Commodity risk hedging of a power producer: Case study of the Czech power market

Journal title ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Author/s Jakub Zezula
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/1
Language English Pages 16 P. 17-32 File size 214 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2022-001002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Every power producer is facing the risk of an adverse price movement of commodities used for the power production and power itself in the meantime between cash flow planning and the actual power production. This study analyzes process of hedging the commodity market risk with usage of derivatives with financial settlement as an alternative to physical ones. For this purpose a hypothetical power producer operating a gas power unit was selected. Based on the real Czech power market data of 2019 this paper simulates expected cash flow, assesses potential risk for the producer and compares real cash flow of an unhedged position with a position hedged via futures contracts and spread options with financial settlement. For the risk evaluation Monte Carlo simulation and value at risk methods are used. As the most effective way to hedge the market risk of 2019 proved itself the futures hedge with monthly hedging tenor with an alternative in a short call option position. Practical implications: The study is written in a practical approach to the market risk man- agement process so that could be applicable in any company active in the power market facing the risk of commodity price movements regardless the input commodity used for the electric- ity production. Using the data of the Czech power market of 2019 the paper presents the case of a real power market participant.

Keywords: clean spark spread hedging; commodity derivatives; power production hedging.

Jel codes: M00, M21, O13

  1. Argusmedia. News article. EUA prices resume sharp rally to 10-year highs. Retrieved July 6, 2020, from -- https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1751207-eua-prices-resume-sharp- rally-to-10year-highs.
  2. Bessembinder H. & Lemmon M. (2002). Equilibrium Pricing and Optimal Hedging in Elec- tricity Forward Markets. The Journal of Finance, 57(3): 1347-1382. DOI: 10.1111/1540-6261.00463
  3. Cheung Y. & Powell R. (2012). Anybody can do Value at Risk: A Teaching Study using Parametric Competition and Monte Carlo Simulation. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 6(5): 101-118 -- https://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj/vol6/iss5/7/.
  4. Czech electricity and gas market operator (OTE). Statistics POZE. Difference of the purchase and market price. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from -- https://www.ote-cr.cz/en/statistics/ statistics-poze/difference-of-the-purchase-and-market-price?set_language=en&date=2020- 01-01.
  5. Ember Climate. Carbon Price Viewer. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from -- https://ember-climate. org/carbon-price-viewer/
  6. European Commission. Guidelines for the Calculation of Project Performance Indicators 2019. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from -- https://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/ files/guidelines-for-the-calculation-of-performance-indicators_v2.1_19_august_2019.pdf.
  7. Fleten E., Bråthen E. & Nissen-Meyer E. (2010). Evaluation of static hedging strategies for hydropower producers in the Nordic market. Journal of Energy Markets, 3(4): 1-28 -- http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2461152.
  8. Hentschel J., Babic U. & Spliethoff H. (2016). A parametric approach for the valuation of power plant flexibility options. Energy Reports, 2: 40-47.
  9. ICE. Markets. Data. EUA Futures. Retrieved July 6, 2020, from -- https://www.theice.com/products/197/EUA-Futures.
  10. ICE. Markets. Data. Dutch TTF Gas Futures. Retrieved July 6, 2020, from -- https://www.theice.com/products/27996665/Dutch-TTF-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=51 32987.
  11. Kopiske J., Spieker S. & Tsatsaronis G. (2017). Value of power plant flexibility in power systems with high shares of variable renewables: A scenario outlook for Germany 2035. Energy, 137: 823-833.
  12. Martínez B. & Torró H. (2018). Hedging spark spread risk with futures. Energy Policy, 113: 731-746.
  13. Metzger L. (2009). Measuring Hedging Effectiveness for Derivatives. The Journal of Gov- ernment Financial Management, 58(4) -- https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3- 1924785761/measuring-hedging-effectiveness-for-derivatives.
  14. Pape C., Hagemann S. & Weber C. (2016). Are fundamentals enough? Explaining price var- iations in the German day-ahead and intraday power market. Energy Economics, 54: 376-387.
  15. Prague Energy Exchange. Futures. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from -- https://www.pxe.cz/ On-Line/Futures/.Siface D., Zani A., Gelmini A., L’Abatte A. & Benini M. (2016). A future scenario analysis of the impact of EU ETS on the pan-European power system. 2016 AEIT International Annual Conference (AEIT) -- https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7892765.
  16. Vehviläinen I. & Keppo J. (2003). Managing electricity market price risk. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(1): 136-147. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00399-X
  17. Wu H. (2004). Pricing European options based on the fuzzy pattern of Black-Scholes formula. Computers & Operations Research, 31(7): 1069-1081. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0548(03)00065-0
  18. Zhang Y. & Wei Y. (2010). An overview of current research on EU ETS: Evidence from its operating mechanism and economic effect. Applied Energy, 87(6): 1804-1814.

Jakub Zezula, Commodity risk hedging of a power producer: Case study of the Czech power market in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2022, pp 17-32, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2022-001002