IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Technology choices for new entrants in liberalized markets: The value of operating flexibility and contractual arrangements

  • Roques, Fabien A.

New entrants in liberalized electricity markets which are not vertically integrated and do not operate a large and diversified portfolio of generation technologies are likely to favour technologies which offer the best prospects to manage fuel and electricity price risks through contractual arrangements and operating flexibility. Monte Carlo simulations of a discounted cash flow model of investment in combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), coal and nuclear power plant are run to compare the impact of fuel and electricity price risks on these different technologies, as well as the value of operating flexibility and contractual hedges. In the absence of long-term fixed-price power purchase contracts, CCGT is the least risky option as its cash flow is "self-hedged" given the high correlation between electricity and gas prices observed in many markets. Moreover, the value associated with operating flexibility and arbitrage between gas and power market is greater for CCGT plant. This makes CCGT particularly attractive to new entrants.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VFT-4SVD1B2-1/2/7ec53532af8b1b4fb5a1742ca9a7f00f
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Utilities Policy.

Volume (Year): 16 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
Pages: 245-253

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:16:y:2008:i:4:p:245-253
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30478

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Gollier, Christian & Proult, David & Thais, Francoise & Walgenwitz, Gilles, 2005. "Choice of nuclear power investments under price uncertainty: Valuing modularity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 667-685, July.
  2. Johnston, A. & Amalia, A. & Neuhoff, K., 2007. "Take-or-pay contracts for Renewables Deployment," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0723, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  3. Neuhoff, K. & von Hirschhausen, C., 2005. "Long-term vs. Short-term Contracts; A European perspective on natural gas," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0539, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  4. Costello, Ken, 2006. "Efforts to Harmonize Gas Pipeline Operations with the Demands of the Electricity Sector," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(10), pages 7-26, December.
  5. Soderholm, Patrik, 2001. "Fossil fuel flexibility in west European power generation and the impact of system load factors," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-97, January.
  6. Newbery, D., 2006. "Climate change policy and its effect on market power in the gas market," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0606, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  7. Wiser, Ryan & Bachrach, Devra & Bolinger, Mark & Golove, William, 2004. "Comparing the risk profiles of renewable and natural gas-fired electricity contracts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 335-363, August.
  8. Doucet, Joseph A. & Chaton, Corinne, 2003. "Uncertainty and Investment in Electricity Generation with an Application to the Case of Hydro-Québec," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/11510, Paris Dauphine University.
  9. Frank Asche & Petter Osmundsen & Ragnar Tveterås, 2000. "European Market Integration for Gas? Volume Flexibility and Political Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 358, CESifo Group Munich.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Roques, F.A. & Nuttall, W.J. & Newbery, D.M. & de Neufville, R., 2005. "Nuclear Power: a Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon Prices?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0555, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Colpier, Ulrika Claeson & Cornland, Deborah, 2002. "The economics of the combined cycle gas turbine--an experience curve analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 309-316, March.
  16. Borison, Adam & Hamm, Greg, 2005. "Better Power Contracts: Using Flexibility to Increase Value," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(10), pages 62-69, December.
  17. Bolinger, Mark & Wiser, Ryan & Golove, William, 2006. "Accounting for fuel price risk when comparing renewable to gas-fired generation: the role of forward natural gas prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 706-720, April.
  18. Awerbuch, Shimon, 1995. "Market-based IRP: It's easy!!!," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 50-67, April.
  19. Watson, Jim, 2004. "Selection environments, flexibility and the success of the gas turbine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1065-1080, October.
  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. 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 87-54.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:16:y:2008:i:4:p:245-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.