1     Overview on assessed cases

>>Back to Introduction<<

This section is dedicated to provide an overview on the scenario paths and cases investigated. Please note that, geographically, all scenarios refer to the European Union as of 2011, comprising 27 Member States. Results on RES(-E) deployment and accompanying parameters such as support expenditures are derived on a yearly basis covering the time horizon 2005 to 2020. A broad set of policy variants have been investigated in this modelling exam, aiming to consider the broad spread of possible RES(-E) policy options within the EU. For an improved understanding a clustering into “key policy pathways” and “other topical scenarios” is undertaken throughout this assessment.

1.1     Key policy pathways

Two different pathways have been assessed, on the assumption that either national or EU-wide harmonised RES policies will determine the future RES deployment. Thus, as applicable in Figure 1-1 scenarios conducted are clustered into both policy pathways for the subsequent characterisation.

Figure 1-1: Overview on assessed Green-X scenarios (part 1 - key cases)

National RES policy options

Common for all cases of this pathway is the assumption that national policies remain in place and determine the future development of RES in Europe. For this reason two variants will be reviewed:

Policy options for an (early) harmonisation of RES support
In addition to the above national policy variants, the impact of a harmonisation of RES support is investigated, whereby for key cases the unlikely assumption is made that an early harmonisation would take place, assuming that harmonised RES policies become effective already by 2013. This unlikely assumption allows a better assessment of consequences arising from the applied support instruments. The assessed policy options comprise:

1.2     Other topical scenarios

Figure 1-2: Overview on assessed Green-X scenarios (part 2 – other topical scenarios)

Complementary to above discussed key policy pathways for meeting 20% RES by 2020 other scenarios are conducted that aim to shed light on certain topics. As shown in Figure 1-2 these comprise:

Thus, for illustrative purposes the country performance in Credit Default Swaps (CDS) was used to estimate a country-specific risk adder assuming that this equally affects all RES options within a country. Next, impacts of introducing such a risk adder have been assessed under BAU conditions with regard to RES support w/o mitigation of prevailing non-economic barriers.

1.3     General remarks

Finally, we offer list of general remarks that aims to facilitate the understanding of the scenario work performed:


<<Back >>Back to Introduction<< Next>>

(1) Within the corresponding model-based assessment the assumption is taken that in the case of “limited cooperation / National perspective” the use of cooperation mechanisms as agreed in the RES Directive is reduced to necessary minimum: For the exceptional case that a Member State would not possess sufficient RES potentials, cooperation mechanisms would serve as a complementary option. Additionally, if a Member State possesses barely sufficient RES potentials, but their exploitation would cause significantly higher support expenditures compared to the EU average, cooperation would serve as complementary tool to assure target achievement.

(2) In the “strong cooperation / European perspective” case economic restrictions are applied to limit differences in applied financial RES support among Member States to an adequately low level – i.e. differences in country-specific support per MWh RES are limited to a maximum of 8 €/MWhRES.while in the “limited cooperation / National perspective” variant this feasible bandwidth is set to 20 €/MWhRES. Consequently, if support in a country with low RES potentials and / or an ambitious RES target exceeds the upper boundary, the remaining gap to its RES target would be covered in line with the flexibility regime as defined in the RES Directive through (virtual) imports from other countries.

(3) In general, it can be expected that a removal of non-economic RES barriers represents a necessity for meeting the 2020 RES commitment. Moreover, a mitigation of these constraints would also significantly increase the cost efficiency of RES support.

(4) An exception to this rule represents the BAU case where simply a continuation of current support policies for RES in transport is conditioned.