The Impact of Climate Policies on the Operation of a Thermal Power Plant

Abstract

Climate policy measures aimed at power markets influence the cost structure of producers and price patterns, and are therefore likely to influence the production decision of power plants, even in the short run. When power plants have costs related to starting and stopping, decisions on short-term production are intertemporal, and the conventional ‘price vs. marginal cost’ rule is not sufficient to predict production in thermal power plants. This paper analyzes how the optimal production decision is influenced by climate policies: namely, CO2 trading mechanisms, the expansion of renewables and the interaction between these policies.

The main result is that higher power price variation (as a result of increased wind power production) makes the thermal power producer less flexible, but the effect on emissions is ambiguous. A CO2 cost (as a result of an emission trading system) increases the flexibility of the producer and the operation decision resembles the conventional ‘price vs. marginal cost’ rule more. This implies lower emissions. However, when the CO2 price is coupled with higher power price variation, the positive effects may be reversed since the two policies have opposing effects.

Keywords

Electricity climate policy CO2 emissions decisions under uncertainty start and stop costs Thermal power plants

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amundsen

E.S.

Nesse

Tj0tta

(1999). “Deregulation of the Nordic power market and environmental policy.” Energy Economics 21: 417-434.

de la Chesnaye

F.C.

Weyant

J.P.

, eds. (2006). “Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy.” The Energy Journal (Special Issue).

Dixit

(1989). “Entry and Exit Decisions under Uncertainty.” The Journal of Political Economy 97 (3): 620-638.

Dixit

Pindyck

(1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

EC (2001). Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

EC (2003). Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

von der Fehr

N.-H.M

Amundsen

Bergman

(2005). “The Nordic Market: Signs of Stress?” In “European Electricity Liberalization”, The Energy Journal (Special Issue): 71-98.

Gross

Heptonstall

Anderson

Green

Leach

Skea

(2006). “The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the British electricity network.” UK Energy Research Centre.

Hall

B.H.

Cummins

(1999). TSP Reference Manual, Version 4.5. TSP International, Palo Alto, California.

10.

Hauch

(2003). “Electricity trade and CO2 emission reductions in the Nordic countries.” Energy Economics 25: 509-526. 2

11.

Hindsberger

Nybroe

M.H.

Ravn

H.F.

Schmidt

(2003). “Co-existence of electricity, TEP, and TGC markets in the Baltic Sea Region.” Energy Policy 31: 85-96.

12.

Mansur

E. T.

(2003). “Vertical Integration in Restructured Electricity Markets: Measuring Market Efficiency and Firm Conduct.” Center for the Study of Energy Markets (CSEM) Working Paper 117, University of California Energy Institute, Berkeley.

13.

Miranda

M. J.

Fackler

P. L.

(2002). Applied Computational Economics and Finance. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

14.

Morthorst

P.E.

(2003). “Wind Power and the Conditions at a Liberalized Power Market.” Wind Energy 6: 297-308.

15.

Morthorst

P.E.

(2006). “Market Impacts of Wind Power Integration.” Presentation at the EWEA Policy Conference on Large Scale Integration of Wind Energy, EWEA Policy conference, 7-8 November 2006, Brussels.

16.

Olsen

O.J.

Amundsen

E.S.

Donslund

(2006). “How to play the game as the bridge between two European power markets - the case of Western Denmark.” Energy Policy 34: 3293-3304.

17.

Rosnes

(2005). “Carbon Costs in Power Markets: The Importance of the Flexibility of Power Plants.” ECON Working Paper 2005-005. ECON, Oslo, Norway.

18.

Rosnes

(2007). “Subsidies to Renewable Energy in Inflexible Power Markets.” ECON Working Paper 2007-001. ECON, Oslo, Norway.

19.

Sen

Kothari

D. P.

(1998). “Optimal thermal generating unit commitment: a review.” Electrical Power & Energy Systems 20 (7): 443-451.

20.

Sheble

G. B.

Fahd

G. N.

(1994). “Unit commitment literature synopsis.” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 9 (1): 128-135.

21.

Springer

(2003). “The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies.” Energy Economics 25: 527-551.

22.

Tseng

Barz

(2002). “Short-term generation asset valuation: A real options approach.” Operations Research 50: 297-310.

23.

Unger

Ahlgren

E.O.

(2005). “Impacts of a common green certificate market on electricity and CO2-emission markets in the Nordic countries.” Energy Policy 33: 2152-2163.

24.

Weyant

J. P.

, ed. (1999). “The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-model Evaluation.” The Energy Journal (Special Issue).

25.

Wood

A.J.

Wollenberg

B.F.

(1996). Power Generation, Operation, and Control. John Wiley, New York.