Transition risk - element of climate risk

Climate risk impacts the power sector, especially the transition to a climate neutral economy, which influences negatively the value of power companies’ assets, and radical weather phenomena. Climate risk influences the economic conditions of power companies also through green finance – for example, insurance and re-insurance of companies, banks, pension funds. The severity of extreme conditions, resulting from advancing climate change, has a specific financial dimension for the power sector. In order to limit climate change, OECD countries should eliminate GHG emissions by 2035, and the rest of the world by 2040. The analysis of current RES growth rates also indicates that fossil fuels should be squeezed out of the power system by 2030. Hence, power companies face the challenge of adjusting their core activities to new market conditions that reduce the profitability of the traditional power sector. The maturation of RES technologies, and the related reduction of investment costs, affects the situation on the power market, changing the competitiveness of particular production technologies. Existing patterns of executing the operational activities of power companies become useless. For example, a wind farm, when investment costs are reduced, becomes more competitive than traditional fossil fuels-based power production, and can also obtain additional “green” support. The market price of electricity is the same, and the variable cost of production in a wind farm is assumed to be zero[1]. That is why climate change creates strategic risk for power companies, which must define the future structure of their production assets, and allocate funds for investments in generation assets as well as the power grid. In this way, the climate risk issue finds a new perspective reflected in the decisions of power companies concerning the shape of their core activities. They must consider the profitability of various options for RESs’ development, and low-emission power generation, in a constantly changing environment (the so-called 3P approach - Planet, Profit, People) and the impact it has on the efficiency of the operations of power companies. Therefore, the issue arises of determining the optimal model of the core activities of power companies by 2050. Such time perspective creates the risk of faulty investment decisions. Assets in the power sector are characterized by a very long period of operation (up to 30 years) while changes in available technologies are already under way and the maturity of RES, facilitated by investments in RES, has contributed to the reduction of their costs. This creates a need to design an effective strategy ensuring the maintenance of the profitability of operational activities of power companies in the new conditions of the power sector.

The power sector is notably exposed to the impact of climate change policies that affects the long-term operational activity of power companies, identifying the high risk of stranded assets in their balance sheets. The term “stranded assets” describes assets that face a high risk of having to be discarded earlier than planned. Stranded assets can lead to a reduction of the overall value of power companies, as a result of having to write off the value of assets related to the use of fossil fuels. Another result of such a situation may be identified as a sudden deterioration of financial ratings and an increased cost of debt. Therefore, it can be argued that there is currently a major risk to the business scenarios facing the power sector. It can already be stated that the current trends are not adequate for the period covered by this risk. This means a fundamental change must take place in the conditions for the functioning of power companies that must determine the path to achieve climate neutrality. Each of their investment decisions covers a period of at least a dozen (to several dozen) years of capital involvement. This makes them exposed to high strategic risk, which results from climate risk and revolutionary technological changes, increasing the importance for the power market of RES and power storage. As a result, finance institutions take a negative outlook on funding fossil-based investments and operations. Delaying the adaptation process to the new operating conditions of the power industry generates additional costs, and will be accelerated by technological innovations, reducing the costs of implementing zero-emission technologies.

Climate risk influences also customer expectations towards power companies with respect to: de-carbonization of the economy, reduced usage of products with high carbon footprints, electrification of transportation, and electrification of heating. The power sector must thus have the potential to use renewable energy to power transport, industry and heating, as well as hydrogen production. This means defining new ways of meeting customer needs as a response to climate risk. It increases strategic risk, the manifestation of which is particularly severe for power companies. The changes affecting their operating activities arise outside the power sector and destroy the previous status quo. Younger managers, computer scientists and entrepreneurs strive to transition the power industry into climate-friendly power supplies. Rigid and immobile, old-fashioned, concern-based power companies should shift towards a start-up culture. This approach becomes standard for all power market participants. Market dynamics shall be identified as an opportunity for profitability increases, and reflected in the change of the core activities of power companies. Ignoring climate risk can lead to losses resulting from incorrect long-term business planning. While green transition accelerates, responding and adjusting to fundamental changes in the business environment becomes increasingly important. The exit of companies from coal-based power production makes them more resistant to transition risk. Power companies must consider the development of smart solutions, as an instrument of reacting to such risk, which also support better customer connectivity. The long-term changes of core activities of power companies shall cover: initiatives developing prosumers, green electric mobility, using electricity to meet energy demands, green heating using RES, and an electrification of industrial processes. The next important area is the development of products of demand-side management and demand flexibility, offered to households as well as industry. These developments are the basis for new directions of capital investments. Climate risk management, and the use of new opportunities, becomes an instrument protecting the future success of existing power companies. This situation has direct impact on their strategic decisions concerning asset development (making assets greener), and reflected in their operations. Power companies responded to this challenge, deciding to cut GHG emissions or even to develop carbon-neutral production, supported by investments in power storage, pumped-storage plants, new types of nuclear power plants, and green hydrogen. Some power companies decided even to turn carbon-neutral already by 2025, requiring the same from their suppliers, demanding a carbon footprint minimalization schedule.

[1] The largest greenhouse gas emitters in Europe are the following power companies: RWE, EPH, Uniper, Steag, CEZ, Bulgarian Energy Holding, Endesa, ZE PAK, PGE, Enea.

Relevance of physical risk for long-term changes of operational activities of power companies

Power companies unable to flexibly adjust their operational activities will not survive. In order to survive in the volatile environment of climate risk, it is crucial to be able to adapt to the radically changing business environment and market conditions. This is, however, always connected to the spending of funds. Power companies should ensure constant inflow of funds exceeding the costs of the manifestation of climate risk, and divest current strategic resources that don’t guarantee future profitability. They must also adapt to the new needs of customers following green transition developments, and increase their business complexity in order to secure future profitability. Management facing climate risk should be future-oriented, focusing the attention of top level managers on the main areas and main factors relevant to profit generation, and on the criteria for the assessment of their company's success. Climate risk changes the conditions for success of power companies making it risky to continue to pursue pre-existing business models. Hence, climate risk arising in the globalized green business environment cannot be ignored during the development of strategic changes of core activities of power companies, which have to be aligned to long-term trends of the world economy developing towards climate neutrality. Global climate risk disrupts many current strategies. A correct climate risk analysis becomes crucial for the success of business strategies, because it is the basis for creating variants of the decision to change operational activities to secure the highest possible rate of return on investments in the context of specific risk. It requires a radical change of the operational activities of power companies, in order to implement effective tools facilitating future goals, in a business environment characterized by the randomness and discontinuity of market trends. Climate risk becomes a systematic risk for the global economy, because climate change increases macro-economic and investment risks. Climate risk management becomes therefore an important success factor in the power sector. The severity of climate risk increases due to the growing frequency of extreme temperatures, fires, storms or floods[1]. Researches indicate that more than 65% of extreme weather events since 2011 were the result of human activity. Although one can observe a fundamental increase in severe, although not catastrophic, weather events, which are becoming the norm – the sum of small weather events creates high costs of the manifestation of risk. The most important physical risk factors for power companies are wind, fire and water. Physical risk, as the effect of extreme weather dynamics, may also lead to a reduction of the overall value of power companies, following the destruction of technical infrastructure and damage to real estate in exposed areas. Heatwaves increase the demand for electricity in the summer and, at the same time, they reduce the cooling capacity of power plants and water supplies in hydropower plants. There is also the danger of a reduction of the efficiency of solar power plants, which influences the power market because of changes in the demand-supply balance. Heatwaves can also be the cause of low water levels in rivers used to fuel transportation while higher temperatures reduce the efficiency of power production, due to lower availability of water.

The available production capacity of power plants is reduced and power grids are overloaded, which in turn leads to breakdowns, fires and interruptions in electricity supplies, which additionally leads to losses in the rest of the economy. Fires have not only reduced bio-diversity in many areas, but also bankrupted power companies that had to settle claims following fires related to their operations, which burdened public finances with the costs of extinguishing them. Wind is another physical risk factor. Hurricanes can significantly reduce the production in traditional- as well as wind-power plants. Extreme storms can reduce the supplies and quality of fuel, or damage power infrastructure (power plants, power grid). Floods can damage the transmission and distribution networks as well as power plants. Hence, power companies started to reinforce their infrastructure, treating this type of investment as one of the instruments of climate risk management, constituting the process of selecting and applying methods of mitigating the level of their risk exposure. The instruments of climate risk management should ensure continuity and flexibility of the power companies’ operations in the event of unexpected market events and extreme weather phenomena. Power companies should analyze the costs and impact of different measures on climate risk, and choose the most effective investments based on the relation between investment costs and the reduction of risk specific to existing characteristics of their assets. 

Examples of measures aimed to reduce physical risk include: reinforcement of overhead transmission and distribution lines; installation of flood-proof equipment in power plants and transformer stations; using temperature forecasting systems in rivers; creating cooling systems ensuring the continuity of production in power plants; re-designing wind turbines to handle higher wind speeds and passive airflow beneath mounting structures to reduce solar power temperatures; as well as a generally more robust design of power systems. There can be a necessity to consider a relocation of assets if net climate risk exposure (after risk reaction) is unacceptable. The costs of such activities can range from USD 100 million (strengthening overhead transmission lines) to even USD 1 billion (protecting power plants against flooding). The necessity to finance the investment activities of the power sector means that the risk affecting the functioning of individual power companies becomes also an element of risk of investments and credit portfolios of financial institutions.

[1] The Florida governor announced in 2019 that the state would have to spend $ 2.5 billion over a 4-year period to be protected from climate risk, including rising water levels. 

Climate risk and global unpredictability and volatility / power companies

Power companies operate in a global economy that exposes them to a continuously changing business environment of green transition, which not only concerns the company, but also affects the activities of other entities. Hence, each company is exposed to climate change and to the measures taken as part of wider climate policies, which cumulatively aim to reach global climate neutrality. The impact of climate risk in an increasingly global economy becomes critical to the structure of the core activities of power companies, which face progressing complexity and instability of markets. The fundamental management challenge here is to adapt to the new conditions of operational activities that are shaped by an increasing effort to achieve carbon neutrality. This will require power companies to adjust to the new circumstances present in the business environment, in order to flexibly react in new situations characterized by increasing discontinuity and absolute uncertainty.

The concept of “management” should be defined as the activities of company managers that aim to take informed decisions to execute business plans that use company resources in order to achieve the organization's goals. Hence, the importance of a proper change in operations’ management in power companies, that face climate risk, is imperative for securing an undisturbed, continuous increase of future company profits. These developments should enable a conscious and effective steering of the impact of climate risk on the functioning of power companies. Disregarding climate risk may lead to faulty business decision-making when it comes to contracts, loss of market opportunities, and the failure to hedge against significant deviations of the power companies’ operational activities. The main task of company management is thus to strive to take properly reasoned decisions when the company is at risk in the highly volatile business environment of green transition. Managers cannot accurately predict the future shaped by climate risk, which should be dealt with mostly by changing the operational activity of power companies. It requires the development of new competences supporting the implementation of new elements to operational management.

The concept of “risk” shall be perceived as a potential deviation from the expected values, and is associated with the possibility of not achieving the intended results or a deviation from their predicted value. Hence, it creates both negative consequences and opportunities for extra profits. The same applies to “climate risk” that can generate opportunities for the creation of new profit streams, but also high costs of climate risk actually materializing. Climate risk consists of two elements:

1) Transition risk that influences power companies due to changes in the business and regulatory environments towards a climate neutral economy. Transition risk influences the situation on the power market, making some of pre-existing business models unprofitable. However, it also creates opportunities for efficient risk management that supports the formation of new possibilities for generating profits

2) Physical risk that results from the undesirable influence of unpredictable weather conditions on fixed assets and on the operations of power companies. Physical risk covers following factors:

• extreme weather phenomena – heatwaves, landslides, floods, wildfires, storms;
• long-term gradual shifts of the climate – changes in precipitation, unfavourable weather variability, rising average temperatures;
• indirect effects of climate change.

This creates the necessity to hedge profits of power companies against physical factors such as wind, temperature, flood or drought. Physical risk also causes price movements in the commodity and financial markets.

Climate risk is increasingly important in the world of global unpredictability and volatility caused by climate change and green transition. The manifestation of climate risk, often triggered by global processes or local weather events, may result in many power companies going out of business. However, the occurrence of risk may become an opportunity for power companies that are properly prepared to develop and expand their business. The proper execution of a change of the core activities of power companies should facilitate the use of the opportunities of climate change to their benefit. Such change, can provide a sustainable improvement of economic results under conditions where climate risk actually materializes, and where the global green revolution is characterized by high economic risk. Well prepared power companies will be able to take advantage of these opportunities. Climate risk varies in terms of geographic factors, sectors of the economy, and regulatory and legal conditions. Power companies are exposed to climate risk resulting from: increasing severity and frequency of physical risk factors, changes in government policies, technological developments, and changes in the sentiment of societies seeking to reduce GHG emission. Physical risk factors are not linear and increase uncertainty as to the location, frequency and severity of weather conditions.

Transition risk creates uncertainty concerning future developments of climate policies, power sector regulation, technology innovations, and changes in customer sentiment towards de-carbonization. Green transition exposes power companies to potential disruptions, which can be very abrupt, especially if they are not prepared for them in advance. One of the most important factors of transition risk is technological change related to energy-saving, carbon neutral power production and to climate neutral economy. It requires a withdrawal of business models based on technologies using fossil fuel-based energy sources, which might very well become more expensive in the future as a result of climate protection measures. Climate-friendly technological development complies with the sentiment of the society to move towards climate-friendly production and consumption models. This creates a need for power companies to adapt to new conditions, in order to minimize the negative impact of climate risk and to remain competitive. Power companies are exposed to increasing legal and regulatory changes. Green transition generates transition risk, and should be analyzed from the perspective of the discontinuation of expected development trends, and deviations from planned scenarios. Hence, the management of power companies, when taking any decision concerning changes in their operational activities, should always be aware of the possibility of the occurrence of unexpected results, because transition risk creates uncertainty of the conditions in which power companies will operate. Transition risk should be treated as a very broad concept, without excluding any risk factors, even those that are considered to affect the economic results of power companies indirectly.

The concept of physical risk should define the consequences of incidents in the natural world that may lead to unexpected fluctuations in the results of the functioning of power companies. It can even cause disturbances with respect to the continuity of their operational activities – having a negative impact on power production, the power grid, and causing undesirable price movements. Hence, physical risk shall be perceived very broadly, without excluding any risk factors, even considered to be indirectly influencing power companies. Therefore, physical climate risk should be defined as the consequences of events that may lead to unexpected disturbances in the execution of the plans of power companies, resulting both from the impact of the extreme dynamics of natural factors, and from changes in the global economy related to green transition.

Global impact of climate risk on the power sector

Meeting global climate goals and achieving climate neutrality requires a fundamental transformation of the global economy and a fundamental change of the way of power production and consumption. Power is essential for the functioning of modern economies, but at the same time, greenhouse gases (hereinafter: GHG) emissions resulting from energy production are by far the largest contributor to global warming. The target of green transition is the de-coupling of global economic growth from GHG emissions. Green transition means a change not only for the real economy, but also for the power sector, exposing power companies to certain risks as well as opportunities, as they are forced to adapt to the new reality. Green transition impacts the power market, which is shifting away from fossil-fuel dominated system and towards renewable energy sources (RES) and carbon-free solutions. These changes pose a huge challenge for power companies, as well as for society, creating an opportunity for new entrants to enter the power sector that become a catalyst in this context. Green transition requires high levels of de-carbonization and electrification of the economy, backed by green fuels, in areas that are difficult to electrify. It creates a high degree of operational complexity, which must be solved by adjustments of the core activities of power companies preparing them for the new challenges generated by technological change, climate-focusing revolution, climate risk, new market participants and societal expectations.

Climate risk in the power sector shall be defined as the impact as well as economic and financial consequences of risk that may arise from climate change or from the efforts to mitigate climate change. The response to climate risk is the de-carbonization of the value chain and “greening” the core activities of power companies. Green transition increases risk in areas of regulatory and market pressure, forcing changes in market strategy or operational techniques. It generates also opportunities for well-prepared organizations that can emerge in the area of changing power production methods (mainly clean technologies, aiming to reduce GHG emissions), a digital revolution on the power market, digitalization of operations, or new elements of the financial market. There is a crucial need to strike a proper balance of the short-term risk of inappropriate activities influencing economies, with the long-term risk of insufficient or overdue actions, preventing the catastrophic economic and social impacts of climate change. Taking this approach into account is essential to the success of both, particular industries and power companies. That is why progressing climate change, and intensive human activity directed at mitigating its effects, has made environmental protection and the need to transform the economy a priority[1]. The de-carbonization of the economy is at the starting point, but one can observe even today the basic shift in the power production mix towards RES, securing the increase of green power utilization by industry and by society.

Power is an essential reaction to climate risk. The use of green power produced by RES supports the creation of a de-carbonized, sustainable energy framework – growing contribution of clean energy sources alongside improvements of energy efficiency. Electricity demand is expected to triple by 2050, due to the electrification of the economy and the increased use of hydrogen produced from green energy (green hydrogen). The development of new, climate neutral power production techniques is essential to ensure the necessary reduction of investments in fossil fuel-based assets in the power sector. The development of new climate neutral technologies is necessary in this context, as well as ensuring competition in supply chains, support for R&D, and instruments financing required investments. RES shall be developed by increasing the capacity of wind and solar farms – it should hold an approximately 90% share in the production of electricity by 2050.

These trends will generate a significant reduction of the use of fossil fuels in the power sector in particular, and in other industries in general. Power companies face a transformation of their business environment, a significant change in competition, and new expectations and needs of customers aiming to de-carbonize their activities. Competition is increased by technological revolution. It is necessary to point out the constant change in the profitability of various power sources, and the uncertainty as to their future profitability (especially return on capital). The need to reduce the usage of fossil fuels will create the risk of demand reduction for fossil fuels-based power, and the deterioration of the competitiveness of the traditional (pre-existing) power industry. However, power companies strive to reduce the emission of GHG per MWh produced, a fact that gives, globally a competitive advantage to RES. Furthermore, RES is usually characterized by a zero marginal production cost – on the wholesale market, RES are immediately more competitive than fossil fuel-based power plants. As a result, many power plants were decommissioned globally in recent years. On the other hand, this situation creates an opportunity for the managers of energy storage systems (batteries, pumped storage power plants, etc.), as the high volatility of prices makes it possible to maximise options provided by such installation. Hence, the pre-existing power industry invests both in RES and systems of a flexible energy supply management. Thus, a paradox arises whereby green transition can be accelerated by traditional power companies as they become “greener” in order to defend their pre-existing market shares and future profitability. The entire system of power production and consumption will have to be transformed in the decades ahead – from fossil fuels to RES – in order to ensure a sustainable future. Hence, power companies have to re-design their core activities in order to secure their future profitability. These changes must involve, at least:

• the available portfolio of products and services that support customers’ needs towards minimizing their carbon footprint and green electrification of production processes, heating and transportation;
• a radical change of production technologies towards a carbon-neutral production portfolio;
• the surplus of renewable production, which needs to be also used by heating systems and green hydrogen production;
• wind, solar, bio-mass and waste surpassing fossil fuels as energy sources;
• rethinking the role of old carbon-neutral technologies in the portfolio of power companies, that is, nuclear, geo-thermal, hydro power; storage of green power and electricity production, based on green hydrogen, operating as peak power producers replacing gas power plants;
• innovation in power trading on customers’ behalf backed by the usage of power storage, connecting the RES production with power storage systems, and the formation of virtual power plants (trading, ancillary services);
• making the power grid ready to accommodate intermittent sources of power from wind, solar, and offshore farms;
• replacing gas power plants by power storage systems as well as demand side management solutions;
• power generation having to be increasingly spread among many suppliers, from large, centralized power plants to individual “prosumers” (consumers that are also producers) making it necessary for the power grid to be ready for bi-directional power transmission – based on the optimization of power supply supported by the digitalization of operations;
• radical digitalization of operations in areas where it creates added value;
• power companies, used to operate in markets characterized by predictable and inflexible demand, needing to adapt to changing demand patterns with respect to the use of RES, electric vehicles, power storage systems and, for example, heat pumps;
• new elements of power systems offering some flexibility in demand-side management – for example, electric vehicle can be treated as elements of power storage systems (vehicle-to-grid).

[1] Climate change shall be perceived as a change in climate over time due to human activity and natural variability. It impacts natural and human systems.

A global phenomenon, climate change

As a global phenomenon, climate change has a significant impact on the economy. High temperatures, or the change in the structure of precipitation, affect not only agriculture and fisheries, but also other industries, such as energy, tourism, construction and financial institutions. The effects of the manifestation of climate risk are already being identified, although it is the distant future that is usually indicated as the period of the impact of climate change on the economy. The severity of that manifestation causes serious financial losses that amount to billions of USD each year. Hence, there is a growing interest concerning the economic side of climate change, not only from climatologists, but also from companies surprised by unprecedented disasters and regulatory changes. Increasing climate risk exposure, resulting from advancing climate change, creates also a significant challenge for the future structure of the core activities of power companies. To stop climate change, OECD countries should eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, the rest of the world should follow by 2040. Climate risk fundamentally affects all aspects of the power sector, starting with power production and consumption, to transmission and distribution. Hence, power companies introducing “climate risk reaction instruments” should change their energy mix, moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources (hereinafter: RES), green hydrogen and power storage. They must support energy efficiency of customers and flexible demand-side management. It is also necessary to adapt power grids to the new requirements of bi-directional electricity transmission, serving numerous input sources that produce electricity. The change of the core activities of power companies must meet the goals of green transformation, that is, the process of creating such an economic system that operates in a manner friendly to the natural environment, ensuring its sustainable development, thanks to the development of production methods based on energy efficiency and zero-emission technologies.

Dotkliwość ryzyka - case study dla przedsiębiorstwa transportowego

Uszkodzenie kontenera – przypadek ten oddaje skalę ryzyka z jakim przedsiębiorstwo może się zderzać. Roszczenie w wysokości 600 000 €, jest prawie trzykrotnością wyniku operacyjnego firmy. W związku z powyższym, jego skuteczne dochodzenie przez roszczącego mogłoby doprowadzić do bankructwa. Jednakże, z uwagi na sprzyjające okoliczności przedsiębiorstwo poniosło bezpośrednie starty tylko w wysokości:

• 3000 zł związane z obsługą prawną
• przestoju pojazdu na miejscu rozładunku (1 dzień) do momentu spisania protokołu z wszelkimi uwagami itd.

Oraz straty pośrednie wynikające z nadmiernej ostrożności spedytorów wynikającej ze skali zagrożenia.

Dotkliwość ryzyka - case study dla przedsiębiorstwa transportowego

Kontrola pojazdu w Szwajcarii – przykład ten obrazuje jak pozornie niemające nic ze sobą wspólnego ryzyka – realizują się w wyniku inicjacji jednego z nich. Prawdopodobnie, gdyby nie przeważnie osi, nie doszłoby do diagnostyki pojazdu, która okazała się najbardziej dotkliwa dla przedsiębiorstwa. Sytuacja ta wygenerowała następujące bezpośrednie straty:

• 6000 zł za części zamienne oraz koszty wymiany
• przestój pojazdu przez cztery dni

Natomiast straty pośrednie były w postaci:

• potencjalnie utraconych szans z powodu braku nowych relacji handlowych wpływających na rozpoznawalność i wizerunek firmy wywołanych (nie)aktywnością pojazdu przez 4 dni
• mimowolnego zaangażowania pracowników w proces analizowania i wyjaśniania sytuacji, co zdecydowanie obniżyło ich tymczasową produktywność, co mogło się przełożyć np. w przypadku spedytorów na niższa skuteczność pozyskiwania zleceń.

Ryzyko w przedsiębiorstwie transportowym - ryzyko personelu

Kierowca z załadowaną naczepą towaru, w trakcie przerwy podczas weekendu na parkingu, po spożyciu alkoholu wypadł z kabiny – upadając na głowę. Został zabrany przez pogotowie do szpitala, jednocześnie zostawiając samochód na parkingu bez opieki. Ponadto, z uwagi na to, iż kierowca był nieprzytomny przez kilka dni, a szpital zarejestrował jego dane odwrotnie (nazwisko imię), nie było sposobności ustalenia co się właściwie wydarzyło. Samochód był widoczny na parkingu poprzez GPS, więc zdecydowano zorganizować zewnętrznego przewoźnika do „pilnowania” pojazdu (do momentu „namierzenia” kierowcy), koszt 300 €. Po dwóch dniach kierowca został zlokalizowany w szpitalu, jednak musiał pozostać pod obserwacją jeszcze kilka dni. Zatem zdecydowano wysłać zastępczego kierowcę z Polski w celu odebrania samochodu i dostarczenia załadowanego towaru. Jednak po dostarczeniu towaru, z uwagi na swoją niedyspozycyjność kierowca musiał pilnie wracać do Polski, w związku z tym ładunek powrotny z uwagi na ograniczony czas i deficytowy region został wzięty za 50% stawki (2.000 km). Ponadto, za kilkudniowe opóźnienie dostawy klient naliczył karę umowną w wysokości stawki frachtu (1.200 €). Koszty pilnowania pojazdu oraz zastępczego kierowcy zostały scedowane na kierowcę, jednak pozostałe zostały poniesione przez przedsiębiorstwo.

Ryzyko w przedsiębiorstwie transportowym - kontrola przeważonego samochodu

Kontrola przeważonego samochodu. Spedytor podjął zlecenie przewozu 7 palet 1.500kg w relacji Belgia – Francja, samochodem o dopuszczalnej ładowności 1300kg. Warunkiem koniecznym zlecenia, było dostawa towaru następnego dnia do godz. 12.00. Tuż przed przybyciem na miejsce rozładunku (60km), około godz. 8.30 kierowca zgłosił kontrolę policji. Okazało się, że celem kontroli jest pomiar masy całkowitej pojazdu, po wykonaniu pomiaru, stwierdzono przeważenie o 200 kg. Został nałożony mandat w wysokości 250 €, a kontynuowanie przewozu było możliwe tylko po przeładunku „nadwyżki” towaru. W związku z tym, spedytor zorganizował samochód zastępczy, (koszt 200 €), została przeładowana 1 paleta, po czym obydwa samochody ruszyły w miejsce przeznaczenia. Dostawa miała miejsce o godz. 15.00. W związku z nie wywiązaniem się z terminu dostawy, klient wystawił notę obciążeniowa na pełną kwotę frachtu (550 €).

Ryzyko w przedsiębiorstwie transportowym - uszkodzenie kontenera

Uszkodzenie kontenera. Przedsiębiorstwo otrzymało zlecenie na realizacje przewozu w relacji: lotnisko Frankfurt nad Menem – PZL Mielec. Kierowca stawił się pod wskazany magazyn, następnie został załadowany kontener zawierający części do produkcji samolotów. Po umiejscowieniu i zabezpieczeniu kontenera na samochodzie, zostały zainstalowane czujniki wstrząsów. Po dotarciu na miejsce rozładunku, okazało się, że kontener na jednej ze ścian ma dziurę wybitą najprawdopodobniej przy użyciu wózka widłowego, jednocześnie czujniki wstrząsów nie zostały aktywowane, co jednoznacznie świadczyło o uszkodzeniu kontenera przed załadunkiem. Mimo wszystko, skutkowało to reklamacją klienta, i groźbą roszczenia o wartości 600.000 $ (równowartość wartości towaru) - do obowiązków kierowcy należy sprawdzenia jakości ładowanego towaru, brak jego uwag w liście przewozowym. Finalnie reklamacja została wycofana, jednocześnie poprzedzało to kilkanaście pism odwoławczych oraz koszty obsługi prawnej 3.000 zł.