Suchergebnisse

In order to achieve cost-effective RES-E deployment it is often argued that technology-neutral support schemes for renewables are indispensable. Against this background, RES-E support policies making widely use of technology differentiation in remuneration settings, e.g. across the EU, are frequently criticized from a theoretical point of view. However, in this paper we provide a systematic critique of the technology neutrality concept as a foundation for designing policy support schemes in the RES-E technology field. Specifically, the main objective of the paper is to scrutinize the arguments for technology-neutrality, and discuss three conceptual arguments for why technology-specific support schemes could in fact help minimize the societal costs of reaching future RES-E targets. We also briefly address different political economy concerns, which could constrain the choice of cost-effective policy support schemes, and that have to be taken into account for economic policy advice. For empirical illustration of the key arguments we refer to the case of German RES-E support.

The European Council has proposed to stick to a more ambitious GHG target but to scrap a binding RES target for the post-2020 period. This is in line with many existing assessments which demonstrate that additional RES policies impair the cost-effectiveness of addressing a single CO2 externality, and should therefore be abolished. Our analysis explores to what extent this reasoning holds in a secondbest setting with multiple externalities related to fossil and nuclear power generation and policy constraints. In this context, an additional RES policy may help to address externalities for which firstbest policy responses are not available. We use a fully integrated combination of two separate models the top-down, global macro-economic model E3MG and the bottom-up, global electricity sector model FTT:Power - to test this hypothesis. Our quantitative analysis confirms that pursuing an ambitious RES target may mitigate nuclear risks and at least partly also negative non-carbon externalities associated with the production, import and use of fossil fuels. In addition, we demonstrate that an additional RES target does not necessarily impair GDP and other macro-economic measures if rigid assumptions of purely rational behaviour of market participants and perfect market clearing are relaxed. Overall, our analysis thus demonstrates that RES policies implemented in addition to GHG policies are not per se welfare decreasing. There are plausible settings in which an additional RES policy may outperform a single GHG/ETS strategy. Due to the fact, however, that i) policies may have a multiplicity of impacts, ii) the size of these impacts is subject to uncertainties and iii) their valuation is contingent on individual preferences, an unambiguous, "objective" economic assessment is impossible. Thus, the eventual decision on the optimal choice and design of climate and energy policies can only be taken politically.

As part of its climate strategy, the EU aims at increasing the share of electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E) in overall electricity generation. Attaining this target poses a considerable challenge as the electricity sector is "locked" into a carbon-intensive system, which hampers the adoption of RES-E technologies. Electricity generation, transmission and distribution grids as well as storage and demand response are subject to important path dependences, which put existing, non-renewable energy sources at an advantage. This paper examines how an EU framework for RES-E support policies should be designed to facilitate a carbon lock-out. For this purpose, we specify the major technological, economic and institutional barriers to RES-E. For each of the barriers, a policy review is carried out which assesses the performance of existing policy instruments and identifies needs for reform. The review reveals several shortcomings: while policies targeting generation are widely in place, measures to address barriers associated with electricity grids, storage and demand are still in their infancy and have to be extended. Moreover, the implementation of policies has been fragmented across EU Member States. In this respect, national policies should be embedded into an integrated EU-wide planning of the RES-E system with overarching energy scenarios and partially harmonized policy rules.

When it comes to energy policy, EU countries go their own way with little regard for other member states. What strategies exist in the EU Commission to coordinate and integrate energy markets? Are these strategies consistent with national plans currently in action? Is it too late to establish a unified energy policy? What can be achieved in a unified energy policy given the considerable differences in resource endowment and political preferences in energy strategies? Can the effectiveness of EU energy policy objectives be enhanced through policy coordination at the regional scale? This Forum seeks to provide answers to these questions.

Angesichts erfolgloser internationaler Klimaschutzverhandlungen und einer kaum zu erwartenden Trendumkehr bereits eingetretener klimatischer Veränderungen gewinnt die Option der Anpassung an den Klimawandel immer mehr an klimapolitischer Bedeutung. Zahlreiche Länder haben durch die Konzeption von Strategien oder Maßnahmenkatalogen bereits einen Anpassungsprozess angestoßen. Daher besteht ein großer Bedarf, diesen Prozess von wissenschaftlicher Seite zu begleiten. Der ökonomischen Disziplin kommt in diesem Zusammenhang eine Schlüsselrolle zu, v. a. im Hinblick auf die Ausgestaltung, Bewertung und Auswahl von Anpassungsmaßnahmen und -instrumenten. Das noch recht junge Feld der ökonomischen Anpassungsforschung wächst mit beträchtlicher Geschwindigkeit und weist bereits eine enorme Bandbreite an methodischen Ansätzen und Forschungsfragen auf. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der vorliegende Beitrag bestrebt, eine systematische Strukturierung und Synthese der einzelnen Forschungsarbeiten vorzunehmen, um den politischen Akteuren einen Überblick über die wissenschaftlichen Empfehlungen und Erkenntnisse zu verschaffen, die diese bei ihren Entscheidungen berücksichtigen müssen. Ferner sollen offene Forschungsfragen identifiziert und darauf aufbauend Eckpunkte für die zukünftige Ausrichtung der ökonomischen Klimaanpassungsforschung konturiert werden.

As part of its climate strategy, the EU aims at increasing the share of electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E) in overall electricity generation. Attaining this target poses a considerable challenge as the electricity sector is "locked" into a carbon-intensive system, which hampers the adoption of RES-E technologies. Electricity generation, transmission and distribution grids as well as storage and demand response are subject to important path dependences, which put existing, non-renewable energy sources at an advantage. This paper examines how an EU framework for RES-E support policies should be designed to facilitate a carbon lock-out. For this purpose, we specify the major technological, economic and institutional barriers to RES-E. For each of the barriers, a policy review is carried out which assesses the performance of existing policy instruments and identifies needs for reform. The review reveals several shortcomings: while policies targeting generation are widely in place, measures to address barriers associated with electricity grids, storage and demand are still in their infancy and have to be extended. Moreover, the implementation of policies has been fragmented across EU Member States. In this respect, national policies should be embedded into an integrated EU-wide planning of the RES-E system with overarching energy scenarios and partially harmonized policy rules.

The European Council has proposed to stick to a more ambitious GHG target but to scrap a binding RES target for the post-2020 period. This is in line with many existing assessments which demonstrate that additional RES policies impair the cost-effectiveness of addressing a single CO2 externality, and should therefore be abolished. Our analysis explores to what extent this reasoning holds in a secondbest setting with multiple externalities related to fossil and nuclear power generation and policy constraints. In this context, an additional RES policy may help to address externalities for which firstbest policy responses are not available. We use a fully integrated combination of two separate models the top-down, global macro-economic model E3MG and the bottom-up, global electricity sector model FTT:Power – to test this hypothesis. Our quantitative analysis confirms that pursuing an ambitious RES target may mitigate nuclear risks and at least partly also negative non-carbon externalities associated with the production, import and use of fossil fuels. In addition, we demonstrate that an additional RES target does not necessarily impair GDP and other macro-economic measures if rigid assumptions of purely rational behaviour of market participants and perfect market clearing are relaxed. Overall, our analysis thus demonstrates that RES policies implemented in addition to GHG policies are not per se welfare decreasing. There are plausible settings in which an additional RES policy may outperform a single GHG/ETS strategy. Due to the fact, however, that i) policies may have a multiplicity of impacts, ii) the size of these impacts is subject to uncertainties and iii) their valuation is contingent on individual preferences, an unambiguous, "objective" economic assessment is impossible. Thus, the eventual decision on the optimal choice and design of climate and energy policies can only be taken politically.

An optimistic narrative has gained momentum during the first year of the pandemic: the COVID-19 crisis may have opened a window of opportunity to "rebuild better", to spur societal transitions towards environmental sustainability. In this comment, we review first evidence of individual and political changes made so far. Findings suggest that economies worldwide are not yet building back better. Against this background, we argue that a naïve opportunity narrative may even impair the progress of transitions towards environmental sustainability because it may render green recovery measures ineffective, costly, or infeasible. Based on these observations, we derive conditions for green recovery policies to succeed. They should consist of a policy mix combining well-targeted green subsidies with initiatives to price emissions and scrap environmentally harmful subsidies. Moreover, green recovery policies must be embedded into a narrative that avoids trading off environmental sustainability with other domains of sustainability—and rather highlights respective synergies that can be realized when recovering from the COVID-19 crisis.

The deployment of onshore wind power involves spatial sustainability trade-offs, e.g., between the minimization of energy system costs, the mitigation of impacts on humans and biodiversity, and equity concerns. We analyze challenges arising for decision-making if wind power generation capacity has to be allocated spatially in the presence of such trade-offs. The analysis is based on a game developed for and played by stakeholders in Germany. The results of the game illustrate that there is no unanimously agreed ranking of sustainability criteria among the participating stakeholders. They disagreed not only on the weights of different criteria but also their definition and measurement. Group discussions further revealed that equity concerns mattered for spatial allocation. Yet, stakeholders used quite different concepts of equity. The results support the importance of transparent, multi-level and participatory approaches to take decisions on the spatial allocation of wind power generation capacity.

Die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels sind wissenschaftlich erwiesen. Der weitere Ausstoß von klimaschädlichen Gasen muss dringend stärker unterbunden werden. Das von der Bundesregierung beschlossene Klimaschutzprogramm ist ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Es ist aber zu wenig ambitioniert, um tatsächlich das von der Klimakonferenz in Paris avisierte Ziel, die Klimaerwärmung auf 1,5°C zu begrenzen, erreichen zu können. Die Autorinnen und Autoren untersuchen in den Bereichen Windkraft, Wohngebäude, Luft- und Straßenverkehr, welche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind und wie die gesetzten Ziele effizienter erreicht werden können. Sie sprechen sich vor allem für eine höhere Bepreisung der CO2-Emissionen aus.