Geneva: 2-4 April 2007 Insurance Instruments for GHG Projects: Private Sector Options. UNECE Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane

Transcription

1 Geneva: 2-4 April 2007 Insurance Instruments for GHG s: Private Sector Options UNECE Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane Warren Diogo Risk Consulting Practice, Marsh Ltd Agenda Risk Profile of Market Our Understanding of the Issues Our Approach to Managing Risk Insurance Industry Response Credit Delivery Guarantee Underwriting Considerations Other Instruments for Consideration Marsh 2 1

2 Risk Profile of Market The Market is characterised by: High degree of regulatory influence EU ETS & level Forward purchase agreements Low creditworthy counterparties s located in politically unstable countries Some novel & prototypical technology Price volatility and future market uncertainty Marsh 3 Price Differentiation Euro 20 Note: there is no single price for Instruments because risk allocation between buyer and seller varies with each contract Euro Euro Euro 5 Euro 0 ERUs CERs 2006 EUAs 2007 EUAs 2008 EUAs Prices as of December 8, 2006 Marsh (Source: Credit Suisse Energy) 4 2

3 CDM Cycle Conventional Cycle Feasibility Related cycle Assessment / Feasibility / Construction / Erection Commissioning Validation & registration Verification & certification Assessment (e.g. PDD) Transaction Issue of Credits Forward Contract Marsh 5 Delivery Risks Feasibility Assessment / Feasibility / Assessment Validation & registration Construction / Erection Commissioning Transaction Verification & certification Issue of Credits *Political Risks *Technology Performance *Resource Risks *Counterparty credit risk *ITL Log Delay / Failure *Registration Risk *Construction delay *Business Interruption *Verification Risk *Natural Hazards Conventional Cycle Marsh Related cycle *Risk Risks impacting on the delivery of contracted credits 6 3

4 This Leads to Reduced CER marketability Price discounting for risk (forward contracts) Increased contractual provisions Reduced project returns Lack of monetization Reduced ability to bring future cash flows forward to beginning of the project when it is needed most Reduced prospect for carbon finance Fewer lenders prepared to lend against CER s Threatens financial closure Marsh 7 Our Understanding of the Issue Most CER contracts are payment on delivery and thus performance and delivery risks are a key concern Competition to secure low cost, large volume projects Reduced time for risk assessment and due diligence Inadequate risk and insurance considerations Typically risks are managed through Risk allocation and contractual provisions Hedging strategies Price discounting for risk ~25% Marsh 8 4

5 Managing CDM Risks CDM Risk Assessment Evaluation of critical risks Review of risk management tools Insurance Due Diligence Review of insurance adequacy Determination of policy response Insurance Optimisation Complete any gaps in coverage Modification / extension of traditional lines (e.g. BI for CER s) Structure insurance wrap to cover critical delivery risks Marsh 9 Insurance Market Response Promising commitment of appetite and capacity Leading players entering the market New start ups emerging Launch of new products New applications of existing lines (e.g. renewable energy) Extension / modification of traditional lines (e.g. BI) Development of new products (e.g. multi risk packages) But there are underwriting challenges! Marsh 10 5

6 Credit Delivery Guarantees Delivery of future flows of carbon are guaranteed by A rated insurers Key coverage areas Property and business interruption Technology efficacy Political risk Kyoto regulatory risk Credit risk Coverage also provided for CER replacement cost Settlement in cash or CER s can be offered Marsh 11 Underwriting considerations Approval status of project Location China, India, Chile Brazil, Mexico, South Africa Preference for tried and tested technologies Onshore wind, hydro, biomass, landfill gas Operating and financial history of developers Experience ISO certification / QA QC Loss prevention and control measures structure of the project Parent company guarantees Marsh 12 6

7 Other Instruments for Consideration UNEP / GEF sponsored effort aimed at facilitating innovation in the risk management area Measured value of FRM Instruments Insurance (during construction & operating) Weather Derivatives Political Risk Insurance CER Futures Contract Key findings Significant impact on default rates and debt rating Optimal combination of instruments Implementation barriers (e.g. domestic insurers) Marsh 13 Key Messages Need to demonstrate delivery risks are being managed Insurance can provide protection for assets and revenues Confidence & security to lenders, buyers, investors Credit delivery guarantees can support GHG projects by: Improving marketability of CER s Increasing project returns Facilitating carbon finance Insurance can be cost effective and value enhancing Marsh 14 7