1 / 13

Real Options and Transmission Investment: the New Zealand Grid Investment Test

Real Options and Transmission Investment: the New Zealand Grid Investment Test Glenn Boyle, Graeme Guthrie and Richard Meade. EPOC Winter Workshop University of Auckland 7 September 2006. Richard Meade Research Principal, ISCR Principal, Cognitus Advisory Services Limited

aspen
Download Presentation

Real Options and Transmission Investment: the New Zealand Grid Investment Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Real Options and Transmission Investment: the New Zealand Grid Investment Test Glenn Boyle, Graeme Guthrie and Richard Meade EPOC Winter Workshop University of Auckland 7 September 2006 Richard Meade Research Principal, ISCR Principal, Cognitus Advisory Services Limited Teaching Fellow, Victoria University SEF and Management School richard.meade@cognitus.co.nz

  2. Electricity Commission (EC) now approves Transpower’s grid investments EC has developed a grid investment test (GIT) for proposing, reviewing and approving grid investments GIT has three steps: Identify market development scenarios Estimate “net market benefit” (NMB) of investment under each scenario: “Market benefit” = PV of benefits to users and suppliers over 20 years Cost = PV of investment’s cost to users and suppliers over 20 years Calculate E(NMB) as probability-weighted average across scenarios Investment satisfies GIT if: E(NMB)>0 AND E(NMB of proposed investment) > E(NMB of feasible alternatives) Background

  3. GIT permits the use of ROA, without being prescriptive ROA values the flexibility inherent in many investments to change plans in response to new future information, i.e. to either: Improve returns Reduce losses It thus extends/complements standard NPV analysis ROA is useful when: Investments are irreversible Key future decision variables are uncertain That uncertainty is financially material Investment is flexible See (e.g.) Dixit and Pindyck, Investment Under Uncertainty, 1994 Real Options Analysis (ROA) – cont’d

  4. Simple ROA – Invest Big or Small? Consider a two period investment (220 kV or 400 kV), discount rate r:

  5. Invest Big or Small? – cont’d Consider a two period investment (220 kV or 400 kV), discount rate r: Value of expansion option (≥0)

  6. Invest Big or Small? – cont’d Now the NPV of “220 kV now and maybe one later” can be rewritten as: NPV of two 220kV’s in a row Value of abandonment option re 2nd 220 kV (≥0) Hence only sensible to compare immediate 400 kV investment (i.e. a) with immediate 220 kV investment and possibility of a second (i.e. d), allowing for the possibility of the second line’s abandonment

  7. Invest Big or Small? – cont’d Rearranging the RHS, immediate 400 kV investment is preferred iff: Value of scale economies Value of abandonment option that is destroyed by a larger (rather than staged) investment Thus a simple ROA identifies a trade-off between earlier receipt of scale economies, and investment flexibility

  8. An Extension – Transmission Alternatives • Any decision to delay transmission investment is affected by: • Availability of alternatives, and • Speed of resolution of uncertainty • Suppose that if no line is built now, either a 400 kV or a 220 kV line must be built later

  9. An Extension – Transmission Alternatives • Any decision to delay transmission investment is affected by: • Availability of alternatives, and • Speed of resolution of uncertainty • Suppose that if no line is built now, either a 400 kV or a 220 kV line must be built later Assuming G>0

  10. Transmission Alternatives – cont’d Immediate 400 kV investment is preferred to this strategy iff: Net benefit of committing to 400 kV now versus grid alternative now + 400 kV later Value of switching option (i.e. to 220 kV from 400 kV) that is lost by committing to 400 kV now

  11. Transmission Alternatives – cont’d Similarly, immediate 220 kV investment is preferred to this strategy iff: Value of switching option (i.e. to 400 kV from 220 kV) that is lost by committing to 220 kV now, net of value of expansion option re second 220 kV line Net benefit of committing to 220 kV now versus grid alternative now + 220 kV later

  12. Time to build – decision complicated by uncertainty in planning and construction times: Waiting defers expenditure and allows investment decisions to be based on further information BUT waiting risks loss of option to choose projects having long or uncertain lead times Uncertainty in planning times also increases value of planning for multiple projects (to be measured net of incremental planning costs) More Extensions

  13. Using this simplified ROA framework (e.g. ignoring generation and transmission coordination): If there is significant uncertainty in future grid demand, incremental investments (or investments that defer grid investments), are to be preferred over larger committed investments This result can obtain even though there are economies of scale in grid investment It must be tempered, however, when there are uncertainties in planning and construction times, which: Reduce the value of the option to defer investment, and Encourage parallel planning for multiple investments Conclusions

More Related