy Implications For Renewables And Energy Security," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 693-710, May.
    8. Gotham, Douglas & Muthuraman, Kumar & Preckel, Paul & Rardin, Ronald & Ruangpattana, Suriya, 2009. "A load factor based mean-variance analysis for fuel diversification," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 249-256, March.
    9. Wright, Evelyn L. & Belt, Juan A.B. & Chambers, Adam & Delaquil, Pat & Goldstein, Gary, 2010. "A scenario analysis of investment options for the Cuban power sector using the MARKAL model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3342-3355, July.
    10. Mondal, Md. Alam Hossain & Boie, Wulf & Denich, Manfred, 2010. "Future demand scenarios of Bangladesh power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7416-7426, November.
    11. Geoffrey Rothwell, 2006. "A Real Options Approach to Evaluating New Nuclear Power Plants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 37-53.
    12. Fan, Shu & Hyndman, Rob J., 2011. "The price elasticity of electricity demand in South Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3709-3719, June.
    13. Roques, Fabien A. & Newbery, David M. & Nuttall, William J., 2008. "Fuel mix diversification incentives in liberalized electricity markets: A Mean-Variance Portfolio theory approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1831-1849, July.
    14. Roques, F.A. & Nuttall, W.J. & Newbery, D.M., 2006. "Using Probabilistic Analysis to Value Power Generation Investments Under Uncertainty," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0650, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    15. Cai, Wenjia & Wang, Can & Wang, Ke & Zhang, Ying & Chen, Jining, 2007. "Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China's electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6445-6456, December.
    16. Rafaj, Peter & Kypreos, Socrates, 2007. "Internalisation of external cost in the power generation sector: Analysis with Global Multi-regional MARKAL model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 828-843, February.
    17. Hu, Ming-Che & Hobbs, Benjamin F., 2010. "Analysis of multi-pollutant policies for the U.S. power sector under technology and policy uncertainty using MARKAL," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5430-5442.
    18. Williams, J.H. & Ghanadan, R., 2006. "Electricity reform in developing and transition countries: A reappraisal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 815-844.
    19. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    20. Spinney, Peter J & Watkins, G Campbell, 1996. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques and electric utility resource decisions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-163, February.
    21. Madlener, Reinhard & Wenk, Christioph, 2008. "Efficient Investment Portfolios for the Swiss Electricity Supply Sector," FCN Working Papers 2/2008, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    22. H. Brett Humphreys & Katherine T. McClain, 1998. "Reducing the Impacts of Energy Price Volatility Through Dynamic Portfolio Selection," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 107-131.
    23. Lee, Shun-Chung & Shih, Li-Hsing, 2010. "Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model -- The case of Taiwan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(Supplemen), pages 67-78, September.
    24. Laurikka, Harri, 2006. "Option value of gasification technology within an emissions trading scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3916-3928, December.
    25. Wang, Ke & Wang, Can & Lu, Xuedu & Chen, Jining, 2007. "Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China's iron and steel industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2320-2335, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & MacGill, Iain F., 2013. "Assessing the value of wind generation in future carbon constrained electricity industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 400-412.
    2. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    3. Marrero, Gustavo A. & Ramos-Real, Francisco Javier, 2010. "Electricity generation cost in isolated system: The complementarities of natural gas and renewables in the Canary Islands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2808-2818, December.
    4. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Flores, Yarela, 2018. "Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3808-3823.
    5. Roques, Fabien A., 2008. "Technology choices for new entrants in liberalized markets: The value of operating flexibility and contractual arrangements," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 245-253, December.
    6. Rentizelas, Athanasios & Georgakellos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Incorporating life cycle external cost in optimization of the electricity generation mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 134-149.
    7. Dornan, Matthew & Jotzo, Frank, 2015. "Renewable technologies and risk mitigation in small island developing states: Fiji’s electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 35-48.
    8. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Chen, Ming-Ying, 2018. "Evaluating the dynamic performance of energy portfolios: Empirical evidence from the DEA directional distance function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 64-78.
    9. Zhang, Shuang & Zhao, Tao & Xie, Bai-Chen, 2018. "What is the optimal power generation mix of China? An empirical analysis using portfolio theory," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 522-536.
    10. Delarue, Erik & De Jonghe, Cedric & Belmans, Ronnie & D'haeseleer, William, 2011. "Applying portfolio theory to the electricity sector: Energy versus power," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 12-23, January.
    11. Inzunza, Andrés & Moreno, Rodrigo & Bernales, Alejandro & Rudnick, Hugh, 2016. "CVaR constrained planning of renewable generation with consideration of system inertial response, reserve services and demand participation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 104-117.
    12. Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & Riesz, Jenny & MacGill, Iain F., 2015. "Using renewables to hedge against future electricity industry uncertainties—An Australian case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 43-56.
    13. Sunderkötter, Malte & Weber, Christoph, 2012. "Valuing fuel diversification in power generation capacity planning," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1664-1674.
    14. Suzuki, Kengo & Uchiyama, Yohji, 2010. "Quantifying the risk of an increase in the prices of non-energy products by combining the portfolio and input-output approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5867-5877, October.
    15. Zhang, Mingming & Tang, Yamei & Liu, Liyun & Zhou, Dequn, 2022. "Optimal investment portfolio strategies for power enterprises under multi-policy scenarios of renewable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Jano-Ito, Marco A. & Crawford-Brown, Douglas, 2017. "Investment decisions considering economic, environmental and social factors: An actors' perspective for the electricity sector of Mexico," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 92-106.
    17. Losekann, Luciano & Marrero, Gustavo A. & Ramos-Real, Francisco J. & de Almeida, Edmar Luiz Fagundes, 2013. "Efficient power generating portfolio in Brazil: Conciliating cost, emissions and risk," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 301-314.
    18. Tietjen, Oliver & Pahle, Michael & Fuss, Sabine, 2016. "Investment risks in power generation: A comparison of fossil fuel and renewable energy dominated markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 174-185.
    19. Kim, Yeong Jae & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Sharma, Bijay P., 2021. "Constructing efficient portfolios of low-carbon technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    20. Daniel Ziegler & Katrin Schmitz & Christoph Weber, 2012. "Optimal electricity generation portfolios," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 381-399, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:41:y:2012:i:c:p:374-392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.