its relevance for national policies
play

its Relevance for National Policies Nektaria Karakatsani, RAE, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Clean Energy Package and its Relevance for National Policies Nektaria Karakatsani, RAE, Member of the Board 15 th IAEE European Conference, Vienna, 3-6 September 2017 Heterogeneous national policies: Capacity Mechanisms Still: Common


  1. The Clean Energy Package and its Relevance for National Policies Nektaria Karakatsani, RAE, Member of the Board 15 th IAEE European Conference, Vienna, 3-6 September 2017

  2. Heterogeneous national policies: Capacity Mechanisms

  3. Still: Common Objectives and Challenges Several trajectories, reflecting local specificities, need to converge.

  4. Renewables

  5. A holistic approach is being shaped ➢ A New Market Design: Recast of the Internal Electricity Market Directive (72/2009) Legislative Recast of the Internal Electricity Market Regulation (714/2009) Proposals Recast of the ACER Regulation (713/2009) for Clean Energy ➢ Climate Change Objectives: Transition Revised Renewables Directive 28/2009 Revised Energy Efficiency Directive 27/2012 Revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive ➢ New Measures: New Regulation on Risk-Preparedness New Regulation on Governance of the Energy Union

  6. ➢ Power sector is being redefined. ➢ The “ 3 Ds” : Digitalisation, Decarbonisation, Decentralisation. 260 GW of RES, >10 GW demand-side response. ➢ Markets need to adapt to meet the decarbonization challenge, The whilst safeguarding security of supply and ensuring affordability. Challenge of ➢ New technical and business opportunities, local communities, new Adaptation actors – > Crucial and more active role of DSOs. ➢ Consumers can now actively interact with the markets through self-generation, demand response and storage -> Prosumers. ➢ Markets must evolve to supply the products that consumers need. How to stimulate competition and innovation in the short- term, while co-ordinating investments in the long term?

  7. Electricity Markets: Challenges at EU Level • Impact of RES RES suppress SMP and displace conventional plants, while requiring flexible systems. More than 20 GW of gas plants have mothballed in Europe. • Challenges for SoS: Coal and Nuclear phase-out plans. Storage: Crucial. Still, needs to make its business case + barriers. • More ambitious environmental targets for 2030. Transition to feed-in-premium + RES auctions: to alleviate distorting impacts. • More than a trillion investments are required in infrastructure and capacity. • Higher overall costs, often distributed across stagnating demand. Retail prices: irresponsive to wholesale price drops. Consumers’ benefits and involvement need to get enhanced.

  8. Share of non-contestable charges in energy bills keeps increasing ► RES induce lower wholesale prices, feeding into consumer bills. ► But, subsidies and other levies have risen, squeezing competition effects. ► Better market functioning is being partially offset by govermental interventions . Household Energy Bill Composition, ACER/CEER MMR 8

  9. Regulators’ Reactions to Winter Package • Maintain and enhance security of supply. • Promote competition and avoid cross-subsidies. • Promote cost efficiency and sectoral synergies in Seven delivering benefits to consumers. Fundamental Principles for • Ensure that EU legislation allows flexibility for innovation a Well- and national / regional developments. functioning Energy Union • Consistency with 3 rd Package and NCs implementation. • Avoid over-regulation, so as not to stifle markets and overwhelm consumers. • Ensure robust European regulatory system.

  10. • Capacity Mechanisms • RES Priority • Harmonisation of tariffs • Interconnectivity Target Some • Regional Operational Centers Controversial Issues • Regional Governance • Aggregators • Mandatory vs. subject to cost-benefit analysis Overall: The right balance between EU, regional and national levels remains a challenge.

  11. Regulators’ Views ▪ Level playing field: All market participants should face the same signals and balance responsibilities. ▪ Currently, efficient price formation in times of scarcity is not always achieved in several markets. Efficient Price Formation - Scarcity ▪ This can be due to the existence of price caps or floors, fear Pricing of regulatory intervention or through political interventions. ▪ Need to incorporate the concept of Value of Lost Load (VoLL) when assessing price limits. ▪ Allowing prices to reflect scarcity implies market efficiency, creates investment signals, has the potential to lower costs and to provide a more efficient use of the grid.

  12. Price Reaction: France, 9.2.2017 Explosion at Nuclear Plant • Price FR Feb 09 for intraday hour 15 vs Q2 2017  Initial 78 35.3 announcement: 76 Market participants 35.2 assumed a ‘normal’ 74 35.1 short-term outage-> 72 Impact on intraday 35 and day-ahead 70 34.9 markets. 68 34.8  Confirmation of 66 Neutral RTE EDF press announcement explosion, release: 34.7 64 without Confirming underlining the specified end explosion 34.6 severity of the 62 date outage-> Stronger 60 34.5 impact on forward 01:14 06:15 07:23 07:38 08:07 08:19 08:27 08:41 08:57 09:03 09:15 09:34 09:52 10:17 10:22 10:26 10:31 11:26 11:28 11:46 11:52 12:07 12:20 12:28 12:32 12:42 12:45 12:47 12:58 products. Price Intraday hour 15 (left axis) Q2 2017 Baseload (right axis)

  13. Price Reaction, Greece, Energy Crisis, 19.12.2016 -13.2.2017 Electricity Market: 160  Limited scarcity pricing: SMP ~ 50 €/ MWh in phase 1, 140 ~ 80 €/ MWh in phase 2.  Limited hedging tools: imports and NOME. 120  Strong incentive for dominant player, as net buyer, to retain low SMP. 100  Low prices led to escalation of exports (up to 20 GWh). EUR/MWh 80 Transition to target model in 2018 + market structure. 60 Gas: 40  Supply contracts: no terms to prevent overconsumption under gas scarcity. 20  Additional balancing cost was limited, not reflected in electricity. 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Balancing platform is expected in Q4 2017. 23 Dec 11 Jan 12 Jan 31 Jan

  14. Investment Signals and Infrastructure • Avoid overcapacity by: - Coordinating the assessment of resource adequacy (ENTSO-E). - Harmonizing principles on key technical aspects (ACER). - Maximizing interconnectors’ utilization. • MS to derive reliability standards. Regional risk assessments and crisis mitigation plans. • Well-designed CRMs are possible, under conditions, if justified. New framework. • Harmonization of transmission and distribution tariff structures is not merited. • A uniform interconnectivity target of 15% could result in perverse incentives. • EU-wide 10-Year Network Development Plan should be subject to regulatory approval .

  15. Capacity Mechanisms: Issues Market reforms should come first. • Recognition that SoS concerns may still remain. • National and regional adequacy studies may capture additional aspects. • Are they allowed to complement the pan-European assessment? Emission Standard for Generation: 550 gr CO2. • Beyond ETS? Subsidies to polluters? France: Is a Regulation or a Directive the right instrument? • Regional scope remains crucial. • ROCs: Supplementary or core functions? Will TSOs become redundant? • Regional scale of crises - Is XB contribution realistic? •

  16. Renewables • Currently, national targets: RES share 20% of final energy consumption by 2020. • A new EU-wide target is introduced: 27% by 2030. • 1 trillion € investments will be required over 2015-2030. Investments dropped by 60% compared to 2011 (costs + retroactive changes). • Investor confidence is crucial Level and conditions of support not to be revised in a way that negatively impacts rights and economics. 3-year national schedule, indicating budget, capacity, timing and design of each scheme. • Support schemes: if inevitable, they should be co-ordinated. Mandatory participation of RES in other Member States.

  17. National 10-Year Energy and Climate Plan • Coherent strategy: Integrating 31 existing plans, deleting 24. • Combines reporting and planning obligations on 5 dimensions: SoS, Climate, Energy efficiency, Energy markets, Decarbonization, R&D. • Specific template: to be submitted by 1 st January 2019, revised every 2 years, assessed by EC. • Content includes: Binding emission reduction objectives, contributions to RES, indicative energy efficiency targets, land use reductions, national objectives on diversification and reduction of import dependency. • If progress inadequate, one of the options is to contribute to a financing platform for RES projects managed by the EC. • Framework for agreements between MS?

  18. Regulators’ Views on Renewables • Remove priority dispatch for existing RES, apart from new ones, so that: - Cheapest plant should operate to meet demand, irrespectively of technology. - Pervasive outcomes are avoided, e.g. RES might refrain from updating outdated components. • Priority is not a right with indefinite duration but an interim measure to promote non-mature RES technologies. • Avoid non-market approach to re-dispatch and RES curtailment. • Avoid net metering, to ensure that self-generators pay their fair share of network and system costs / charges. • Signals of the time value of energy and network capacity should be available to all. • Net metering reduces consumers’ sensitivity, which undermines efforts to enhance flexibility. • Unfair cross-subsidization by other consumers.

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend