{"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 , Niina Helistö , 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 , Niina Helistö , 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}
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.
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.