美国可再生能源证书交易市场

可再生能源发电产业正由早期靠政府扶持逐步进入商业化阶段,其中以可再生能源配额制(RPS)和可再生能源证书(RECs)交易市场为典型。RECs分为捆绑式和非捆绑式两种形式,其主要商业应用模式包括:用来满足可再生能源RPS要求;批发捆绑式RECs;作为独立产品销售非捆绑式RECs;远期销售RECs;聚集小系统的RECs参与强制和自愿市场。RECs的价格是通过市场竞争来决定的,体现了可再生能源所具有的环境价值,在理想情况下,RECs的价格等于可再生能源和常规电力的边际成本之差。此外,RECs价格还受到很多其他因素的影响。RECs市场由自愿市场和强制市场组成,交易方式主要有3种:单一短期合同购买非捆绑式RECs;短期和长期合同混合购买非捆绑式和捆绑式RECs;在零售市场没有开发的情况下,美国公用事业主要依靠长期合同购买捆绑式电力。为了保证RECs交易的方便和非重复性销售,购买RECs需通过审计机构独立认证和核实。美国的许多思路和做法值得我国借鉴。     

Redefining RECs—Part 1: Untangling attributes and offsets

Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Should consumers buy RECs or emission offsets? After examining this question, the author concludes that RECs are not equivalent to emission offset credits, and as currently defined, the retiring of a REC may have no impact on emissions from electric power generation. Consumers who purchase RECs in voluntary green power markets are providing financial assistance to renewable generators in the form of a production subsidy. Generators that sell RECs are not transferring emission reductions, since they are unlikely to have ownership or the ability to quantify reductions using a commonly accepted standard. More importantly, RECs currently sold in voluntary markets do not pass credible additionality tests and can, at best, be expected to have a market demand effect, which will be less than the supply of RECs on the market. REC definitions that use the term “environmental attributes” or “environmental benefits” are almost universally ambiguous, providing the mistaken impression that consumers are purchasing a good instead of subsidizing a public good.     

Redefining RECs—Part 2: Untangling certificates and emission markets

Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions markets are currently in a state of confusion regarding the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs). How should emission-trading schemes treat RECs? How can emission mitigation policies provide real incentives for renewable generation? The objective of REC markets should be to promote additional renewable energy investments. The author asserts that defining RECs in terms of attributes, especially off-site attributes, does not further this goal. Ambiguous language such as “environmental attribute” or “environmental benefit” creates confusion in the marketplace while failing to address the relevant coordination issues with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance markets, voluntary emission offset markets, or emission cap-and-trade markets. Specifically, defining RECs in terms of off-site attributes creates a number of problems, including that once an emissions cap-and-trade scheme is in place, such definitions of a REC can become indefensible. The author proposes to redefine RECs in terms of on-site attributes, which resolves the aforementioned problems and allows compliance and voluntary renewable energy and emission markets to function without conflicts. Ideally, environmental commodities should be homogeneous, first best measures of the relevant environmental good, as well as easily measured and verified. The author proposes tradable environmental commodities that achieve these characteristics.     

Simulating price patterns for tradable green certificates to promote electricity generation from wind

This article uses computer simulation to anticipate the price dynamics in a market for Tradable Green Certificates (TGCs). These markets have been used in Europe to promote generation of electricity from renewable resources like wind. Similar markets have been proposed in the United States of America (USA) where the certificates are called Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). The certificates are issued to the generating companies for each megawatt-hour of renewable electricity generation. The companies may sell the certificates in a market, and the revenues from certificate sales provide an extra incentive to invest in new generating capacity. Proponents argue that this market-based incentive can be designed to support government mandates for a growing fraction of electricity generation from renewable sources. In the USA, these mandates are set by the states and are known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).     

Market power in renewable portfolio standards

Renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which requires a certain percentage of electricity production from renewables, has received considerable attention. One emerging issue is the possibility of strategic behavior in the renewable energy certificate/credit (REC) market, and its spillover effects on the electricity market. This paper develops dominant firm-competitive fringe models that account for market power. We show that market power could have significant impacts on the REC and power prices. In particular, when a nonrenewable generator is a dominant firm and a renewable generator is a competitive fringe, the nonrenewable firm has a strong incentive to lower the REC price, even to zero for avoiding REC costs. The zero REC price would negate price impacts in the power market, thereby mitigating market power of the dominant firm. However, this could lead to an underinvestment in renewables in the long run as subsidies received by renewables in form of RECs vanish. Therefore, regulatory agencies need to carefully oversee the market performance to ensure a healthy development of renewable industries under the RPS policies.     

Assessment of Korean customers’ willingness to pay with RPS

To increase the use of renewable energy, the Korean government will introduce the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2012. The RPS places responsibility for extra renewable energy costs on the consumers and allows price competition among different renewable sources. Accordingly, this study analyzes through the contingent valuation (CV) the willingness of Korean households to pay more for electricity generated by wind, photovoltaic (PV), and hydropower. Our empirical results show that, although the willingness to pay (or WTP) was highest for wind power and lowest for hydropower, the differences in WTP among the renewable sources were statistically insignificant. This suggests that Korean consumers prefer a renewable portfolio that minimizes power supply costs.The average WTP for all three energy types was KRW 1562.7 (USD 1.350) per month per household, which was approximately 3.7% of the average monthly electricity bill in 2010. This amount represents only 58.2% of what the Korean government allocated in its budget to the new and renewable energy dissemination program in 2010. Thus, our results imply that the promotion of the new and renewable energy dissemination program may be difficult only with the WTP for electricity generated from renewable sources. Specifically, the mean WTP will not support the set-aside dissemination capacity for PV after 2014.     

Corrective regulations on renewable energy certificates trading: Pursuing an equity-efficiency trade-off

As a common policy tool for reducing the cost of achieving the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets, Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) trade can also exacerbate distributional inequity in provincial renewable electricity consumption. In this study, two types of corrective regulations –taxation and quotas on REC importing were proposed to pursue the equity-efficient trade-off. The energy, economic, and equity impacts of these corrective regulations were analyzed by applying a multi-region multi-market equilibrium model to China as a case study. The results verified that a free trade REC market can increase distributional inequity, while both import taxation and import quotas can reduce inequity. Compared to the electricity price premium for renewable energy and voluntary green certificate prices, the social cost of implementing these corrective regulations are within the public's willingness-to-pay. Moreover, the cost curve of increasing equity using the two corrective regulations on REC trade were obtained. Import taxation is found to be more cost-efficient, and therefore it should be the prior policy choice for China's central government comparing with import quotas in designing REC trade mechanisms.     

Biomass assessment and small scale biomass fired electricity generation in the Green Triangle, Australia

Coal fired electricity is a major factor in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions. The country has adopted a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) to ensure that 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. In order to support the MRET, a market scheme of tradable Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) has been implemented since 2001. Generators using biomass from eligible sources are able to contribute to GHG emission reduction through the substitution of coal for electricity production and are eligible to create and trade RECs. This paper quantifies the potential biomass resources available for energy generation from forestry and agriculture in the Green Triangle, one of the most promising Australian Regions for biomass production. We analyse the cost of electricity generation using direct firing of biomass, and estimate the required REC prices to make it competitive with coal fired electricity generation. Major findings suggest that more than 2.6 million tonnes of biomass are produced every year within 200 km of the regional hub of Mount Gambier and biomass fired electricity is viable using feedstock with a plant gate cost of 46 Australian Dollars (AUD) per tonne under the current REC price of 34 AUD per MWh. These findings are then discussed in the context of regional energy security and existing targets and incentives for renewable energies.     

U.S. state policies for renewable energy: Context and effectiveness

Over the past decade, state policies on renewable energy have been on the rise in the U.S., providing states with various options for encouraging the generation of renewable electricity. Two promising policies, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Mandatory Green Power Option (MGPO), have been implemented in many states but the evidence about their effectiveness is mixed. In this paper, we argue that recognizing the natural, social, and policy context under which MGPO and RPS are adopted is necessary in order to measure their true effectiveness. This is because the context rather than the policy might lead to positive outcomes and there is the possibility for sample bias. When controlling for the context in which the policies are implemented, we find that RPS has a negative impact on investments in renewable capacity. However, we find that investor-owned utilities seem to respond more positively to RPS mandates than publicly owned utilities. By contrast, MGPO appears to have a significant effect on installed renewable capacity for all utilities regardless of the context in which it is implemented.     

The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states

Governments at the state (and to a lesser extent, local) level in the United States have adopted an array of policies to promote wind and other types of “green” energy, including solar, geothermal, low-impact hydropower, and certain forms of biomass. However, because of different regulatory environments, energy resource endowments, political interests, and other factors, there is considerable variation among the states in their green power policies. This paper analyzes the contribution to wind power development of several state-level policies (renewable portfolio standards (RPS), fuel generation disclosure rules, mandatory green power options, and public benefits funds), along with retail choice (RET) facilitated by electricity restructuring. The empirical results support existing anecdotal and case studies in finding a positive relationship between RPS and wind power development. We also found that requiring electricity suppliers to provide green power options to customers is positively related to development of wind energy, while there is a negative relationship between wind energy development and RET (i.e., allowing retail customers to choose their electricity source).     

State-scale evaluation of renewable electricity policy: The role of renewable electricity credits and carbon taxes

We have developed a state-scale version of the MARKAL energy optimization model, commonly used to model energy policy at the US national scale and internationally. We apply the model to address state-scale impacts of a renewable electricity standard (RES) and a carbon tax in one southeastern state, Georgia. Biomass is the lowest cost option for large-scale renewable generation in Georgia; we find that electricity can be generated from biomass co-firing at existing coal plants for a marginal cost above baseline of 0.2–2.2 cents/kWh and from dedicated biomass facilities for 3.0–5.5 cents/kWh above baseline. We evaluate the cost and amount of renewable electricity that would be produced in-state and the amount of out-of-state renewable electricity credits (RECs) that would be purchased as a function of the REC price. We find that in Georgia, a constant carbon tax to 2030 primarily promotes a shift from coal to natural gas and does not result in substantial renewable electricity generation. We also find that the option to offset a RES with renewable electricity credits would push renewable investment out-of-state. The tradeoff for keeping renewable investment in-state by not offering RECs is an approximately 1% additional increase in the levelized cost of electricity.     

Market and welfare effects of renewable portfolio standards in United States electricity markets

This study analyzes the market and welfare effects of the introduction of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) while considering the empirically relevant (a) interaction of compliance with voluntary green power markets, (b) differences in consumer preferences, and (c) imperfect competition among electricity suppliers. The study accounts for both the supply and demand effects of RPS — i.e., increased costs and a higher consumer valuation for regular power. Our analysis shows that the regular power price always increases after the introduction of RPS, while the effect of RPS on the equilibrium price of green power, the quantities of regular and green power, the welfare of consumers, and suppliers' profits is case-specific and dependent on the relative magnitude of the cost and utility effects, the strength of consumer preference for green power, the suppliers' costs before RPS, the impact of RPS on green power costs, and the degree of competition among power suppliers. While the introduction of RPS aims at increasing the use of green energy in electricity production, our analysis shows that the introduction of the policy can end up reducing the total quantity of green power used. Intriguingly, this adverse policy impact will occur under seemingly optimal conditions for the green power sector; i.e., a high consumer valuation of green energy and/or low cost difference between the green power and its conventional counterpart. Finally, the analysis shows that the policy design can play a key role in determining the incidence of RPS, while the identification of the winners and losers of the policy can provide insights on the political economy of RPS and the positions held by different groups in policy negotiations.     

A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of U.S. renewable portfolio standards

As states consider revising or developing renewable portfolio standards (RPS), they are evaluating policy costs, benefits, and other impacts. We present the first U. S. national-level assessment of state RPS program benefits and impacts, focusing on new renewable electricity resources used to meet RPS compliance obligations in 2013. In our central-case scenario, reductions in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from displaced fossil fuel-generated electricity resulted in $2.2 billion of global benefits. Health and environmental benefits from reductions in criteria air pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter 2.5) were even greater, estimated at $5.2 billion in the central case. Further benefits accrued in the form of reductions in water withdrawals and consumption for power generation. Finally, although best considered resource transfers rather than net societal benefits, new renewable electricity generation used for RPS compliance in 2013 also supported nearly 200,000 U. S.-based gross jobs and reduced wholesale electricity prices and natural gas prices, saving consumers a combined $1.3–$4.9 billion. In total, the estimated benefits and impacts well-exceed previous estimates of RPS compliance costs.     

Implications of carbon cap-and-trade for US voluntary renewable energy markets

Many consumers today are purchasing renewable energy in large part for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benefits that they provide. Emerging carbon regulation in the US has the potential to affect existing markets for renewable energy. Carbon cap-and-trade programs are now under development in the Northeast under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and in early stages of development in the West and Midwest. There is increasing discussion about carbon regulation at the national level as well. While renewable energy will likely benefit from carbon cap-and-trade programs because compliance with the cap will increase the costs of fossil fuel generation, cap-and-trade programs can also impact the ability of renewable energy generation to affect overall CO₂ emissions levels and obtain value for those emissions benefits. This paper summarizes key issues for renewable energy markets that are emerging with carbon regulation, such as the implications for emissions benefits claims and voluntary market demand and the use of renewable energy certificates (RECs) in multiple markets. It also explores policy options under consideration for designing carbon policies to enable carbon markets and renewable energy markets to work together.     

德国《可再生能源法》2014年最新改革解析及启示

德国政府计划于2014年对可再生能源支持政策进行全面改革,此次改革仍保留了《可再生能源法2012》的整体架构,重点是要控制非水电可再生能源的补贴成本。采取的主要措施包括控制风电、光伏和生物质发电年度装机容量增长目标,补贴重点侧重更加经济有效的可再生能源类型(即陆上风电和光伏),上网电价递减率与年度新增装机容量挂钩的灵活限额机制,调整上网电价递减周期等。同时通过直接营销和拍卖等市场机制,让可再生能源更加融入市场。这标志着德国可再生能源的发展进入到引导投资和重点扶持的新阶段。建议借鉴德国《可再生能源法》完善我国可再生能源支持政策,包括针对不同可再生能源的技术特点制定完善的、自适应的上网电价模型,顺应技术发展规律实行"老机老电价、新机新电价"的电价调整机制,不断提高补贴手段的市场化和有效性等。     

Evaluating renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap scenarios in the U.S. electric sector

This report examines the impact of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and cap-and-trade policy options on the U.S. electricity sector. The analysis uses the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model that simulates the least-cost expansion of electricity generation capacity and transmission in the U.S. to examine the impact of a variety of emissions caps—and RPS scenarios both individually and combined. The generation mix, carbon emissions, and electricity price are examined for various policy combinations simulated in the modeling.     

Power-to-gas as an option for improving energy self-consumption in renewable energy communities

Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) have been introduced by the Renewable Energy European Directive (REDII) in order to allow their members to collectively produce, consume, store and sell renewable energy. With the distributed generation deployment, the electricity injection into power grids has to be limited. Thereby, the RES management has to maximise the local energy self-consumption (SC). The present work deals with Power-to-Gas (PtG) application for blending hydrogen in the local gas grid for maximising the energy-SC, comparing it with traditional electric batteries (PtP). Moreover, this study investigate how SC-based tariffs for RECs can represent an indirect incentive for hydrogen production. To do so, a case study, consisting of 200 dwellings, has been analysed. Four PV configuration have been considered for evaluating different RES excess conditions. PtP and PtG systems have been implemented and compared each other. The hydrogen production cost has been assessed exploiting the renewable electricity incentive scheme.     

Are government policies effective in promoting deployment of renewable electricity resources?

Using a panel data over 50 US states and years 1991–2007, this paper uses a state fixed-effects model with state-specific time-trends to estimate the effects of state policies on the penetration of various emerging renewable electricity sources, including wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar photovoltaic. Renewable portfolio standards with either capacity or sales requirements have a significant impact on the penetration of all types of renewables—however, this impact is variable depending on the type of renewable source: it is negative for combined renewables, wind, and biomass; and positive for geothermal and solar. Further, clean energy funds and required green power options mostly result in increasing the penetration of all types of renewables. On the other hand, voluntary renewable portfolio standards as well as state green power purchasing programs are found to be ineffective in increasing the penetration of any type of renewable source. Finally, economic variables, such as electricity price, natural gas price, and per capita GDP as well as structural variables, such as league of conservation voters rating and the share of coal-generated electricity are found to be generally insignificant, suggesting the crucial role of policy in increasing the penetration of renewables.     

Advanced mechanisms for the promotion of renewable energy—Models for the future evolution of the German Renewable Energy Act

The German Renewable Energy Act (EEG) has been very successful in promoting the deployment of renewable electricity technologies in Germany. The increasing share of EEG power in the generation portfolio, increasing amounts of fluctuating power generation, and the growing European integration of power markets governed by competition calls for a re-design of the EEG. In particular, a more efficient system integration and commercial integration of the EEG power is needed to, e.g. better matching feed-in to demand and avoiding stress on electricity grids. This article describes three different options to improve the EEG by providing appropriate incentives and more flexibility to the promotion mechanism and the quantitative compensation scheme without jeopardising the fast deployment of renewable energy technologies. In the “Retailer Model”, it becomes the responsibility of the end-use retailers to adapt the EEG power to the actual demand of their respective customers. The “Market Mediator Model” establishes an independent market mediator responsible to market the renewable electricity. This model is the primary choice when new market entrants are regarded as crucial for the better integration of renewable energy and enhanced competition. The “Optional Bonus Model” relies more on functioning markets since power plant operators can alternatively choose to market the generated electricity themselves with a premium on top of the market price instead of a fixed price.     

Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets

This paper analyzes the impacts of imposing a Federal 20 percent non-hydropower renewable generation portfolio standard (RPS) on US energy markets by 2020. The US currently has no RPS requirement although some state RPS regulations have been adopted but not uniformly enforced (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/rps/index.html for a recent summary on RPSs in the US). The renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requires that 20 percent of the power sold must come from qualifying renewable facilities. The analysis of the 20 percent RPS was developed by using the December 2001 version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the assumptions and results of the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) reference case. ² A policy that requires a 20 percent non-hydro-electric RPS by 2020 appears to be effective in promoting the adoption of renewable generation technologies while also reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides by 6 percent, mercury by 4 percent and carbon dioxide by about 16.5 percent relative to the reference case in 2020. Electricity prices are expected to rise about 3 percent while the cost to the electric power industry could rise between 35 and 60 billion dollars (in year 2000 dollars in net present value terms).