U.S. electric power generation is undergoing profound changes. Coal plants are being retired and replaced by cleaner-burning natural gas and, increasingly, renewable generation. These shifts have significant impacts on how power is traded and marketed, and on managing risks in long-term contracts.
Commercial and industrial energy users are confronted with increasingly complex choices over the sources and pricing of their contracts. Meanwhile, developers of new generation capacity and storage assets must contend with a wide array of pricing risks. Those risks have significant impact on their financial performance.
We understand the changes taking place in generation, transmission and storage and can help navigate a path through pricing options and commitments. Given the long-term nature of contracts, the impacts can be material to all participants.
Please see below some of our recent thinking on market developments.
This site is meant to provide important information about the financial aspects of power generation and storage -- especially development of new assets. There are plenty of sources of information about existing and planned capacity, as well as public policy favoring renewable resources. Academic institutions, government agencies, information providers and consulting firms are increasingly attracted to covering the industry as climate-based investing develops from a niche market to a mainstream one. Yet those multitudes forecasting the industry's fortunes rarely pay attention to the role of commodity (energy) prices in the financial performance of various assets. Energy prices -- and financial management of them -- are critical to performance and the overall success of the industry.
We focus on energy prices and other market factors in asset performance. After all, despite characterizations of renewable power -- and clean tech generally -- as a rapidly-evolving industry, new generation and storage assets are still in a commodity business, facing commodity pricing just like all of the legacy assets and the companies that own them. If the price of the commodity (energy) declines, the businesses that haven't managed their price risk properly will suffer. As new sources of generation proliferate, there will be commensurate downward pressure on prices which asset owners must manage using various financial and physical market tools. Most of this site's content addresses practical aspects of those tools.
There is an underlying risk that, collectively, all of the new capacity in the years ahead will push energy prices to levels that threaten the economic viability of future investments. Government mandates may provide some offsetting element of demand, and there's plenty of research devoted to how such mandates might be implemented in the U.S. But the most effective means for propping up long-term energy prices is via market-based mechanisms such as carbon credits. So far, the U.S. has no such program and Congress doesn't appear likely to develop one in the the foreseeable future. As such, downward energy price risk will remain a significant risk for all future development.
European oil majors are jostling to become offshore wind heavyweights. Building capital-intensive projects at scale in familiar offshore environments, underpinned by guaranteed returns, has proved alluring. But cost inflation and aggressive bidding at cut-throat ‘subsidy-free’ auctions have eviscerated margins.
Energy Flux takes a critical look at new research into the economics of offshore wind for the likes of Equinor, Shell, BP and ENI.
We revisit a familiar topic: Electronic means of transacting long-term energy supply agreements, environmental credits, and asset ownership
Markets for carbon allowances have been developing around the world for more than a decade, especially in Europe, the UK, and among various U.S. states. The U.S. government does not have any such program in place, and Biden Administration plans remain unclear on this topic. But it is nearly impossible to imagine the U.S. reaching anything close to the climate commitments it has made to the international community without the sort of financial incentive that such a market would provide.
For developers to continue to invest and expand U.S. power generation capacity (net of legacy plant retirements) they will need some certainty that energy prices will hold up at certain threshold levels. A carbon market would provide some of that certainty. Please see link below for more information on carbon markets, including our recent (June 2021) overview and survey of various trading schemes.
Amidst all of the bullish expectations for growth in U.S. renewable generation capacity we wonder on behalf of investors: are the expected returns commensurate with the risk? The question isn’t easy to answer, and only a small portion of research efforts focus on this aspect of development. In order to assess the landscape on their own, investors must consider limited information in the public domain (given private ownership of a large number of projects) across a wide variety of regions and pricing terms. This paper builds on previous work, providing broad perspective around such an assessment. It also turns the spotlight on an area of infrastructure finance – tax equity – that is not well understood outside the narrow field in which it operates.
The underlying investment climate seems accommodating for future renewable development. In addition to a lower cost of equity and most private debt over the past year, there is the prospect that federal legislation will extend existing tax incentives and even expand them, perhaps for a very long time into the future. But accommodating financial conditions and continuing tax subsidies still do not necessarily guarantee positive economics of development projects. From discussions with a number of investors we know that there is enough competition among developers and their financial backers that, for many of them, returns are often driven downward to levels that are questionable relative to risk.
Measuring risk is, of course, a subjective science and one should never assume that competing firms are using the same metrics. What seems safe to one party could be outside the comfort zone of others, especially when it comes to tail risk. There is perhaps no better example of such risk in power generation than what occurred in the U.S. Midcontinent earlier this year – especially in Texas given the extent of outages and the associated financial liabilities. The true depth of financial obligations is still being worked out and probably will be for some time to come. But it was certainly a big tail event, and there will likely be more such events in the future.
There are many factors to consider in assessing the outlook for financing the renewables industry, among which we focus on a few main themes here:
1) Will traditional tax equity investors, the main source of external equity financing for new renewable generation capacity, continue to drive growth in capacity after several generators suffered significant losses earlier this year?
2) Do those tax equity investors even matter to the overall investment climate, or will other capital providers become more important sources of project financing?
3) How do tax equity and other investors think about the standard practices in use today for managing commodity price risk? Will the methods of hedging against lower energy prices evolve to avoid liabilities such as those incurred earlier this year? And if so, how?
Power Risk Apr21 (pdf)
DownloadThe news media is abuzz with ample evidence of the energy transition occurring throughout the world. Coal is out. Wind and solar are in. Producers of carbon-based energy are losing appeal to investors while those of renewable resources are among the most darling of today's growth companies.
There are entire industries devoted to facilitating investment in new energy sources. Start with think tanks and other research organizations whose main purpose is to study climate change and encourage the transition away from carbon for broad ecological or social-justice reasons. Then there are energy-focused analysis firms that collect and process data on investment and construction of new generation, storage and transmission capacity. Their forecasts largely extrapolate recent growth trends indefinitely into the future. Finally, there are the capital providers whose role is to match new-energy developers with investors. Each of these actors has a vested interest in maintaining growth of the sector's capacity.
We like to question the valuation of everything, including enterprises, on a frequent basis, in order to guide our thinking on the best opportunities for risk-adjusted returns. Are investors in these enterprises (or in assets directly) receiving adequate returns for the risk? The answer isn't nearly as easy to find as all of the enthusiasm for just doing more of it. In the pages that follow, you'll see an assortment of papers devoted to parsing out various aspects of risk and return for companies involved in producing, transmitting, and storing power. We include links to some of the think tanks and analysis providers as well.
The future is bright for a variety of enterprises and their investors, though not for all. Often overlooked in all of the growth discussion is the degree to which commodity (electricity) prices are under downward pressure from additional resources. How enterprises are able handle that risk is critical and the main focus of our work. Our February 2021 research brief addresses this directly (see below).
The simple truth is that U.S. power demand isn't growing fast enough - if at all - to consume current and future growth in generation capacity without retirement of legacy assets. Yet various factors, including legislation and regulation, support development of new generation while simultaneously providing various crutches to favored pockets of existing capacity. Widening reserve margins (excess capacity) are putting downward pressure on power prices in most regions of the U.S. Other energy markets - namely oil and gas - suffer from similar excess capacity and producers have been punished directly in their poor returns and by investors via low enterprise valuations. By comparison, there isn't much focus on the financial risk of excess capacity in electric power despite significant growth plans among asset developers. See link below for additional discussion on this topic.
This issue of Power Risk (below left) addresses the impact on energy prices from long-term changes in capacity and demand. It draws upon lessons learned from other energy markets, namely oil and gas, as few other analysts address these common factors across energy markets. Financial risk from is the main theme, and expands upon the discussion in the previous section.
The second link (below right) is an interesting opinion piece from Utility Dive that addresses related concepts; namely, the impact on existing asset values from growth in industry capacity. The main point is that asset values do not accurately reflect the (negative) impact of such capacity growth.
Wholesale power has always been unique among commodity markets in the inability for most participants to utilize storage in balancing short-term supply and demand. All other energy markets -- including oil, natural gas, NGLs, biofuels, and petrochemicals -- utilize available storage capacity as a balancing mechanism while allowing production, regional transference, and consumption to respond to price signals in due time.
Electricity’s unique nature is changing rapidly. Improving technology and declining cost are allowing utility-scale battery storage assets to be developed today in key wholesale markets, reaping benefits in their ability to capture price volatility as well as income from capacity and ancillary services. Their integration has only just begun but will almost certainly have broad-ranging impacts on short-term price volatility as well as regional price differentials.
There are various durations to consider for utility-scale battery deployment. Most attention is paid to intraday price volatility and the ability for batteries to store energy during peak renewable generation and to discharge it when demand calls for it. Physical markets provide sufficient incentive for significant investment in capacity.
But as economies undergo electrification -- of transportation and heating/cooling systems -- there is a broader need for longer-term storage such as exists today in other energy markets. Oil and gas inventories can handle supply disruptions that last for days, weeks and even months. In an electrified society, there will be a need to assure that reserve power can be called upon when generation is significantly impaired.
Risk management and valuation of storage assets is very different from that of generation assets. The distinction is akin to those in other energy markets such as oil and gas where storage tanks and caverns have long been utilized to help manage price volatility and can serve as a model for power markets. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of financial risk in those other energy markets and focus on what can be applied to investments in electricity storage.
Power Risk Aug20 (pdf)
DownloadHydrogen is among the most ubiquitous elements on earth and is a key component of all carbon-based sources of energy, including oil and refined products, natural gas, and biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Those fuels – composed mostly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur – often need to supplement their hydrogen content in order to limit sulfur, which is environmentally destructive.
Refiners and other fuel producers incur cost in order to raise hydrogen content. They may produce it internally or purchase it from others, which has led to an active bulk market. But these markets tend to be localized, with far less transportation infrastructure as for other refinery inputs such as crude oil. More importantly, since hydrogen has traditionally only been utilized in industrial and chemical processes -- as opposed to being a fuel itself -- it has not developed physical trading hubs like markets for gasoline, diesel or natural gas.
Utilizing hydrogen as a fuel is a key element of long-term decarbonization plans since it produces only water vapor as output. Fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous (though not the most potent) greenhouse gas, as well as carbon monoxide and a host of other pollutants. But producing hydrogen today is still far too expensive to compete with fossil fuels, especially in places like the U.S. where there is no national carbon pricing scheme or tax.
The two main technologies for producing hydrogen are steam cracking – which is utilized in virtually all commercial-grade facilities today – and electrolysis which utilizes electricity to break water molecules into their component elements. Steam cracking is well developed and far cheaper than electrolysis. But with growth in renewable electricity, at zero marginal cost and with a zero-carbon footprint, electrolysis is the focus of most new hydrogen production. Someday in the future -- perhaps decades ahead -- so-called green hydrogen might provide a significant portion of fuel to transportation, industries and commercial and residential facilities.
Hydrogen's promise as a zero-carbon transport fuel has two main avenues forward: direct combustion and fuel cells. Both technologies consume hydrogen directly in gaseous form, with the former basically substituting hydrogen for fossil fuels in internal combustion engines or large boilers.
Hydrogen fuel cells, by contrast, are more akin to battery systems that run electric motors except that the charging mechanism is refueling rather than charging. There is plenty of room for each of these technologies to grow in the future if hydrogen itself can be produced cheaply and with less of a carbon footprint than legacy fossil fuels.
In addition to various ad hoc research notes and analyses, we publish a series of Power Risk briefs on topics are are relevant to risk management in electric power. Topics range from the structure of forward markets and their various participants to the platforms on which participants transact -- all of which is subject to significant and rapid change over the course of time. We attempt to think forward in each of these reports and welcome feedback from your perspective.
Unique new digital marketplace that is focused on more standardized contracts to improve efficiency and transparency
U.S.-focused database of renewable project developers and associated PPAs. Recently expanded to European markets
European-focused advisor (PPA valuation, risk management) with database of historical PPA prices and frequent updates of estimated values
Full-service energy provider, including equipment, services, advisory
Actively involved in PPA advisory
Energy services provider focused on commercial and industrial consumers
Full-service energy provider, including energy management services
Facilitate energy buying via PPAs and VPPAs, with focus on renewables
Risk management advisory focused on solar. Active in insurance-based solutions
Woodmac has really expanded their coverage of power and renewables in the past couple of years, as well as owning Greentech Media
S&P Global / Platts has broad coverage of power data and analytics
Bloomberg analysts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) offer broad range of data and analysis
Independent research institution focused on energy, carbon, and forest resoures. Publisher of Resources magazine
Long-term analysis of trends in the energy transformation
Consulting and price reporting firm focused on battery storage supply chain, from upstream (mining) to fabrication and end-users
University-affiliated research organization covering all energy markets, including oil and gas, power. Hosts frequent online discussions
University-affiliated research group focused on sustainable (renewable) energy
University-affiliated research group focused on energy and the environment
Aside from all of the fascinating changes taking place in energy markets, there are substantive economic issues affecting all of us. Commodity markets -- energy, in particular -- are often considered the best proxy for inflation hedges. But inflation is a tricky subject, and CPI alone does a poor job of measuring the dilutive effect of rising prices. Most importantly, neither CPI nor it's upstream kin, PPI, consider asset prices. But asset prices -- whether financial assets like equities and cryptocurrencies, or hard assets like real estate -- have significant roles to play in economic systems. Few observers pay much attention to this topic, but they should.
These two OpEd pieces from the Wall Street Journal, published roughly one year apart from each other, are among the most compelling in recent memory. They address the pernicious effects on society from misallocation of resources, specifically when it comes from distorted price signals.
Chapter: Energy Derivatives -- A Brief Survey
Euromoney Handbooks, 2005/06
Chapter: Energy Pricing and Derivatives
Globe Business Publishing, 2006
Chapter 6: The Growth of Energy Derivatives
Euromoney Handbooks, 2010/11