Robust Energy Portfolios Under Climate Policy and Socioeconomic Uncertainty
- 281 Downloads
Concerning the stabilization of greenhouse gases, the UNFCCC prescribes measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate their adverse effects. Such measures should be cost-effective and scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason for postponing them. However, in the light of uncertainty about climate sensitivity and other underlying parameters, it is difficult to assess the importance of different technologies in achieving robust long-term climate risk mitigation. One example currently debated in this context is biomass energy, which can be used to produce both carbon-neutral energy carriers, e.g., electricity, and at the same time offer a permanent CO2 sink by capturing carbon from the biomass at the conversion facility and permanently storing it. We use the GGI Scenario Database IIASA  as a point of departure for deriving optimal technology portfolios across different socioeconomic scenarios for a range of stabilization targets, focusing, in particular, on new, low-emission scenarios. More precisely, the dynamics underlying technology adoption and operational decisions are analyzed in a real options model, the output of which then informs the portfolio optimization. In this way, we determine the importance of different energy technologies in meeting specific stabilization targets under different circumstances (i.e., under different socioeconomic scenarios), providing valuable insight to policymakers about the incentive mechanisms needed to achieve robust long-term climate risk mitigation.
KeywordsRobust energy portfolios Climate policy Socioeconomic scenarios
The work described in this paper has been conducted within the project “Climate Risk Management Modeling” of IIASA’s Greenhouse Gas Initiative (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/GGI/). The authors also acknowledge funding from the EU projects CC-TAME (grant no. 212535, http://www.cctame.eu), PASHMINA (grant no. 244766, http://www.pashmina-project.eu/), LC-IMPACT (grant no. 243827, http://www.lc-impact.eu/), and PROSUITE (grant no. 227078, http://www.prosuite.org/).
- 1.Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Schellnhuber, H.J., Alcamo, J., Barker, T., Kammen, D.M., Leemans, R., Liverman, D., Munasinghe, M., Stern, N., Wæver, O. (2009). Synthesis Report: Climate Change, Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions, Copenhagen, 10–12 March. www.climatecongress.ku.dk. Accessed June 2010.
- 3.International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (2010). GGI Scenario Database, IIASA. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/GGI/DB/. Accessed May 2010.
- 4.Fortin, I., Fuss, S., Hlouskova, J., Khabarov, N., Obersteiner, M., & Szolgayová, J. (2008). An integrated CVaR and real options approach to investments in the energy sector. The Journal of Energy Markets, 1, 2.Google Scholar
- 5.Fuss, S., Szolgayová, J., Khabarov, N., & Obersteiner, M. (2010). Renewables and climate change mitigation: irreversible energy investment under uncertainty and portfolio effects. Energy Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.061.
- 8.Henry, C. (1974). Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. The American Economic Review, 64, 1006–1012.Google Scholar
- 13.Dixit, A., & Pindyck, R. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 16.Blyth, W., & Yang, M. (2007). Modeling investment risks and uncertainties with real options approach, working paper LTO/2007/WP 01. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
- 21.Fuss, S., & Szolgayová, J. (2009). Fuel price and technological uncertainty in a real options model for electricity planning. Applied Energy. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.05.020.
- 23.Kumbaroğlu, G., Madlener, R., & Demirel, M. (2004). A real options evaluation model for the diffusion prospects of new renewable power generation technologies, working paper no. 35. Zurich: Centre for Energy Policy and Economics Working Papers.Google Scholar
- 26.Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.Google Scholar
- 28.Bar-Lev, D., & Katz, S. (1976). A portfolio approach to fossil fuel procurement in the electric utility industry. Journal of Finance, 31, 933–942.Google Scholar
- 29.Humphreys, H., & McClain, K. (1998). Reducing the impacts of energy price volatility through dynamic portfolio selection. Energy Journal, 19, 107–132.Google Scholar
- 30.Krey, B., Zweifel, P. (2006). Efficient Electricity Portfolios for Switzerland and the United States, Working paper, Socioeconomic Institute of the University of Zurich.Google Scholar
- 32.Arrow, K.J., The theory of risk aversion, In: Aspects of the theory of risk bearing, by Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio, Helsinki. Reprinted in: Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing, Markham Publ. Co., Chicago, 1971, 90–109Google Scholar
- 34.Rockafellar, R., & Uryasev, S. (2006). Optimization of conditional value at risk. Journal of Risk, 2, 21–42.Google Scholar
- 35.Szolgayova J, Fuss S, Khabarov N, Obersteiner M (2010). A dynamic CVaR-portfolio approach using real options: An application to energy investments. European Transactions on Electrical Power, Article in press (Published online 27 May 2010), doi: 10.1002/etep.429.
- 36.Van Zon, A., & Fuss, S. (2008). Risk, embodied technical change and irreversible investment decisions in UK electricity production: an optimum technology portfolio approach. In M. Bazilian & F. Roques (Eds.), Analytical methods for energy diversity and security: mean–variance optimization for electric utilities planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.Google Scholar
- 37.International Energy Agency. (2005). Projected costs of generating electricity (2005 update). Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
- 38.Pindyck, R. S. (1999). The long-run evolution of energy prices. The Energy Journal, 20(2).Google Scholar