这种差异会产生影响吗?在完全脱碳的欧洲电力市场中评估差异设计合同

IF 2.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Silke Johanndeiter , Niina Helistö , Valentin Bertsch
{"title":"这种差异会产生影响吗?在完全脱碳的欧洲电力市场中评估差异设计合同","authors":"Silke Johanndeiter ,&nbsp;Niina Helistö ,&nbsp;Valentin Bertsch","doi":"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Due to their ability to mitigate price risks, Contracts for Difference (CfDs) gained popularity amidst high electricity prices during the energy crisis in 2022. Depending on their specific design, CfDs are known to affect investment and dispatch decisions in electricity markets. We evaluate these effects in a fully decarbonised, sector-coupled European electricity market in terms of their impact on the power system and from an investor’s and consumer perspective. We consider four different types of governmental CfDs awarded to wind onshore power plants in a competitive auction for the contracts’ underlying strike price. On the one hand, the CfD types differ in terms of the allowed direction and unit (energy vs. capacity) of payments with consequences for dispatch decisions. On the other hand, they apply different reference prices with implications for investment decisions as reflected by optimally derived strike prices. Implementing the CfDs in an energy system optimisation model, we find that these differences affect curtailment, electrolyser load and market prices in fully decarbonised electricity markets. From a consumer’s perspective, our results show that system costs are lowest for types of CfDs that foster investments in more system-friendly power plants. For investors, in turn, these types of CfDs incur the highest discrepancy of ex ante expected and ex post realised CfD payments, such that they do not necessarily suffice to recover their costs. We conclude that this could be addressed by an adequate risk premium on the strike price, which should be subject to future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47952,"journal":{"name":"Resource and Energy Economics","volume":"83 ","pages":"Article 101495"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the difference make a difference? Evaluating Contracts for Difference design in a fully decarbonised European electricity market\",\"authors\":\"Silke Johanndeiter ,&nbsp;Niina Helistö ,&nbsp;Valentin Bertsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Due to their ability to mitigate price risks, Contracts for Difference (CfDs) gained popularity amidst high electricity prices during the energy crisis in 2022. Depending on their specific design, CfDs are known to affect investment and dispatch decisions in electricity markets. We evaluate these effects in a fully decarbonised, sector-coupled European electricity market in terms of their impact on the power system and from an investor’s and consumer perspective. We consider four different types of governmental CfDs awarded to wind onshore power plants in a competitive auction for the contracts’ underlying strike price. On the one hand, the CfD types differ in terms of the allowed direction and unit (energy vs. capacity) of payments with consequences for dispatch decisions. On the other hand, they apply different reference prices with implications for investment decisions as reflected by optimally derived strike prices. Implementing the CfDs in an energy system optimisation model, we find that these differences affect curtailment, electrolyser load and market prices in fully decarbonised electricity markets. From a consumer’s perspective, our results show that system costs are lowest for types of CfDs that foster investments in more system-friendly power plants. For investors, in turn, these types of CfDs incur the highest discrepancy of ex ante expected and ex post realised CfD payments, such that they do not necessarily suffice to recover their costs. We conclude that this could be addressed by an adequate risk premium on the strike price, which should be subject to future research.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765525000193\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resource and Energy Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765525000193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于能够降低价格风险,差价合约(cfd)在2022年能源危机期间的高电价中受到欢迎。根据其具体设计,差价合约会影响电力市场的投资和调度决策。我们从投资者和消费者的角度,在完全脱碳、行业耦合的欧洲电力市场中评估这些影响对电力系统的影响。我们考虑了四种不同类型的政府差价合约在竞争性拍卖中授予陆上风力发电厂的合同基本执行价格。一方面,CfD类型在允许的支付方向和单位(能量vs.容量)方面有所不同,从而对调度决策产生影响。另一方面,它们应用不同的参考价格,对投资决策产生影响,这反映在最优衍生的执行价格上。在能源系统优化模型中实施差价合约,我们发现这些差异会影响完全脱碳电力市场中的弃电、电解槽负荷和市场价格。从消费者的角度来看,我们的研究结果表明,促进对系统友好型发电厂投资的差价合约类型的系统成本最低。反过来,对于投资者来说,这些类型的差价合约导致了事前预期和事后实现的差价合约支付的最大差异,因此它们不一定足以收回成本。我们的结论是,这可以通过执行价格的适当风险溢价来解决,这应该是未来研究的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the difference make a difference? Evaluating Contracts for Difference design in a fully decarbonised European electricity market
Due to their ability to mitigate price risks, Contracts for Difference (CfDs) gained popularity amidst high electricity prices during the energy crisis in 2022. Depending on their specific design, CfDs are known to affect investment and dispatch decisions in electricity markets. We evaluate these effects in a fully decarbonised, sector-coupled European electricity market in terms of their impact on the power system and from an investor’s and consumer perspective. We consider four different types of governmental CfDs awarded to wind onshore power plants in a competitive auction for the contracts’ underlying strike price. On the one hand, the CfD types differ in terms of the allowed direction and unit (energy vs. capacity) of payments with consequences for dispatch decisions. On the other hand, they apply different reference prices with implications for investment decisions as reflected by optimally derived strike prices. Implementing the CfDs in an energy system optimisation model, we find that these differences affect curtailment, electrolyser load and market prices in fully decarbonised electricity markets. From a consumer’s perspective, our results show that system costs are lowest for types of CfDs that foster investments in more system-friendly power plants. For investors, in turn, these types of CfDs incur the highest discrepancy of ex ante expected and ex post realised CfD payments, such that they do not necessarily suffice to recover their costs. We conclude that this could be addressed by an adequate risk premium on the strike price, which should be subject to future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Resource and Energy Economics provides a forum for high level economic analysis of utilization and development of the earth natural resources. The subject matter encompasses questions of optimal production and consumption affecting energy, minerals, land, air and water, and includes analysis of firm and industry behavior, environmental issues and public policies. Implications for both developed and developing countries are of concern. The journal publishes high quality papers for an international audience. Innovative energy, resource and environmental analyses, including theoretical models and empirical studies are appropriate for publication in Resource and Energy Economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信