What can we learn from Bruce Henderson for Hydrogen pricing?
Prologue.
The pricing of hydrogen is a complex issue, but the insights of Bruce Henderson can help us to develop effective pricing strategies for this emerging market. In this article you will find some inspiration, and – hopefully – challenge me and others to think further.
Who is Bruce Henderson and what did he say on pricing?
Bruce Henderson, the founder of Boston Consulting Group (BCG), was a pioneer in the field of strategic management and pricing. In his 1966 article "The Experience Curve – The Growth of Manufacturing Costs and the Implications for Corporate Strategy," Henderson introduced the concept of the experience curve and few other insights, which have had a profound impact on pricing strategies in various industries. Lets look at what his insights may mean for pricing discussions as they are emerging in Hydrogen industries.
The Experience Curve: A Groundbreaking Concept
The experience curve, also known as the learning curve or cost curve, is a conceptual model that describes the relationship between cumulative production volume and unit cost. It suggests that as a company produces more units of a product, its unit costs tend to decrease over time due to learning effects, economies of scale, and improved process efficiency.
Henderson's 1966 article highlighted the importance of the experience curve in pricing strategy. He argued that companies that can achieve a lower cost base through experience curve effects can gain a significant competitive advantage by pricing their products lower than their rivals. This pricing strategy, known as "experience curve pricing," can lead to higher market share, increased profitability, and sustainable competitive advantage.
Henderson introduced several groundbreaking insights that have shaped pricing strategies in various industries in many decades:
So what do his insights on the experience curve and its implications for pricing strategy could mean for today's emerging Hydrogen market?
Example of pricing thinking in today’s Hydrogen market.
There is a large uncertainty on how to price Hydrogen, as parties see that the product has features of natural gas (including LNG) and power markets, and it’s very versatile in its applications. From literature examples (Potential pricing regimes for a global low-carbon hydrogen market – Clean Air Task Force (catf.us)), one can see few pricing theories evolving in hydrogen:
Recommended by LinkedIn
And what price levels does it lead to? 7 to 8 EUR/kg delivered in Germany.
It can vary - an example of outcomes can be seen to vary in Europe between 7 to 8 USD or EUR/kg according to EEX hydrix price index (Germany (eex-transparency.com)). There are more indici – eg HyXchange - I focus here on publicly freely available price indici not on paid alternatives – and noting that soon EU Hydrogen bank may produce alternative indications in spring 2024 as results of the first auction get unveiled.
And so what – implied from the thinking of Henderson in 1960s – could we take forward for Hydrogen pricing in our decade?
Value-based pricing aligns with "Price-cost trade-off" insight by considering the perceived value of low-carbon hydrogen to consumers. It takes into account the environmental benefits and the willingness of consumers to pay a premium for a decarbonized product.
Net-back pricing aligns with "Experience curve drives cost reduction" insight by reflecting the true cost of producing, transporting, and importing hydrogen. It takes into account the overall cost structure of the hydrogen supply chain and ensures that producers are able to recover their costs and earn a profit.
Import parity pricing only in part aligns with "Dynamic pricing and competitive dynamics" insight by adjusting prices based on market conditions and competitor behavior. However, it may not always reflect the true cost of producing hydrogen, potentially leading to inefficiencies and market distortions.
Yet, most alignment to Henderson ideas on pricing is – in my view - the idea of linking hydrogen pricing to the prices of other commodities that it aims to replace, such as grey ammonia, electricity, fuel oil or natural gas.
Henderson's "experience curve drives cost reduction" insight suggests that pricing should be based on the cost of production, and linking hydrogen pricing to the prices of these commodities helps to ensure that hydrogen is priced competitively with its alternatives. This pricing strategy also aligns with Henderson's "price-cost trade-off" insight, as it takes into account the perceived value of hydrogen to consumers. By linking hydrogen pricing to the prices of its alternatives, consumers can make informed decisions about whether to switch to hydrogen-based products. In addition, this pricing strategy can help to overcome some of the challenges of pricing low-carbon hydrogen, such as the difficulty of quantifying the value of GHG emissions reductions from perspective of Hydrogen alone. By using the prices of existing commodities as a reference point (assuming in case of grey ammonia and natural gas that external costs of compliance to carbon pricing or tax would be added), hydrogen producers and buyers can set a fair price for their product without relying solely on subjective assessments of its value or cost.
What do you think – which pricing strategy aligns most to lessons of Bruce Henderson from many decades ago?
Senior Director Project Delivery, Worley Green Hydrogen Center of Excellence
10moThank you Erik for sharing.....
Energy Sector Expert - Consultant, Speaker/Presenter, #Energy2-X #PoweringTheNextGeneration, Community "Showcase Project" Energy Developments (any Scale) + Tree planter/grower (+500y plan), +Woodfordia Inc member
10moAligning hydrogen pricing with a Gas/Oil netback (indicative LNG pirce) + a range of carbon uplift prices - the current hydrogen pricing will need a carbon price of +A$700/t-CO2e. Therefore, green electricity will be efficiently re-directed to other carbon displacement opportunities, including hydrogen displacement before the smaller scale market of green hydrogen production is economic.
Partner at 3PT - Experts in Public Transport
10moHi Eric, I tend to say that Strategy 1 seems what your customer is willing to pay at max. Strategy 2 is the bottom of the bandwidth and 4 the max. Number 3 depends if the exporting country can use all h2 by itself.
Energy markets and economics, corporate finance, decarbonization
10moIt's very simple, willingness and above all ability to pay for this fungible commodity is determined by the abatement or costs carbon penalties avoided and the opportunity cost of the carbon intensive commodity it displaces fully or partially. If the underlying economic cost sits materially above that willingness or ability to pay there's nothing to be done, as the problem is already solved : you simply don't have a low carbon alternate to what you are trying to displace. Subsidies only murk the waters and make reaching that conclusion harder but due to real world budgetary and political constraints will simply not be large enough to close the real world gap which is mostly unadressable due to thermodynamics and physical constraints. May 2024 be the year this hydrogen hype bubble bursts!
Innovation in the energy sector | Hydrogen and renewable gases | Blockchain in energy intrapreneur | EnerDAO | Co-author of "Touching Hydrogen Future"
10moIt would be a challenge to describe the learning curve approach to your lenders, even if you have a plan of gradually increasing capacity with each next instalation of larger scale, with less unit costs and presumably cheaper equipment. It would also be a challenge to direct newly built RES to the electrolyzer when power market prices are high. That would need to be a managerial decision for not earning the margin one could earn with the same capital invested to keep the electeolyzer load hours high. As for the alternatives. While there is access to cheap grey resource, or the carbon tax is lower than the premium consumers pay for renewale alternatives, unfortunately the consumer will choose cheaper options.