Technology Choice under Emission Regulation Uncertainty in International Container Shipping

Abstract We present a real options approach to evaluate technology and capacity choices under regulatory uncertainty. Our two-phase, regime-switching model includes the option of investing in different technologies as well as a charter and layup option, respectively. For a base-case version of this model, we derive an analytical solution before studying the effect of regulatory uncertainty in a numerical extension that relaxes certain restrictive assumptions. We then describe three regulatory regimes, an emissions cap, an emissions tax and a cap-and-trade market, and compare how effectively each reduces emissions. Applying the model to maritime container shipping, we develop insights on the optimal technology choice for reducing SOx emissions. We find that regulatory uncertainty can increase not only project values but also owned capacity. From a regulatory perspective, an emissions cap reduces emissions more effectively whereas an emissions tax reduces the cost of regulation. The cap-and-trade market emerges in many respects as superior to an emissions tax. Finally, we show that setting the emissions cap level—or deciding on the level above which an emissions tax or emissions trade apply—is critical because reduction in total industry emissions are not necessarily continuous.

[1]  Roar Adland,et al.  Value based trading of real assets in shipping under stochastic freight rates , 2009 .

[2]  G. Metcalf,et al.  Investment with Uncertain Tax Policy: Does Random Tax Policy Discourage Investment? , 1994 .

[3]  Kjetil Fagerholt,et al.  The fleet renewal problem with regional emission limitations: Case study from Roll-on/Roll-off shipping , 2015 .

[4]  David W. Keith,et al.  Carbon Capture Retrofits and the Cost of Regulatory Uncertainty , 2007, The Energy Journal.

[5]  Gunnar S. Eskeland,et al.  Environmental regulations in shipping: Policies leaning towards globalization of scrubbers deserve scrutiny , 2016 .

[6]  Z. Botev The normal law under linear restrictions: simulation and estimation via minimax tilting , 2016, 1603.04166.

[7]  Felipe L. Aguerrevere Equilibrium Investment Strategies and Output Price Behavior: A Real-Options Approach , 2003 .

[8]  S. Spinler,et al.  Optimal Design of Feed-in-Tariffs to Stimulate Renewable Energy Investments Under Regulatory Uncertainty - A Real Options Analysis , 2013 .

[9]  Stefan Spinler,et al.  Fleet Replacement, Technology Choice, and the Option to Breach a Leasing Contract , 2015, Decis. Sci..

[10]  A. Stent,et al.  Investment strategies in market uncertainty , 2003 .

[11]  Joseph T. Williams,et al.  Equilibrium and Options on Real Assets , 1993 .

[12]  Steven R. Grenadier Option Exercise Games: An Application to the Equilibrium Investment Strategies of Firms , 2002 .

[13]  S. Fuss,et al.  Impact of climate policy uncertainty on the adoption of electricity generating technologies , 2009 .

[14]  Huseyin Gulen,et al.  Policy Uncertainty and Corporate Investment , 2015 .

[15]  Stefan Spinler,et al.  The valuation of options on capacity with cost and demand uncertainty , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  Felipe L. Aguerrevere Real Options, Product Market Competition, and Asset Returns , 2009 .

[17]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Evaluating Natural Resource Investments , 1985 .

[18]  D. Bunn,et al.  Investment Propensities under Carbon Policy Uncertainty , 2011 .

[19]  Helen B. Bendall,et al.  Ship Investment under Uncertainty: Valuing a Real Option on the Maximum of Several Strategies , 2005 .

[20]  Kira R. Fabrizio,et al.  The Effect of Regulatory Uncertainty on Investment: Evidence from Renewable Energy Generation , 2013 .

[21]  M. Acciaro Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas , 2014 .

[22]  T. Copeland Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide , 2001 .

[23]  D. Bunn,et al.  Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy , 2007 .

[24]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Technology Choice and Capacity Portfolios under Emissions Regulation , 2015 .

[25]  Helen B. Bendall,et al.  Maritime investment strategies with a portfolio of real options , 2007 .

[26]  Juan Miguel Rodríguez López,et al.  Corporate investments and environmental regulation: The role of regulatory uncertainty, regulation-induced uncertainty, and investment history , 2017 .

[27]  Sigbjørn Sødal,et al.  Market switching in shipping — A real option model applied to the valuation of combination carriers , 2008 .

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

[29]  S. Spinler,et al.  Alliance formation in a cooperative container shipping game: Performance of a real options investment approach , 2017 .

[30]  Atalay Atasu Environmentally Responsible Supply Chains , 2016 .

[31]  Trine Krogh Boomsma,et al.  Renewable energy investments under different support schemes: A real options approach , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  Peter,et al.  The Energy Efficiency Gap in Maritime Transport , 2013 .

[33]  Thomas Trautmann,et al.  Regulatory Uncertainty: A Reason to Postpone Investments? Not Necessarily , 2009 .

[34]  S. Spinler,et al.  Investment into container shipping capacity: A real options approach in oligopolistic competition , 2016 .

[35]  Sigbjørn Sødal Entry and exit decisions based on a discount factor approach , 2006 .

[36]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas , 2015 .

[37]  René Taudal Poulsen,et al.  Orchestrating transnational environmental governance in maritime shipping , 2015 .

[38]  Jan Mossin AN OPTIMAL POLICY FOR LAY-UP DECISIONS , 1968 .

[39]  Paul V. Johnson,et al.  Investment Lags - A Numerical Approach , 2014, ICORES.