Risk, Embodied Technical Change and Irreversible Investment Decisions in UK Electricity Production: An Optimum Technology Portfolio Approach

UK climate change policy has long been concerned with the transition to a more sustainable energy mix, both environmentally and in terms of energy security. Electricity producers have to handle the uncertainties surrounding investment decisions for new capacity. This chapter focuses on two sources: the volatility of fuel prices and uncertainty concerning technological progress itself in a context of embodied technical change and irreversible investment. Technological uncertainty in combination with high capital costs per MW of installed capacity is likely to deter investors from irreversibly committing resources to the adoption of renewable technologies on a larger scale, even though they have to accept a higher degree of fuel price risk by doing so. Using the extended model, several characteristics of present UK policy are implemented to illustrate the principles involved. The reduction of risk is accompanied by an increase in total costs. For increasing risk aversion, investors are willing to adopt nuclear energy relatively early. Moreover, the embodiment of technical change, in combination with the expectation of a future switch toward another technology, can reduce current investment in that technology. This enables rational but risk-averse investors to maximize productivity gains by waiting for ongoing technical change to materialize until they plan to switch and subsequently invest more heavily in the most recent vintages.

[1]  S. Awerbuch Portfolio-Based Electricity Generation Planning: Policy Implications For Renewables And Energy Security , 2006 .

[2]  James A. Mirrlees,et al.  A New Model of Economic Growth , 1962 .

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

[4]  R. Pindyck Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment , 1990 .

[5]  R. Rockafellar,et al.  Conditional Value-at-Risk for General Loss Distributions , 2001 .

[6]  J. Schumpeter Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1943 .

[7]  Edmund S. Phelps,et al.  The New View of Investment: A Neoclassical Analysis , 1962 .

[8]  Shimon Awerbuch,et al.  APPLYING PORTFOLIO THEORY TO EU ELECTRICITY PLANNING AND POLICY-MAKING , 2003 .

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

[10]  D. Newbery,et al.  Fuel mix diversification incentives in liberalized electricity markets: A Mean–Variance Portfolio theory approach , 2008 .

[11]  R. Pindyck Investments of Uncertain Cost , 1992 .

[12]  W. E. G. Salter,et al.  Productivity and Technical Change. , 1961 .

[13]  M. King,et al.  INVESTMENT AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS , 1992 .

[14]  Edmund S. Phelps Substitution, Fixed Proportions, Growth and Distribution , 1963 .

[15]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[16]  Leif Johansen SUBSTITUTION VERSUS FIXED PRODUCTION COEFFICIENTS IN THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC GROWTH: A SYNTHESIS , 1959 .

[17]  M. Fuss Factor Substitution in Electricity Generation: A Test of the Putty-Clay Hypothesis , 1978 .

[18]  Reinhard Madlener,et al.  Modeling technology adoption as an irreversible investment under uncertainty: the case of the Turkish electricity supply industry , 2005 .

[19]  James M. Malcomson,et al.  Replacement and the rental value of capital equipment subject to obsolescence , 1975 .

[20]  Adriaan van Zon,et al.  Irreversible investment under uncertainty in electricity generation: a clay-clay-vintage portfolio approach with an application to climate change policy in the UK , 2006 .

[21]  Jaroslava Hlouskova,et al.  An Integrated CVaR and Real Options Approach to Investments in the Energy Sector , 2007 .

[22]  S. Awerbuch,et al.  Exploiting the oil–GDP effect to support renewables deployment , 2006 .

[23]  James Tobin,et al.  Neoclassical Growth with Fixed Factor Proportions , 1966 .