Efficient Electricity Portfolios for Switzerland and the United States

This study applies financial portfolio theory to determine efficient electricity-generating technology mixes for Switzerland and the United States. Expected returns are given by the (negative of the) rate of increase of power generation cost. Volatility of returns relates to the standard deviation of the cost increase associated with the portfolio, which contains Nuclear, Run of river, Storage hydro and Solar in the case of Switzerland, and Coal, Nuclear, Gas, Oil, and Wind in the case of the United States. Since shocks in generation costs are found to be correlated, the seemingly unrelated regression estimation (SURE) method is applied for filtering out the systematic component of the covariance matrix of the cost changes. Results suggest that at observed generation costs in 2003, the maximum expected return (MER) portfolio for Switzerland would call for a shift towards Nuclear and Solar, and therefore away from Run of river and Storage hydro. By way of contrast, the minimum variance (MV) portfolio mainly contains Nuclear power and Storage hydro. The 2003 MER portfolio for the United States contains Coal generated electricity and Wind, while the MV alternative combines Coal, Nuclear, Oil and Wind. Interestingly, Gas does not play any role in the determination of efficient electricity portfolios in the United States.

[1]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Spatial Effects in Willingness-to-Pay: The Case of Two Nuclear Risks , 2007 .

[2]  R. Winkelmann,et al.  Money Illusion Under Test , 2007 .

[3]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Consumer Resistance Against Regulation: The Case of Health Care , 2006 .

[4]  A. Schmutzler Ain't No Puzzle Anymore: Comparative Statics and Experimental Economics , 2006 .

[5]  Dennis L. Gärtner,et al.  Are There Waves in Merger Activity after All? , 2006 .

[6]  Competition for Railway Markets: The Case of Baden-WüRttemberg , 2005 .

[7]  Rainer Winkelmann,et al.  A Structural Model of Demand for Apprentices , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[8]  R. Winkelmann,et al.  Single Motherhood and (Un)Equal Educational Opportunities: Evidence for Germany , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[9]  Venus Khim-Sen Liew,et al.  On Autoregressive Order Selection Criteria , 2004 .

[10]  Zuwei Yu A spatial mean-variance MIP model for energy market risk analysis , 2003 .

[11]  Ali A. Al-Subaihi Variable Selection in Multivariable Regression Using SAS/IML , 2002 .

[12]  J. Sweeney The California Electricity Crisis , 2002 .

[13]  LINKING STRATEGIC PLANNING WITH R & D PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT IN AN ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER , 2002 .

[14]  B. Nielsen Order determination in general vector autoregressions , 2001, math/0702779.

[15]  George W Bush,et al.  National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group , 2001 .

[16]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 1999 .

[17]  Katherine T. McClain,et al.  Reducing the Impacts of Energy Price Volatility Through Dynamic Portfolio Selection , 1998 .

[18]  R. Kostoff Identifying research program technical risk , 1997 .

[19]  R. Cantor,et al.  The economics of nuclear power: Further evidence on learning, economies of scale, and regulatory effects , 1988 .

[20]  D. Bar-Lev,et al.  A Portfolio Approach to Fossil Fuel Procurement in the Electric Utility Industry , 1976 .

[21]  J. Ullmann Economics of Nuclear Power. , 1958, Science.