|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
192775
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While heat pumps are a promising solution for decarbonizing residential buildings, financial barriers often hinder their diffusion. Asset leasing – whereby service providers lease equipment and provide services in exchange for monthly payments – could help overcome some of the barriers to adoption. This study investigates homeowners' preferences for heat-pump leasing, examines their inclination to lease or purchase, and quantifies their willingness to pay for different services. Empirical insights are drawn from a discrete choice experiment conducted with 915 single-family house owners who undertook 9150 hypothetical leasing decisions in France, Germany, and Switzerland. Survey results show an interest in flexible, all-inclusive leasing offerings, especially in markets where heat pumps are at an early stage of diffusion. However, preferences for asset leasing differ between countries. German house owners are the most open to leasing and would on average be willing to pay up to three times more than their French counterparts to shield themselves against technical risk. Given the role asset leasing could play in decarbonizing residential heat and enhancing energy security, policy makers may wish to adapt policy incentives to account for these service-based offerings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
183628
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Renewable energy (RE) auctions were partly introduced to lower the cost of policy support. However, policymakers are increasingly aware that effective policies require a broader set of objectives that include securing actor diversity and social acceptance. While several countries have introduced measures to incentivize citizen participation in RE projects to meet those objectives, little is known about their effect on the risk perceptions of developers in auction settings. Based on insights from 559 experimental choices made by 61 European project developers, this study investigates risk-return preferences for different onshore wind energy auction designs. We show that developers are willing to accept the requirement to submit bid bonds up to a certain threshold, and that a 36-month realisation period is preferred overall. While developers may be open to citizen co-investment, the risk premiums they require increase with the share of capital offered to local residents in auction settings, highlighting an apparent trade-off between promoting actor diversity and low-cost RE deployment. Policymakers unwilling to compensate developers for the price of increasing actor diversity may have to find other ways to promote citizen participation in order to achieve RE objectives, as this factor may have important implications for the acceptance of RE deployment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
183627
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Achieving climate-neutrality requires considerable investment in energy storage systems (ESS) to integrate variable renewable energy sources into the grid. However, investments into ESS are often unprofitable, in particular for grid-scale battery storage and green hydrogen technologies, prompting many actors to call for policy intervention. This study investigates investor-specific risk-return preferences for ESS investment and derives policy recommendations. Insights are drawn from 1,605 experimental investment-related decisions obtained from 42 high-level institutional investors and utility representatives. Results reveal that both investor groups view revenue stacking as key to making ESS investment viable. While the expected return on investment is the most important project characteristic, risk-return preferences for other features diverge between groups. Institutional investors appear more open to exploring new technological ventures (20% of utility respondents would not consider making investments into solar photovoltaic-hydrogen), whereas utilities seem to prefer greenfield projects (23% of surveyed institutional investors rejected such projects). Interestingly, both groups show strong aversion towards energy market price risk. Institutional investors require a premium of 6.87 percentage points and utilities 5.54 percentage points for moving from a position of fully hedged against market price risk to a scenario where only 20% of revenue is fixed, underlining the need for policy support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|