4.7 Article

The politics and economics of cross-border electricity infrastructure: A framework for analysis

Journal

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages 124-134

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.10.003

Keywords

Infrastructure Electricity interconnectors; The European Union; Loop flows; Internal energy market

Funding

  1. Stiftung Mercator

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A common European electricity market requires both market integration and transmission grid expansion, including cross-border interconnectors. Although the benefits of increased interconnectivity are widely acknowledged, expansion of interconnectors is often very slow. What are the reasons behind this grid-lock? To date, the issue remains discussed largely from the perspective of practitioners. Academic research on interconnectors comes mostly from the discipline of energy economics, offering models that do not necessarily help us explain the dynamic situation in the EU. This paper sketches the problem and its scale, reviews existing approaches and proposes a framework for analysis of interconnector projects, including a set of hypotheses that could account for the stall in interconnector development. The hypotheses relate to inadequate financing, diverging interests, governance and administration problems, as well as political discourses and perceptions. As empirical illustration we use the case of the German-Polish border. Drawing on document analysis and stakeholder interviews, we evaluate the hypotheses. Evidence suggests that at this stage, political and governance-related issues rather than economics and finances might explain the grid-lock we are facing. The concluding section sums up the findings, highlights methodological difficulties and gaps, and proposes directions for further social scientific research in this issue area. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available