1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
2:
3: \textheight 230mm
4: \textwidth 150mm
5: \topmargin -15mm
6: \oddsidemargin 10mm
7: \evensidemargin 10mm
8:
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \begin{center}
13:
14: {\Large\bf Energy price risk management}
15:
16: \vspace*{.6cm}
17:
18: {\large Rafal Weron\footnotemark}
19:
20: \footnotetext{E-mail: rweron@im.pwr.wroc.pl}
21:
22: \vspace*{.3cm}
23:
24: {\small
25: Hugo Steinhaus Center for Stochastic Methods,\\
26: Wroc{\l}aw University of Technology, 50-370 Wroc{\l}aw, Poland
27: }
28:
29: \end{center}
30:
31: \vspace*{.5cm}
32:
33: \noindent
34: {\bf Abstract:} The price of electricity is far more volatile than that of other commodities
35: normally noted for extreme volatility. Demand and supply are balanced on a knife-edge
36: because electric power cannot be economically stored, end user demand is largely weather
37: dependent, and the reliability of the grid is paramount. The possibility of extreme
38: price movements increases the risk of trading in electricity markets. However, a number
39: of standard financial tools cannot be readily applied to pricing and hedging electricity
40: derivatives. In this paper we present arguments why this is the case.\\
41:
42: \noindent
43: {\it PACS:} 05.45.Tp, 89.30.+f, 89.90.+n\\
44: {\it Keywords:} Econophysics, electricity price, risk management, mean-reversion\\
45:
46: \vspace*{.5cm}
47:
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: Energy price risk management is still in its infancy compared to the more
52: developed interest rate and foreign exchange markets \cite{fusaro,warrick,ww00}.
53: However, we have to bear in mind that commodity markets are not anywhere near as
54: straightforward as financial markets. They have to deal with the added complexity
55: of physical substance \cite{bll99}, which cannot simply be manufactured, transported
56: and delivered, at the press of a button.
57:
58: An innate energy industry conservatism coupled with highly profitable years caused stagnation
59: despite the two oil price shocks of the 1970s. But the world oil price collapse of 1986
60: and the beginning of electric utility deregulation and privatization throughout the world
61: are continuing to drive change in energy commodity markets \cite{fusaro,ICC,kurtz}.
62:
63: In the wake of the recent price run-ups and defaults, managers have been forced to
64: review their credit and counterparty risk policies. Traditional credit analysis has
65: emphasized the financial risk associated with the failure of a buyer to pay for the
66: goods purchased. Although this can be a concern in the power market, recent events
67: have highlighted the substantial and perhaps less predictable market risk resulting
68: from the failure to deliver by a seller \cite{calpx}. The defaults in late June 1998
69: threw the US buyers into a superheated Midwest market, desperate for replacement power.
70: This resulted in soaring prices that reportedly topped out at \$7,500 in real-time
71: trading -- 300 times the average price of \$25/MWh!
72:
73: The possibility of extreme price movements increases the risk of trading in electricity
74: markets. Unfortunately a number of standard financial tools cannot be readily
75: applied to pricing and hedging electricity derivatives. But before we explain why
76: let us briefly describe today's electricity markets.
77:
78:
79: \section{Electricity markets}
80:
81: The deregulation of the electricity industry is giving way to a global trend toward
82: the commoditization of electric energy \cite{green}. This trend has recently intensified
83: in Europe and North America, where market forces have pushed legislators to begin removing
84: artificial barriers that shielded electric utilities from competition. As a result,
85: during the last decade, we have witnessed a major explosion in the number of nontraditional
86: power suppliers and financial engineers marketing electricity and electricity derivatives
87: in the wholesale power markets. Only in the early four year period 1993-96 over 200 new
88: marketers (qualified energy brokers) have appeared on the US electricity market \cite{ICC}.
89: Similarly, during the last six months more then 70 companies have obtained licenses to
90: trade electricity on the just liberalized Polish wholesale power market.
91:
92: Organizations which have been used to long-term fixed price contracts are now
93: becoming increasingly exposed to price volatility and, of necessity, are seeking
94: to hedge and speculatively trade to reduce their exposure to price risk.
95: The scenario in today's energy market is similar in many ways to the emergence of
96: derivatives trading in the capital markets. From the modest beginnings
97: in the late 1970s, financial markets have seen a massive explosion in the use of
98: derivative products. Starting with simple futures contracts and forward rate
99: agreements through swaps and on to increasingly ingenious and complex contracts.
100: The financial derivatives markets invented layer upon layer of new derivatives
101: products using the basic building blocks to design tailor made hedges for
102: customers \cite{coleman}.
103:
104: Most derivatives markets begin with exchange traded futures. Global energy markets are
105: no different. Heating oil futures appeared on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
106: in November 1978 and futures on crude oil appeared there in March 1983. As in all other
107: markets options followed quickly -- on crude oil futures in 1986 and on heating oil a year
108: later. Commercial banks began providing commodity price risk management products in 1986,
109: when The Chase Manhattan Bank arranged the first oil swap \cite{ssw95}.
110: Natural gas futures and OTC instruments began in 1990. And electricity futures contracts
111: began trading on the world's most mature Scandinavian power market (Nord Pool --
112: the Nordic Power Exchange) in 1995 followed next year by the US (NYMEX) and
113: Australian/New Zealand markets.
114: First electricity options appeared on NYMEX in 1996. Last year Nord Pool introduced first
115: exchange traded exotic options -- asian (average) options on electricity futures.
116: Gas and electricity are now accelerating the change process of liquid trading and
117: cross-energy commodity arbitrage. In effect, a conservative industry is continuing
118: to be transformed through financial engineering.
119:
120:
121: \section{Arbitrage pricing}
122:
123: Demand and supply of electricity are balanced on a knife-edge because
124: electric power cannot be economically stored, end user demand is largely weather
125: dependent (see Fig. 1), and the reliability of the grid is paramount.
126: Relatively small changes in load or generation can cause large changes in price and all
127: in a matter of hours, if not minutes. In this respect there is no other market like it.
128:
129: \begin{figure}[htbp]
130: \centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
131: \caption{Nord Pool spot system price (top) and mean temperatures in Oslo, Norway (bottom)
132: for the whole 1998 year. Clearly lower temperatures cause higher power consumption
133: (heating) and thus raise electricity prices.
134: }
135: \end{figure}
136:
137: Because of storage problems standard arbitrage type arguments cannot be used to price a number of
138: electricity derivatives \cite{ww00}. For example, when pricing a forward contract on crude oil,
139: i.e. a contract for delivery of a specified amount of oil for a fixed price $K$ at a specified
140: location and time in the future, we use the formula
141: $$
142: K=U (1+rT) + C,
143: $$
144: where $U$ is the current price of crude oil, $r$ is the risk-free
145: interest rate, $T$ is the time to maturity of the contract, and $C$ is the so called
146: {\it cost of carry} (a sum of storage, insurance, spoilage, and obsolescence costs).
147: The formula can be derived by analyzing the following strategy \cite{ww00,ww98,hull97}:
148: \begin{itemize}
149: \item take a short position in the forward contract (i.e. agree to deliver oil for
150: a fixed price $K$ at maturity) and take a loan from a bank to finance buying crude
151: oil worth $U$ dollars,
152: \item store the oil until maturity (for time $T$) incurring the cost of carry $C$,
153: \item at maturity deliver the oil to the buyer of the forward contract for a fixed price $K$
154: and return the loan (with interest) to the bank.
155: \end{itemize}
156: The forward price $K$ should be such that from today's (the time we sign the contract)
157: perspective no arbitrage is possible, i.e. we cannot make money without taking risk.
158: Thus the forward price should equal today's price ($U$) plus interest ($UrT$)
159: paid to the bank for lending the money plus the cost of carry ($C$).
160: However, for contracts written on electricity the cost of carry is very large (or even
161: infinite) compared to the value of the delivered commodity and for this reason arbitrage
162: type arguments cannot be used to price electricity derivatives. So what can we do? Well,
163: we can either use other methods (eg. weather correlations, consumption prediction) for
164: pricing such derivatives or use derivatives written not on electricity itself but on
165: other derivatives.
166: The former method is used for pricing the first layer of derivatives -- forwards and
167: futures on electricity, whereas the latter for next layers -- options on futures
168: (note that all exchange traded options are written on electricity futures and not
169: electricity itself), swaptions, etc.
170:
171:
172: \section{Volatility}
173:
174: In Figure 2 the average daily prices of the California Power Exchange
175: (CalPX) spot market and their returns are plotted for the period April 1st, 1998 --
176: January 31st, 2000. Note that, unlike in the financial markets, electricity is traded
177: every hour of the year -- including nights, weekends and holidays. Average daily price
178: is a simple reference index constructed by adding up all 24 hourly prices during a day
179: and dividing the sum by 24. One hour is the smallest time interval when prices can change,
180: because in spot electricity trading prices are set constant for delivery of power during
181: a certain hour.
182:
183: \begin{figure}[htbp]
184: \centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
185: \caption{Average daily spot prices (top) and their returns (bottom) for the California
186: Power Exchange since the opening of the exchange (April 1st, 1998) till January 31st, 2000.
187: }
188: \end{figure}
189:
190: The price of electricity is far more volatile than that of other commodities normally
191: noted for extreme volatility. Applying the classical notion of volatility -- the standard
192: deviation of returns (i.e. logarithmic price changes: $r_t= \log x_{t+1} - \log x_t$),
193: we obtain that measured on a daily scale for a series roughly one year in length:
194: \begin{itemize}
195: \item treasury bills and notes have a volatility of less than 0.5\%,
196: \item stock indices have a moderate volatility of about 1-1.5\%,
197: \item commodities like crude oil or natural gas have higher volatilities (1.5-4\%),
198: \item very volatile stocks have volatilities not exceeding 4\%,
199: \item and electric energy has the highest volatility -- up to 30\%!
200: \end{itemize}
201: However, when measured on different time scales, electricity price volatility does not
202: behave like that for financial instruments. For the data illustrated in Fig. 2
203: daily volatility is about 23\%, whereas monthly (30-day) volatility is about 33\%.
204: This is much less then predicted by Brownian motion (the distance traveled
205: by a particle is proportional to the square root of time) for which we would obtain
206: $23\% \times \sqrt{30} \approx 125\%$. Thus Black-Scholes type formulas \cite{ssw95,ww98,hull97}
207: should in general overestimate premiums of long-term options written on electricity!
208:
209: Another feature of electricity price volatility is its seasonal character.
210: The daily and weekly seasonality of volatility can be illustrated \cite{o93,o97}
211: by the intra--weekly plot of mean absolute hourly price changes, see Fig. 3.
212: The statistical week is divided into 168 hours from Monday 0:00-1:00 to Sunday 23:00-24:00.
213: Each bar represents the mean absolute change in prices for every hour from the same
214: week--days counted for energy prices from CalPX. The sampling period starts with the
215: opening of the exchange (April 1st, 1998) and lasts until January 25th, 2000, so that
216: we analyze 95 full weeks.
217:
218: \begin{figure}[htbp]
219: \centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
220: \caption{Intra--weekly plot of mean absolute hourly price changes for the CalPX spot
221: market. The statistical week is divided into 168 hours from Monday 0:00-1:00 to Sunday
222: 23:00-24:00.
223: }
224: \end{figure}
225:
226: The patterns of volatility are clearly correlated to the on-peak/off-peak specification
227: of the market. The lowest volatility is observed on the weekends and during night (off-peak)
228: hours. However, unlike for the global interbank FX (currency) market \cite{o97},
229: the volatility during weekends is of the same order of magnitude as that for working days.
230: High volatility is observed during on-peak working day hours, with a maximum for hour
231: 15:00-16:00. Saturday has a similar volatility pattern, but on Sunday the maximum is
232: postponed till 17:00-18:00.
233:
234:
235: \section{Autocorrelation of returns}
236:
237: Seasonality of a time series of returns $r_t$ can be demonstrated by plotting
238: the autocorrelation function \cite{beran94}
239: $$
240: {\bf acf}(r,k) = \frac{\sum_{t=k+1}^{N}
241: (r_t-\bar{r})(r_{t-k}-\bar{r})}{\sum_{t=1}^{N} (r_t-\bar{r})^2},
242: $$
243: where $N$ is the sample length and
244: $$
245: \bar{r} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=1}^{N} r_t,
246: $$
247: for different time lags $k$ as in Fig. 4. For electricity spot price returns there is
248: a strong 7-day dependence which, when we think about it, is not that surprising. However,
249: what is surprising is the fact that this dependence structure lasts almost forever
250: (or as long as the analyzed data set)! For most financial data autocorrelation of returns
251: dies out (or more precisely: falls into the confidence interval of Gaussian random walk)
252: after 10-20 days and long-term autocorrelations are found only for squared returns
253: or absolute value of returns \cite{ww98,o93,o97,bp97,ms99}.
254:
255: \begin{figure}[htbp]
256: \centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{fig4.eps}}
257: \caption{Lagged autocorrelation function for CalPX spot price returns (see Fig. 2).
258: Dashed horizontal lines represent the 95\% confidence interval of a Gaussian random walk.
259: }
260: \end{figure}
261:
262: This 7-day cyclic correlation can be removed by differentiation, i.e. by constructing
263: the data series $z_t = r_{t+7} - r_t$. The lagged autocorrelation of $z_t$ is shown in
264: Fig. 5. We can observe two evident outliers: for lag=1 day and for lag=7 days. Both
265: have negative correlations. This implies a strong mean-reverting property \cite{hull97}
266: of the returns as was already suggested by the results of Section 3.
267:
268: \begin{figure}[htbp]
269: \centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
270: \caption{Lagged autocorrelation function for CalPX spot price returns after
271: differentiation by 7 days. A strong mean-reverting property is revealed.
272: }
273: \end{figure}
274:
275:
276: \section{Final remarks}
277:
278: As we have shown the price of electricity is far more volatile than that of other
279: commodities normally noted for extreme volatility. However, the term structure of
280: volatility distinguishes electricity from most financial assets and forces us to use
281: Black-Scholes type models with great care and a doze of skepticism.
282: On the other hand, the mean-reverting property puts electricity in the same box as
283: interest rates and suggests that the search for models of electricity price dynamics
284: should be started with examining and calibrating certain interest rate models
285: \cite{rb80,hw90}.
286:
287:
288:
289: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
290: {\small
291: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{fusaro} P.C. Fusaro (ed.), Energy Risk Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
292: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{warrick} J.B. Warrick, Wisconsin Energy Forum, Sept. 28th, 1999.
293: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{ww00} A. Weron, R. Weron, Power Exchange: Risk Management Strategies, (in Polish), CIRE, Wroc{\l}aw, 2000.
294: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{bll99} R. Bjorgan, C.-C. Liu, J. Lawarree, IEEE Trans. Power Systems 14 (1999) 1285.
295: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{ICC} International Chamber of Commerce, Liberalization and privatization of the Energy Sector, Paris, July 1998.
296: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{kurtz} D. Kurtz, Power Engineering Int. 7(4) (1999) 33.
297: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{calpx} CalPX, A. Petursson, CalPX White Papers,\\ http://www.calpx.com/news/publications/index.htm, 1998.
298: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{green} S. Green, Power Engineering Int. 7(4) (1999) 45.
299: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{coleman} M. Coleman, FSD Int. White Papers, http://www.fsd.co.uk/www/news/papers.htm, 2000.
300: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{ssw95} Ch.W. Smithson, C.W. Smith, Jr., D.S. Wilford, Managing Financial Risk, IRWIN, Chicago, 1995.
301: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{ww98} A. Weron, R. Weron, Financial Engineering: Derivatives Pricing, Computer Simulations, Market Statistics, (in Polish), WNT, Warsaw, 1998.
302: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{hull97} J.C. Hull, Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1997.
303: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{o93} M.M. Dacorogna, U.A. M\"uller, R.J. Nagler, R.B. Olsen, O.V. Pictet, J. Intern. Money Finance 12 (1993) 413.
304: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{o97} D.M. Guillaume, M.M. Dacorogna, R.R. Dave, U.A. M\"uller, R.B. Olsen, O.V. Pictet, Finance Stochast. 1 (1997) 95.
305: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{beran94} J. Beran, Statistics for Long-Memory Processes, Chapman \& Hall, New York, 1997.
306: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{bp97} J.P. Bouchaud, M. Potters, Theory of Financial Risk, (in French), Alea-Saclay, Eyrolles, Paris, 1997.
307: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{ms99} R.N. Mantegna, H.E. Stanley, An Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
308: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{rb80} R. Rendleman, B. Bartter, J. Financial and Quantitative Analysis 15 (1980) 11.
309: \vspace{-.3cm} \bibitem{hw90} J.C. Hull, A. White, Rev. Financial Studies 3 (1990) 573.
310: }
311: \end{thebibliography}
312:
313: \end{document}
314: