Towards an international tradable green certificate system—The challenging example of Belgium

Verhaegen, Karolien; Meeus, Leonardo; Belmans, Ronnie

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.01.021

Cited by 42 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Morthorst, 2000;Menanteau et al, 2003;Meyer, 2003;Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2004;Madlener and Stagl, 2005;Ragwitz and Huber, 2005;Rowlands, 2005;Contaldi et al, 2006;Ringel, 2006;Finon and Perez, 2007;del Río and Gual, 2007;Diekman, 2008;Verhaegen et al, 2009). The main advantage of this system, as described in these assessments, is its effectiveness in promoting technology development and diffusion (especially with regards to wind power in e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the existing academic literature (most of which are based on either theoretical analyses or simulation approaches), the expected main advantages of TGCs are that they (1) are cost-efficient, (2) ensure a stable development towards set deployment goals and (3) drive innovation and cost-reduction through "double" competition in both electricity and certificate markets (cf. Morthorst, 2000;Menanteau et al, 2003;Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2004;Madlener and Stagl, 2005;Contaldi et al, 2006;Ringel, 2006;del Río and Gual, 2007;Verhaegen et al, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are tradable green certificates a cost-efficient policy driving technical change or a rent-generating machine? Lessons from Sweden 2003–2008

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the European policy debate, tradable green certificates (TGC) have been suggested to be a superior regulatory framework for promoting the diffusion of renewable electricity technologies. The purpose of this paper is to assess the performance of the Swedish TGC system, contributing to the European debate on the suitability of different types of frameworks. The expectations of the TGC system were that it would: a) be effective in terms of increasing the supply of "green" electricity; b) do this in a cost effective manner (from both a social and a consumer perspective); c) generate an equitable distribution of costs and benefits and d) drive technical change. So far, it has performed adequately in terms of effectiveness and social cost effectiveness. However, consumer costs have been substantially higher than expected, very large rents are generated and, at best, it contributes marginally to technical change. Thus, a TGC framework should be selected if the overriding concern is to minimize short term social costs of reaching a certain goal with a high degree of predictability. However, it cannot be expected to also drive technical change, keep consumer costs down and be equitable. Such trade-offs need to be revealed and not obscured by analysts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are tradable green certificates a cost-efficient policy driving technical change or a rent-generating machine? Lessons from Sweden 2003–2008

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the field of applying carbon tax to promote mitigation in power sector, part of EU Member States has designed a feed-in tariffs approach (Verhaegen et al, 2009). It requires grid operator prior dispatching electricity produced by Renewable Energy Sources (RES) at the lowest cost, then, government provides a subsidy for RES power plants in a feed-in tariff way.…”

Section: Carbon Taxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It requires consumers purchasing a fixed proportion of electricity generated by renewable energy, thus, they need submit equivalent TGCs to market organizer every year. These TGCs can be traded among market participants during their valid period, correspondingly, governments will pay a subsidy on investment in RES electricity production at supply side (Verhaegen et al, 2009 …”

Section: Green Electricity Marketmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector

Fu¹

2017

IJEEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appropriate Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) mitigation action has become a promising concern because of its feasibility and sustainability. This article reviews mitigation approaches taken by European Union's electricity sector to promote appropriate reduction in large developing country. From an applicable and integrated aspect, it examines Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), carbon tax, Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, green electricity market, carbon capture and sequestration, and energy efficiency. Then the successful experiences and lessons on this case are identified. The former include: allow diverse approaches coexistence, establish ancillary service system, and make carbon market serve for electricity market. The latter contain that price fluctuates inappropriately, obligation is distorted, no banking for allowances operated in the first period, and part of abatement approaches conflict mutually. Based on these results, this article proposes a framework of combinatorial mitigation actions which is characterized as integral, collaborative and appropriate reduction. It is composed of: i) construct intensity-based carbon market; ii) make diverse approaches collaborative; iii) build synergy between mitigation approaches and electricity market; iv) enhance carbon management and auditing system; and v) reform aging power plants with low carbon technologies. Although numerous challenges lie ahead, this framework has the potential to reduce GHGs from electricity industry extensively and sustainably.

show abstract

“…Instead the Commission stressed the need to make the existing national systems more efficient, not the least by improving policy stability and speeding up permitting processes. Voluntary bilateral or multilateral cooperation between the European countries on renewable electricity support schemes is, however, strongly encouraged by the Commission, and some countries-e.g., Belgium and the Nordic countries-have expressed interest in such schemes (e.g., Unger and Ahlgren, 2004;So¨der-holm, 2008;Verhaegen et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws: A comment

Söderholm

2008

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This comment aims at critically analyzing some of the economic efficiency issues that are raised in the paper by Mun˜oz et al. [2007. Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws in the European Union. Energy Policy 35, 3104-3114] on the harmonization of feedin law schemes for renewable electricity in the European Union. We comment on the choice between green certificate systems and feed-in laws, but pay particular attention to the implementation and design of a harmonized feed-in law scheme. In the comment we argue first that the approach suggested by Mun˜oz et al. tends to downplay many of the practical difficulties in assessing the real costs facing investors in renewable electricity, not the least since the presence of regulatory uncertainty about the marginal costs of renewable electricity may be essential for the choice between different support systems. Concerning the benefit side of renewable electricity promotion, the Mun˜oz et al. (2007) paper builds on an interpretation of the EU Renewables Directive that provides plenty of room for national priorities and that therefore essentially implies that harmonized support premiums per se are of little value. We argue instead that a harmonized system should primarily address the international spillover effects from renewable electricity promotion, not the least those related to improved security of supply in Europe. There exists then a strong case for disregarding the specific national benefits of renewable electricity production in the design of harmonized support systems, and for instead considering international-perhaps at the start bilateral-policy support coordination based on entirely uniform support levels. r

show abstract

Towards an international tradable green certificate system—The challenging example of Belgium

Cited by 42 publications

References 5 publications

Are tradable green certificates a cost-efficient policy driving technical change or a rent-generating machine? Lessons from Sweden 2003–2008

Are tradable green certificates a cost-efficient policy driving technical change or a rent-generating machine? Lessons from Sweden 2003–2008

Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector

Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws: A comment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About