|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
125553
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the share of renewable energies within the electricity sector rising, improving their market and system integration is of increasing importance. By offering plant operators a premium on top of the electricity market price, premium schemes represent an option to increase the alignment of renewable electricity production with market signals, and have been implemented by several EU member states. This paper examines the case study of the German market premium scheme adopted in 2012. Building on an evaluation of early experiences, we discuss whether the market premium contributes to the aims of market and/or system integration (effectiveness), and what potential efficiency gains and additional costs of "administering integration" are associated with it (efficiency). While exposing renewables to price risks is not the scheme's purpose, it has successfully increased participation in direct marketing. However, risks of overcompensating producers for marketing and balancing costs are high, and the benefits of gradually leading plant operators towards the market are questionable. Incentives for demand-oriented production are established, but they seem insufficient particularly in the case of intermittent renewable energy sources. To conclude, we provide an outlook on alternative designs of premium schemes, and discuss whether they seem better suited for addressing the challenges ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126823
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper, we analyze the rationale for an energy policy mix when the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is considered from a public choice perspective. That is, we argue that the economic textbook model of the ETS implausibly assumes (1) efficient policy design and (2) climate protection as the single objective of policy intervention. Contrary to these assumptions, we propose that the ETS originates from a political bargaining game within a context of multiple policy objectives. In particular, the emissions cap is negotiated between regulators and emitters with the emitters' abatement costs as crucial bargaining variable. This public choice view yields striking implications for an optimal policy mix comprising RES supporting policies. Whereas the textbook model implies that the ETS alone provides sufficient climate protection, our analysis suggests that support for renewable energies (1) contributes to a more effective ETS-design and (2) may even increase the overall efficiency of climate and energy policy if other externalities and policy objectives besides climate protection are considered. Thus, our analysis also shows that a public choice view not necessarily entails negative evaluations concerning efficiency and effectiveness of a policy mix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
117272
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In virtually all EU Member States, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is complemented by support schemes for electricity generation from renewable energy sources (RES-E). This policy mix has been subject to strong criticism. It is mainly argued that RES-E schemes contribute nothing to emissions reduction and undermine the cost-effectiveness of the EU ETS. Consequently, many scholars suggest the abolition of RES-E schemes. However, this conclusion rests on quite narrow and unrealistic assumptions about the design and performance of markets and policies. This article provides a systematic and comprehensive review and discussion of possible rationales for combining the EU ETS with RES-E support schemes. The first and most important reason may be restrictions to technology development and adoption. These may be attributed to the failure of markets as well as policies, and more generally to the path dependency in socio-technical systems. Under these conditions, RES-E schemes are required to reach sufficient levels of technology development. In addition, it is highlighted that in contrast to the EU ETS RES-E support schemes may provide benefits beyond mitigating climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|