IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i19p3792-d274022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flexible Options for Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Energy Producer

Author

Listed:
  • Andrey Krasovskii

    (Ecosystems Services and Management (ESM) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2351 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Nikolay Khabarov

    (Ecosystems Services and Management (ESM) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2351 Laxenburg, Austria)

  • Ruben Lubowski

    (Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC 20009, USA)

  • Michael Obersteiner

    (Ecosystems Services and Management (ESM) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2351 Laxenburg, Austria)

Abstract

The reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) constitutes part of the international climate agreements and contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals. This research is motivated by the risks associated with the future CO 2 price uncertainty in the context of the offsetting of carbon emissions by regulated entities. The research asked whether it is possible to reduce these financial risks. In this study, we consider the bilateral interaction of a REDD supplier and a greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting energy producer in an incomplete emission offsets market. Within this setting, we explore an innovative financial instrument—flobsion—a flexible option with benefit-sharing. For the quantitative assessment, we used a research method based on a two-stage stochastic technological portfolio optimization model established in earlier studies. First, we obtain an important result that the availability of REDD offsets does not increase the optimal emissions of the electricity producer under any future CO 2 price realization. Moreover, addressing concerns about a possible “crowding–out” effect of REDD-based offsets, we demonstrate that the emissions and offsetting cost will decrease and increase, respectively. Second, we demonstrate the flexibility of the proposed instrument by analyzing flobsion contracts with respect to the benefit-sharing ratio and strike price within the risk-adjusted supply and demand framework. Finally, we perform a sensitivity analysis with respect to CO 2 price distributions and the opportunity costs of the forest owner supplying REDD offsets. Our results show that flobsion’s flexibility has advantages compared to a standard option, which can help GHG-emitting energy producers with managing their compliance risks, while at the same time facilitating the development of REDD programs. In this study we limited our analysis to the case of the same CO 2 price distributions foreseen by both parties; the flobsion pricing under asymmetric information could be considered in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrey Krasovskii & Nikolay Khabarov & Ruben Lubowski & Michael Obersteiner, 2019. "Flexible Options for Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Energy Producer," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:19:p:3792-:d:274022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/19/3792/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/19/3792/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    2. Li, Sijie & Zhu, Zhanbei & Huang, Lihua, 2009. "Supply chain coordination and decision making under consignment contract with revenue sharing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 88-99, July.
    3. Evgeny Lisin & Galina Kurdiukova & Pavel Okley & Veronika Chernova, 2019. "Efficient Methods of Market Pricing in Power Industry within the Context of System Integration of Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Quanhui Che & Suhua Lou & Yaowu Wu & Xiangcheng Zhang & Xuebin Wang, 2019. "Optimal Scheduling of a Multi-Energy Power System with Multiple Flexible Resources and Large-Scale Wind Power," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Krasovskii, Andrey & Khabarov, Nikolay & Obersteiner, Michael, 2016. "Fair pricing of REDD-based emission offsets under risk preferences and benefit-sharing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 193-205.
    6. Tim Laing & Luca Taschini & Charles Palmer & Johanna Wehkamp & Sabine Fuss & Wolf Heinrich Reuter, 2015. "Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits," GRI Working Papers 193, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    7. Elizabeth A. Law & Sebastian Thomas & Erik Meijaard & Paul J. Dargusch & Kerrie A. Wilson, 2012. "A modular framework for management of complexity in international forest-carbon policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 155-160, March.
    8. Alexander A. Golub & Sabine Fuss & Ruben Lubowski & Jake Hiller & Nikolay Khabarov & Nicolas Koch & Andrey Krasovskii & Florian Kraxner & Timothy Laing & Michael Obersteiner & Charles Palmer & Pedro P, 2018. "Escaping the climate policy uncertainty trap: options contracts for REDD+," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(10), pages 1227-1234, November.
    9. Dunlop, Tessa & Corbera, Esteve, 2016. "Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 44-54.
    10. Ruben N. Lubowski & Steven K. Rose, 2013. "The Potential for REDD+: Key Economic Modeling Insights and Issues," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 67-90, January.
    11. Bosetti, Valentina & Lubowski, Ruben & Golub, Alexander & Markandya, Anil, 2011. "Linking reduced deforestation and a global carbon market: implications for clean energy technology and policy flexibility," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 479-505, August.
    12. Arild Angelsen & Thomas K. Rudel, 2013. "Designing and Implementing Effective REDD + Policies: A Forest Transition Approach," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 91-113, January.
    13. Marek Musiela & Thaleia Zariphopoulou, 2004. "An example of indifference prices under exponential preferences," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 229-239, May.
    14. Koch, Nicolas & Reuter, Wolf Heinrich & Fuss, Sabine & Grosjean, Godefroy, 2017. "Permits vs. offsets under investment uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 33-47.
    15. Boer, Henry James, 2018. "The role of government in operationalising markets for REDD+ in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 4-12.
    16. Gérard P. Cachon & Martin A. Lariviere, 2005. "Supply Chain Coordination with Revenue-Sharing Contracts: Strengths and Limitations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 30-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wen-Hsien Tsai, 2020. "Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-7, November.

    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. Koch, Nicolas & Reuter, Wolf Heinrich & Fuss, Sabine & Grosjean, Godefroy, 2017. "Permits vs. offsets under investment uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 33-47.
    2. Golub, Alexander & Lubowski, Ruben & Piris-Cabezas, Pedro, 2017. "Balancing Risks from Climate Policy Uncertainties: The Role of Options and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 90-98.
    3. Jen-Ming Chen & Hung-Liang Cheng, 2012. "Effect of the price-dependent revenue-sharing mechanism in a decentralized supply chain," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 20(2), pages 299-317, June.
    4. Luo, Zheng & Chen, Xu & Kai, Ming, 2018. "The effect of customer value and power structure on retail supply chain product choice and pricing decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 115-126.
    5. Elges, Carsten, 2016. "Die Preissetzung in Unternehmenskooperationen: Erste spieltheoretische Überlegungen," Arbeitspapiere 162, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    6. Cai, Wenbo & Abdel-Malek, Layek & Hoseini, Babak & Rajaei Dehkordi, Sharareh, 2015. "Impact of flexible contracts on the performance of both retailer and supplier," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 429-444.
    7. Feng, Xuehao & Moon, Ilkyeong & Ryu, Kwangyeol, 2014. "Revenue-sharing contracts in an N-stage supply chain with reliability considerations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PA), pages 20-29.
    8. Lu Hsiao & Ying‐Ju Chen & Hui Xiong, 2019. "Supply chain coordination with product line design and a revenue sharing scheme," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(3), pages 213-229, April.
    9. Hu, Benyong & Xu, Dong & Meng, Chao, 2017. "Inconsistency of a retailer's optimal policies and channel performance under revenue sharing contracts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PA), pages 53-65.
    10. Pietro Giovanni, 2017. "Closed-loop supply chain coordination through incentives with asymmetric information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 133-167, June.
    11. Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Lin, Shin-Hua & Fang, Chih-Chiang, 2017. "Pricing and coordination with consideration of piracy for digital goods in supply chains," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 30-40.
    12. Lei, Quansheng & Chen, Jian & Wei, Xingyu & Lu, Shan, 2015. "Supply chain coordination under asymmetric production cost information and inventory inaccuracy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PA), pages 204-218.
    13. Cai, Jianhu & Hu, Xiaoqing & Tadikamalla, Pandu R. & Shang, Jennifer, 2017. "Flexible contract design for VMI supply chain with service-sensitive demand: Revenue-sharing and supplier subsidy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(1), pages 143-153.
    14. De Giovanni, Pietro & Karray, Salma & Martín-Herrán, Guiomar, 2019. "Vendor Management Inventory with consignment contracts and the benefits of cooperative advertising," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 465-480.
    15. Avinadav, Tal & Chernonog, Tatyana & Perlman, Yael, 2015. "The effect of risk sensitivity on a supply chain of mobile applications under a consignment contract with revenue sharing and quality investment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 31-40.
    16. Fei Ye & Qiang Lin & Yina Li, 2020. "Coordination for contract farming supply chain with stochastic yield and demand under CVaR criterion," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 369-397, March.
    17. Chen, Mengmiao & Hu, Qiying & Wei, Hang, 2017. "Interaction of after-sales service provider and contract type in a supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 514-527.
    18. Hu, Benyong & Meng, Chao & Xu, Dong & Son, Young-Jun, 2016. "Three-echelon supply chain coordination with a loss-averse retailer and revenue sharing contracts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 192-202.
    19. Nikolay Khabarov & Ruben Lubowski & Andrey Krasovskii & Michael Obersteiner, 2019. "Flobsion—Flexible Option with Benefit Sharing," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Lin Jiang & Yong Wang & Xiaoming Yan & Wei Dai, 2014. "Coordinating a three-stage supply chain with competing manufacturers," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 22(1), pages 53-72, March.

    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:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:19:p:3792-:d:274022. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.