Renewable Energy policies in the EU Member States - Indicators assessing market status, policy effectiveness & efficiency
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Renewable Energy policies in the EU
Member States
Indicators assessing market status, policy effectiveness &
efficiency
Mario Ragwitz, Fraunhofer ISI
Max Rathmann, ECOFYS
0Main support policies for RES electricity
Feed-in tariffs
Feed-in premiums
Quota obligations with tradable green certificates
Loan guarantees
Soft loans
Investment grants
Tax incentives
Tendering schemes
Also very relevant:
Permitting procedures
Grid access & operation
Power market design & structure
R&D, industrial policy
1Key features FIT, FIP & Quota
TGC revenues
RES-support
Market price
FIT FIP Quota
fixed premium - cap & floor - sliding/Cfd
Fixed feed-in tariff (FIT) Quota
Gov fixes price, market decides quantity Gov fixes quantity, market decides price
Fixed tariff (€/MWh) Obligation for suppliers:
Guaranteed during lifetime or x years Minimum RES-E share
Purchase obligation Increasing over time
(Grid (access & use) priority) Penalty
Tradable certificates for RES-E production
(‘market’ price)
Feed-in premium (FIP)
Obligation is met by submission of certificates to
Fixed premium (€/MWh) competent authority
Guaranteed during lifetime or x years Power sold on conventional markets
Power sold on conventional markets
2Main RES-E support instruments in the EU-27
Quo ta obligatio n
Feed -in tariff
Feed -in premium
Oth er instrumen ts t han th e above
N otes:
1 ) The patt ern ed colours repres ent a c ombin ation of ins tru ments
2 ) Inves tment s grants , tax exempt ions and fis cal incen tives
are not inc luded in th is pictu re.
Source:
RE-SHAPING 2010 Finland
Sweden Estonia
L atvia
Denmark
Li th uania
Ireland
United Neth erlan ds
King dom Poland
Germ an y
Belgium
Czech
Luxembo urg Repub lic Slo vakia
Austr ia Hungary
F ran ce Ro mania
Slo venia
Bulgaria
Por tu gal Italy
Spain Cyprus
Greece
3
Malta97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
All RES-E
AT technologies
Feed-in tarif f
Main support
All RES-E
BE technologies
v Quota / TGC
All RES-E
BG technologies Tender
CY
All RES-E
technologies
v
v
Tax incentives /
Investment grants
instrument RES-E
& policy changes
All RES-E
CZ technologies Change of the
v
All RES-E system
DK technologies
EE
All RES-E
technologies
v
v
Adaptation of the
system
1997-2010
All RES-E
FI technologies
Wind
v v
FR Bioenergy
v v v v
PV v
v
All RES-E
DE technologies
All RES-E
HU technologies v
All RES-E
GR technologies
All RES-E
IE technologies v
Wind
IT Bioenergy v
PV v
v v
All RES-E
LT technologies v
All RES-E
LU technologies
Wind
LV Other RES-E
technologies
Wind
MT Bioenergy v
PV
All RES-E
v
NL technologies v v v
All RES-E
PL technologies v
All RES-E
PT v v
technologies
All RES-E
RO technologies v
All RES-E
ES technologies
All RES-E
SE technologies v
All RES-E
SI technologies v
All RES-E
SK technologies v
All 4
RES-E
UK technologies
vMain support policies for RES heat
Investment grants
Tax exemptions and
other fiscal incentives
Use obligations
5Overview of indicator set
Policy Policy effectiveness indicator
Ex-post evaluation of
performance Support level vs generation policy performance
indicators cost
Profit range (efficiency)
Market Deployment status indicator Framework conditions
status for RE policy (RET
indicators Electricity market
market maturity,
preparedness indicator
electricity market)
Used (e.g. by EC) since 2005 and constantly improved, updated, extended.
6Deployment Status Indicator
A rough characterisation of the status of 14 technologies in 27 Member States
For differentiation in policy performance analysis
Three sub-indicators expressing different aspects of
RET deployment status
Deployment Status Production as Production as Installed
Typical characteristics % of sector % of 2030 capacity
consumption potential >100MW
Advanced Shows relevancy
Established players, fully mature & visibility on
technology, growth may slow down. energy market
Intermediate Higher share Passing
Higher share indicates that minimum
Increasing market, strong growth. indicates that low-end threshold
Growth related barriers (e.g. low-end barriers barriers have indicates that
infrastructural and supply chain). have been been market players
Some countries stop at this level. overcome; overcome; gained trust &
high-end barriers high-end experience.
Immature may occur (e.g. barriers may Proof that
Small market, few players, low integration occur (e.g. barriers can be
growth. Inexperienced administration electricity competition overcome.
& banks. Low or unreliable support. system) resources)
7Biomass non- Ground source
Wind on- Wind off- Solid Geothermal Biomass grid Geothermal Solarthermal
shore Photovoltaics Biogas electricity grid heat pumps
shore biomass
100
100 SE Other
T MS
SI
SE
A
BG
DK
LT
LV
PT
RO
CZ
EE
FI
FR
PL
DK
FI FI ES GR
ES
DE Deployment status HU
Electricity Heat
Advanced
Advanced
PT
DK
SE SK DE
IE LT
BE
AT
AT IT
BE
67 CY
67
NL SE CY
Deployment Status indicator
DK
Deployment Status Indicator
LV IE
EE
PT
Intermediate
Intermediate
NL HU DE IT
AT AT
NL GR
LU HU
DK GR
DE AT
IT CZ UK
SK RO FI
UK DE
IT UK
33 HUSEBEFREE 33
NL NL DE SI EE MT
IT DK
ES ES SI AT
BE CZ IT BG SK DE, DE
SI, PT, CZ,
BG LT PL PL
LU PT FR PL IT IE DE FR ES, SI
DK, NL, IT,
Immature
CZ
FI UK
BE
IT
FR ES GR CZ AT DK NL ES DK PT CZ
PL FR SK SE, SK,FRFR,
LU PT CZ BE UK PL IT IT
BE SK PL SENL
Immature
NL GRFR PL DE RO
UK IE
BE,
HU IE, PL,
LU RO, UK, HU
IE
NL AT
UK HU
LV SE LU BG
SE HU SI
LV SI FI
LT PT LU
CY SI HU
EE FI BE RO
SI RO LT
RO IE BEDE SK EE LT
FI BGDK
CY
SE LV IE Other MS LT MS
Other LV EE
0
SK
SI
CY
MT BG
SI
RO
SK
AT
CZ
PL
PT MS
LV
IT
LU
LT
FR
HU
GR
ES
EE
MT
CY MT
Other MS
RO
SK
PL
HU
FI
LV
LT
IE
EE BG
LU
GR
CY
MT BG
RO
OtherMT
MS
FR
AT
UK
BG
BE
SK
RO
CZ
NL
PL
SI
SE
LU
IE
LT
HU
FI
GR
ES
DK
EE
CY
MTMS 0
OtherLV
DE BG
ES
IET GR
CY
M
PT
UK Other
SE
EE
LU
ES
FI
FR
GR
CY
DK
LT
LV
M
PT
UK BEMS
IET NL CZ ROGR
SK
PT
LV
LU
ES
BG
CY
MT CZ
Other MS Other Other MS
8
Note:
Note: RET markets where the share of the potential in sector consumption is < 1% are not shown.
Other MS Status in most MS advanced), solarthermal electricity and tideFor
Not shown is hydro (Deployment example
& wave (in in case of biomass non-grid this applies to UK and MT.
2008 Deployment Status in all MS still close to zero).Measuring the effectiveness of RES-E support
1. Relative or absolute growth rates are typically used to
demonstrate the achievements of countries, however both
measures are biased
2. Better measure to judge the performance is the absolute growth
as ratio of the additional potential
i G in − G in − 1
E n = i
ADD − POT n
i
E n Effectiveness indicator for RES technology i for the year n
i
G n Existing electricity generation potential by RES technology i in year n
ADD− POTni Additional generation potential of RES technology i in year n until 2020
9Policy effectiveness - wind onshore
18%
Immature Intermediate Advanced
16%
Average effectiveness indicator 2003 - 2009
14% Effectiveness indicator 2009
Effectiveness indicator
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
SI
LT
AT
SK
BG
BE
EE
SE
ES
CZ
FR
HU
PL
MT
LV
FI
RO
IE
LU
GR
PT
CY
UK
NL
DK
DE
IT
Feed-in tariff Quota / TGC Tender Tax incentives / Investment grants
10Support level ranges - wind onshore
250
System services cost
Minimum to average generation cost [€/MWh]
200 Average to maximum support level [€/MWh]
150
100
50
0
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
11Potential profit ranges - wind onshore
(=cost-effectiveness of policies)
18%
16%
14%
Policy effectiveness indicator 2009
PT
12%
IE
10% HU
DE ES
8% SE
EE IT
6% BE UK
FR
4% NL
LU BG
PL
2% LT GR
AT
FI SK SI MT LV CZ RO CY
0%
-40 -20 0 DK 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-2%
Potential profit range [€/MWh]
12Electricity market preparedness for RES-E market integration
High score necessary but insufficient precondition for successful use of FIP/Quota?
Electricity market preparedness for RES-E market integration
100
High
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
*****Malta
*Luxembourg
Greece
*Cyprus
*Hungary
Sweden
France
*Belgium
*United Kingdom
*Austria
Denmark
Germany
*Latvia
*Estonia
*Slovenia
**Slovakia
Portugal
Spain
Poland
Czech Republic
*Bulgaria
Romania
Netherlands
Italy
Ireland
Finland
Lithuania
Low
Placehoder for missing data points (=10 points as default)
E: Gate closure time
D: Share of electricity traded at exchange (spot)
C: Number of companies with more than 5% share in the national retail market
B: Number of companies with more than 5% share in generation capacity / wholesale market
13 A: Share of TSOs that are ownership unbundledConclusions - General
1. Policy performance is rather heterogeneous depending on RET/MS
2. If support levels are below generation costs, little or no capacity growth
can be observed
3. High support levels compared to generation costs do not in all cases lead
to substantial capacity growth
Growth can be allowed & support levels reduced by reducing barriers,
applying best practice support system design and reducing risk ->
Triple-A policy presentation
4. Markets with a higher deployment status tend to grow faster. However,
examples show that markets can grow quickly without having a long
track-record.
Countries with low deployment status can benefit of other countries’
experiences. Policy effectiveness can be rapidly increased by adopting
best-practice support policy design and organisation of administrative
processes. Can profit from spill-over effects from internationally
available project development expertise and supply chain.
5. Support levels heat sector provide less profit than in electricity sector,
despite the low generation costs of many RES-H technologies. On
average, policy effectiveness in the heat sector is also lower than in the
electricity sector.
Ensure balance between developing higher cost technologies
(progressing on learning curve) and fully utilizing low cost technology
potentials (e.g. heat).
14Conclusions – Heat sector
Reconsider whether observed low profit levels in heat sector need to be
increased
1. RES-H support usually depends on public budget, resulting stop- and go
policies create stronger uncertainty for investors than common in RES-E
Apply off-budget policies, e.g. via surcharge on heat (fuel) cost
2. AT, DK, FI, LV, SE effectively promoted biomass-based centralised
heating. Success factors: Existing district heating networks in Northern
Europe, biomass availability, sufficient heat demand
3. Support for decentralised biomass heating plants is on a higher level than
that of centralised plants
4. BE, CZ, DE, RO most effectively supported decentralised biomass heating
5. Policy effectiveness solar thermal heat rather low (also due to a high
remaining resource potential). AT, GR, CY leading countries
6. Ground-source heat pumps effectively promoted by using obligations in
SE and investment grants and fiscal incentives HU & FI
7. Long reinvestment cycles limit the diffusion rate for the integration of
renewable heating systems that are integrated in buildings
Due to long reinvestment cycles it might be useful to already start
now supporting especially those technologies that are likely needed in
the future energy system. This might refer especially to technologies
that are beneficial for system integration of fluctuating RES-E, like
heat pumps or biomass CHP with heat storage.
15Conclusions – Electricity sector 1/2
1. Most effectively supporting wind onshore: IE, PT, ES, DE
2. Wind offshore just starting in UK, IE, DK, DE
3. Most effectively supporting PV: DE, CZ, IT
4. Most effectively supporting biogas: AT, DE, UK
5. BE, SE, NL, DK, AT, HU, DE and CZ show high policy effectiveness in
Biomass
6. FIT-countries still show highest effectiveness but quota countries are
catching up in particular with regard to low cost RET (e.g. wind onshore in
UK, IT, BE, SE in 2009). In the same period e.g. in the UK quota system
certificate revenue risk has been reduced substantially – from an
investment risk perspective the system is close to a less risky FIP.
7. Remuneration in FIT tends to be lower (higher) for low (high) cost
technologies than under a quota. In most quota systems support levels
are insufficient for high cost technologies such as PV.
Many quota countries offer separate incentives: BE minimum prices
for PV, IT FIP for PV, UK FIT for small-scale applications. Technology-
banding within the quota as applied in UK can help to support cost-
intensive technologies like wind offshore, but is less suitable for small-
scale projects than feed-in tariffs.
16Conclusions – Electricity sector 2/2
Differentiate support instruments according to technology maturity (e.g.
rather mature wind onshore or rather immature wind offshore), project
size (rather kW-range, few MW, or several hundred MW), type of
envisaged investor (utilities, new independent power producers, small-
scale business, households or farmers), or lender.
1. Stimulated capacity growth may develop faster than envisaged causing
high policy costs. Stop-and-go policies harm industry as a whole.
FIT/FIP for RET with rapid cost reduction require frequent tariff
adjustment cycles and good coordination of tariff levels with other
relevant markets. (Frequent) tariff adjustments based on (automatic)
adjustment formulae (related to market growth) at dates known to
the market sufficiently long beforehand can manage this policy cost
risk without negatively affecting the investment climate
EC could oblige MS to be more transparent in their RES-support. E.g.
putting information on (the assumptions for calculating) average support
and profit levels directly from the MS governments on a transparency
platform. This should help MS to determine (technology-specific) support
levels in such a way that they suit their (technology-specific) deployment
target.
17Thank you for your attention!
m.rathmann@ecofys.com
Mario.Ragwitz@isi.fraunhofer.de
2010 indicator report available on
www.reshaping-res-policy.eu
2011 indicator report available as of early summer
18You can also read
