Overlapping carbon pricing and renewable support schemes under political uncertainty: Global lessons from an Australian case study
Introduction
In recent decades, governments around the world have implemented climate policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, most often by discouraging investment in, and use of, high GHG emitting technologies. Motivated by the issues of fuel security and environmental impact, governments have often put in place regulatory incentives to expedite the deployment of renewable energy (RE) technologies [1], [2]. RE support and GHG emissions reduction policies are often employed in conjunction with one another. The conventional view on overlapping carbon abatement and RE support policy instruments is that their co-existence increases the social cost of meeting a GHG reduction target (see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) relative to the case where a carbon price is used as a standalone instrument. This view reflects the fact that a broad-based carbon price targets the GHG reduction objective directly, so that entities have an incentive to identify the lowest cost investments and activities that will reduce their liabilities under such a scheme. A RE subsidisation mechanism, on the other hand, motivates GHG reductions by encouraging or mandating investment in a specific technology class. The implementation of the policy is also justified by a range of other objectives such as energy supply diversity, creation of green jobs, and innovation. However, RE investments will not always offer the lowest marginal cost GHG reduction option across an entire economy (e.g. [5], [8]). Therefore, if meeting a GHG reduction target is the objective of a renewable support mechanism, the conventional view is that the policy will be a high-cost means of achieving it.
‘Policy purity’ from this conventional point of view is often expressed as an advocacy for the use of carbon pricing without government support for RE technologies as a first-best optimal measure. If, however, the first best solution is not feasible because of policy failure, then it has been suggested [9] that a RPS may be accepted as a second best [10] policy instrument. But under what circumstances would the co-existence of both instruments be considered appropriate when their shared objective is to facilitate the level of investment required to achieve a GHG reduction target?
Several jurisdictions around the world, including California, Australia, and many parts of the European Union (EU), have deployed carbon pricing and renewable support mechanisms in parallel to meet a range of policy objectives. In 2013, California launched a cap-and-trade mechanism, aimed at reducing GHG emissions from liable entities by more than 16 per cent over the period 2013–2020. This policy mechanism overlaps with a range of other emissions reduction instruments, including a RPS originally enacted in 2002. Shortly after an expansion of the RPS target in 2015 to supply half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030, California's carbon auction prices collapsed to below the market’s price floor [12]. Studies have revealed the distorting effects of the policies’ overlap in California [11], including an ‘intentionally thin market’ for carbon allowances [12]. In Europe, a substantial fall in the EU Emission Trading Scheme’s (ETS) carbon price has been attributed to the interacting effect of various RE support mechanisms in the region [13] leading to an erosion in the policy’s cost-effectiveness [14], [15]. In some jurisdictions (including Australia, the case study to be presented in this paper) GHG emissions reduction targets have not been the subject of overt political contest, whereas the best means to achieve those targets have.1 As a result, carbon abatement and RPS policy instruments have often lacked stability and/or clarity as to the timing of their implementation and their contribution to the targets.2 In 2012 a carbon pricing mechanism was implemented in Australia after a long period of political negotiation. This mechanism started with a fixed price of , to be followed by an ETS with a floating price and an emissions cap.3 However, lack of bipartisan support threatened the policy’s sustainability and it was repealed in 2014. Overlapping with the carbon pricing mechanism in Australia, a RPS, called the Renewable Energy Target (RET), was in operation with a legislated growth path to expand RE generation from 9500 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2010 to 41,000 GWh by 2020; at the time the legislation was enacted it was anticipated that the 2020 target would result in at least 20 per cent of total electricity demand being met by renewable sources [17]. The policy faced an uncertain future after the Federal Government announced a review of the mechanism in mid-2014. Despite the regulatory and market uncertainties and a coinciding decline in electricity demand, 6000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable electricity generation capacity was added to the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) in the decade to 2014 [18]. In each of the three aforementioned jurisdictions, interactions between the carbon pricing and RPS policies, combined with energy market and policy uncertainties, have made it difficult to decompose the contribution of each policy’s impact on the energy sector and the broader economy. Under such conditions, market participants are subject to unanticipated strategic behaviour, the dynamics of which are unable to be captured by existing theoretical models [19].
The primary aim of the current study is to assess whether policy longevity and design uncertainties at critical points in the political cycle may justify the combination of a carbon pricing and RPS when their shared objective is to achieve reductions in GHG emissions. Based on the examination of a real world wholesale electricity market, this paper will argue that energy supply agents’ perceptions of uncertainties in the energy market can justify the interaction of an ETS with a RPS. The contribution of this paper lies in three areas:
- 1.
The study of the effect of such policy overlaps on large-scale electricity generation investments, where the problem is addressed from the viewpoint of a private investor. This methodological approach gains significance noting that the assessment of policy effects and interactions have been commonly conducted based on a social planning view (see a review of relevant literature in Section 2) and under narrow and idealistic assumptions. We emphasise that in a liberalised electricity generation market the value proposition of private investors and associated investment strategies are the major driver behind generation capacity additions and retirements.
- 2.
Providing insight to energy regulators and investors based on a comparison of modelling results with historical investments in generation assets. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that takes the advantage of hindsight to query whether those policy interactions can provide a ‘safety valve’ or ‘hedge’ to both private investors and policymakers when deep uncertainties over the future of energy and climate policies influence investment strategies.
- 3.
Expansion of the integrated real options-CVaR portfolio optimisation model introduced by Shahnazari et al. [20] to account for market growth, policy uncertainty and interacting scenarios.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a review of the most relevant literature. Section 3 briefly explains the modelling of the investment decision-making framework employed in this paper, including the description of the portfolio model. To maintain our focus in this paper, a brief explanation of real options and carbon and electricity price modelling, introduced by Shahnazari et al. [20], [21], is presented in Appendix A. Adaptations to the previous models are described in Section 3. Section 4 provides a case study and a comparative discussion of actual outcomes in Australia over the past few years to investigate the impact of policy uncertainties and interactions on electricity. Implications of the findings for investors and policy makers are also discussed. The major findings of the study are conveyed in Section 5.
Section snippets
Review of literature
There is a substantial body of literature that has analysed the effect of interactions between energy and climate policies.4 The approach in such studies ranges from narrative explanation [3], [5], [9], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] to analytical or computational modelling of the energy systems [11], [13], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. The literature studying
Method
The decision-making framework developed in this study is an extension of the integrated real options and conditional value at risk () portfolio optimisation approach developed by ShahNazari et al. [20] that considers interactions between a carbon pricing policy and a RPS under different growth conditions in the electricity market. In the current paper, it is assumed that a typical investor holds an existing portfolio of electricity generation assets (the initial portfolio). The heightened
Case study results and discussion
It is assumed that a hypothetical investor owns and operates an existing portfolio of fossil fuel-based power generation assets. The initial portfolio consists of four existing black coal-fired steam turbines, each with a nominal installed capacity of 400 MW and remaining lives of 20 years for two of the plants (bkCFST20), and 30 years (bkCFST30) and 10 years (bkCFST10) for the other two plants, respectively. The initial portfolio also contains a combined cycle gas turbine with a nominal installed
Conclusion
The main conclusion to be drawn from the results of our integrated real options analysis and portfolio optimisation model is that political uncertainty over the sustainability of policy instruments targeting a GHG reduction objective may justify the co-existence of carbon pricing and renewable support mechanisms. That is, a market-based carbon pricing mechanism and a RPS instrument may be complementary from a second-best optimality perspective when the former is politically contested, as the
Acknowledgement
Conclusions and recommendations noted in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of Murdoch University, University College London, Curtin University, or Ernst & Young. The corresponding author is most grateful for the financial support of the Australian Government and Murdoch University.
References (68)
- et al.
Germany's solar cell promotion: dark clouds on the horizon
Energy Policy
(2008) - et al.
Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience
Energy Policy
(2010) - et al.
The critical role of the industrial sector in reaching long-term emission reduction, energy efficiency and renewable targets
Appl Energy
(2016) - et al.
Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?
Energy Policy
(2013) - et al.
Structural oversupply and credibility in California’s carbon market
Electr J
(2016) - et al.
D’haeseleer W. Interactions between measures for the support of electricity from renewable energy sources and CO2 mitigation
Energy Policy
(2009) - et al.
Good things do not always come in threes: on the excess cost of overlapping regulation in EU climate policy
Energy Policy
(2016) - et al.
Energy-only markets and renewable energy targets: complementary policy or policy collision?
Econ Anal Policy
(2015) - et al.
Simulating the interaction of a renewable portfolio standard with electricity and carbon markets
Electr J
(2015) - et al.
The effect of political cycles on power investment decisions: expectations over the repeal and reinstatement of carbon policy mechanisms in Australia
Appl Energy
(2014)
A paper trail of evaluation approaches to energy and climate policy interactions
Renew Sustain Energy Rev
The Danish green certificate system: some simple analytical results
Energy Econ
Simultaneous attainment of energy goals by means of green certificates and emission permits
Energy Policy
Interactions of a tradable green certificate market with a tradable permits market
Energy Policy
Co-existence of electricity, TEP, and TGC markets in the Baltic Sea Region
Energy Policy
Impacts of a common green certificate market on electricity and CO2-emission markets in the Nordic countries
Energy Policy
Do support systems for RES-E reduce EU-ETS-driven electricity prices?
Energy Policy
Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies
Energy Policy
Renewable energy subsidies: second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation?
Resour Energy Econ
Bridging greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy deployment target: comparative assessment of China and India
Appl Energy
Adjusting the CO2 cap to subsidised RES generation: can CO2 prices be decoupled from renewable policy?
Appl Energy
Conditions for the cost effective combination of emissions trading and renewable energy support policies
Energy Proced
Can uncertainty justify overlapping policy instruments to mitigate emissions?
Ecol Econ
Evaluation of power investment decisions under uncertain carbon policy: a case study for converting coal fired steam turbine to combined cycle gas turbine plants in Australia
Appl Energy
Stochastic price modeling of high volatility, mean-reverting, spike-prone commodities: the Australian wholesale spot electricity market
Energy Econ
Renewable energy, midterm market report 2016
The Garnaut climate change review – final report
The general theory of second best
Rev Econ Stud
Treaty compliance and violation
Ann Rev Polit Sci
Cited by (34)
Australian energy policy decisions in the wake of the 2022 energy crisis
2024, Economic Analysis and PolicyA study of licensing strategies for energy storage technologies in the renewable electricity supply chain under government subsidies
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionWill China achieve its renewable portfolio standard targets? An analysis from the perspective of supply and demand
2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews