Wave One: The Traditional Regulatory Framework

The traditional regulatory framework created a convergence of energy
prices with the costs of constructing, maintaining, and operating energy
assets and networks. This grew out of the economic belief that the production
of energy was a natural monopoly.

This belief that energy markets were natural monopolies arose from the
belief that economies of scale in production combined with network economies.
Essentially, long-run marginal costs were considered to decline with the
level of production. It was thought that a competitive market could not
achieve the lower costs associated from large-scale and network production.
Thus, allowing for a single-franchise provider minimized the average cost
of production. Rate-of-return regulation assured the firm a fair return
on capital while preventing monopolistic behavior. Consumer interests
were protected by requiring the franchise provider to demonstrate its
capital investments were prudent and benefited consumers by reducing average
costs.

It is easy in 2000 to forget just how pervasive regulation was throughout
the U.S. economy. Since airline deregulation in 1978, natural gas, telecommunication,
cable, banking, and financial sectors have undergone sweeping economic
reform. This change in the regulatory environment is global. The last
decade has seen sweeping deregulation and privatization of energy markets.

Energy prices under the traditional regulatory framework were based on
the following:

  • The capital employed

  • A fair return on that capital

  • The costs of maintaining and operating energy networks

What happened? The view that all points of the vertical production chain
were individually natural monopolies was rejected. While pipelines, wires,
and cables – the delivery networks – might be natural monopolies, the
upstream production processes (exploration and production), electric generation,
telecommunication services, and electronic media content were not considered
natural monopolies. This realization and resulting deregulation of the
energy industry brought an end to the first wave.

Wave Two: Btu Convergence

The deregulation of both the natural gas and electricity markets led
to a new wave where these formerly separate markets converged. The reason
for this was simple energy physics: an electron is merely energy in an
electric form created from the energy stored in some other form, irrespective
of the particular power generation technology. Since transforming a fossil
fuel (oil, natural gas, or coal) to electricity creates most electric
generation, owners of generation assets quickly (and correctly) concluded
they operated not in a single-commodity market (electricity) but in a
market where profitability is determined by spark-spread economics:

  • The cost of fuel

  • The costs of convergence

  • The revenues from the ultimate product – electricity

Btu convergence has led to the following convergence economics:

  • Electric generation assets are convergence vehicles that transform
    energy from one form to electricity

  • Demand growth for fuels is driven largely by the demand growth for
    electricity

  • Natural gas competes against oil and coal as a fuel for electric
    generation

  • A diversified energy company must be able to manage price risk and
    volatility across the entire energy spectrum

  • Globalization of energy markets requires expertise in both domestic
    and international energy markets

Electricity and natural gas markets were, until very recently, considered
local markets. However, at recent domestic natural gas prices, the economics
of liquefied natural gas (LNG) have comparatively improved. LNG is relatively
more important in the deregulating European energy markets. Through liquefaction,
natural gas produced in the Caribbean and Africa can be transported. International
coal use in the United States increased in the second half of the last
decade, driven primarily by emissions standards imposed on power plants.

The Second Wave of energy convergence has not expired; it has led to
the birth of a Third Wave of energy convergence. The Convergence of Risk
Management and Information reflects both the risks faced by producers
and consumers and the desire by consumers to exercise their choice for
a greater variety of products and distribution channels.

Wave Three: Risk Management and Information Convergence

The end of regulated franchises exposes energy firms and consumers to
a complex set of risks. When combined with the information revolution
correctly anticipated by Mr. Toffler, both producers and consumers face
unparalleled opportunities to manage risks. The convergence of risk and
commercial opportunities will forever change the energy industry.

The owners of energy assets face capacity, commodity, and capital risks.
Capacity is the brick and mortar of the energy industry – natural gas
storage, pipelines, and power plants are examples of capacity. Capacity
is used to transfer or transform the commodity outputs, or Btus. Natural
gas storage facilities transfer BTUs across time while a power plant transforms
energy from fuel to electrons. Asset owners face financial risks arising
from the manner in which they have raised capital to fund their investments.
For each of these types of risks, decisions are required that affect profitability.
This has led to a convergence of alternative, commodity, and capital market
risk management and created hybrid organizations that manage those risks.

Commodity risk is familiar to energy market participants. The volatility
in electricity prices during June 1998, July 1999, and in natural gas
prices during the first quarter of 2000 are recent examples. Natural gas
and electricity are the two most volatile commodities. A $1 change in
the July/August electricity forward contract generates profit and loss
swings of approximately $70,000 per 100 megawatts. For a 5,000 megawatt
generation portfolio, that amounts to a P&L swing of $3.5 million. The
traditional approach to mitigate commodity risks is to execute a hedging
strategy to buy or sell forward energy derivative contracts such as futures,
forwards, and options.

To paraphrase Tip O’Neill, “All energy is physical.” This creates an
alternative form of risk for which traditional hedging strategies are
poorly designed. A traditional forward contract in electricity is firm
with liquidated damages – known as “firm LD.” This means the supplier
is obligated to deliver physical power. The failure to meet that obligation
results in the buyer purchasing replacement electricity at prevailing
market prices. That creates a liability for the seller. The alternative
risk faced by producers is caused by the fact that physical assets do
not always operate. An owner of a 500 megawatt generating plant may wish
to mitigate price exposure by selling forward the power from the plant.
Liquidity and price transparency in the electric forward markets are in
the “firm LD” instrument. If the owner enters into a “firm LD” forward
contract, the failure of the plant to operate at times when market prices
are high creates a significant risk. An asset owner who enters into a
500 megawatt forward sell at $50 per megawatt hour faces liquidated damage
charges of $975,000 per hour when the spot price of electricity reaches
$2,000 per megawatt hour. This exposes the asset owner to volumetric risk.
While the owner has eliminated price risk, the owner is now exposed to
the volumetric risk if the plant does not perform.

Retail aggregators face a similar type of volumetric risk. This risk
emanates from the interaction of retail load with price. Weather events
are strongly correlated with energy demand. Thus, energy demand is strongly
correlated with energy prices. Traditional derivative contracts (futures,
forwards, and options) are designed to manage price risk for a fixed quantity.
Retail aggregators can hedge this exposure through traditional forward,
futures, and options contracts. However, energy price volatility is not
solely determined by retail demand. A nuclear unit outage in a region
might cause high prices with no accompanying increase in retail load.
Traditional hedging instruments can be expensive, since it is the correlated
volume and price risk the aggregator seeks to mitigate.

Finally, the manner in which capital is raised to support asset investment
generates financial risks to investors. A myriad of financing structures
exists relying on mezzanine financing structures with layers of debt and
equity. The combination of capacity, commodity, and alternative risks
had led to a convergence of companies offering a wide variety of risk
management services. These companies come from the traditional commodity
field, investment banks, and reinsurance companies. The distinctions between
these three participants have been blurred as asset owners seek to manage
comprehensive enterprise risk.

The rise of the Internet and the globalization of information, energy,
and commodity markets create a convergence between the provision of risk
management services and information. The point-and-click approach for
the procurement of products and services means providers of wholesale
and retail products may be exposed to new types of risks and may wish
to include risk management services as part of their product offerings.

The Internet has changed distribution channels. Consumers and producers
have instant access to information. A plant manager may have historically
acquired supplies and risk management services through customer representatives.
Remember the Rolodex? That plant manager today can access and execute
transactions at the computer via the Internet.

Conclusion

“Lately, it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it’s been.”
The Grateful Dead

A quick review of the last 20 years in the energy industry suggests that
The Grateful Dead might have been thinking of the 21st century energy
industry when they penned those lyrics more than 30 years ago. This isn’t
your father’s industry anymore. The changes brought on by deregulation
and the information revolution transformed the energy industry. Just four
years ago, conferences were offered on the coming convergence of natural
gas and electricity. Now we sit at the dawn of a new wave of convergence
of risk and information.