4.7 Article

The effect of regulatory uncertainty in green certificate markets: Evidence from the Swedish-Norwegian market

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112583

关键词

Green certificates; Price volatility; Regulatory uncertainty; Renewable energy investment; Real options

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that regulatory interventions in the certificate market exacerbate price volatility and do not stabilize prices after market integration with Norway. Additionally, price risk increases the threshold for immediate development of Swedish wind power projects, reducing the probability of project development.
European Commission favours market-based support policies, such as markets for tradable green certificates, to promote renewable energy. Meanwhile, these instruments have received critique for exposing investors to large price risk as the level of support is determined by the market price of certificates. Using a two-step procedure, this study builds upon the work of Fagiani and Hakvoort (2014) by firstly examining how regulatory interventions in the Swedish-Norwegian certificate market affect price volatility, focusing particularly on the period after Norway joined in 2012. The results show that interventions in the market exacerbate price risk by resulting in regimes of increased volatility. They indicate that, contrary to policymakers expectation, prices did not stabilise after the market integration with Norway. Employing a real options approach, the study further proceeds to demonstrate that price risk increases the threshold for immediate development of Swedish wind power projects; a one standard deviation increase in certificate price volatility is estimated to reduce the probability of project development by 12%. These findings illustrate that regulatory uncertainty in terms of high price volatility disrupts the investment climate in certificate markets, ultimately affecting cost-effectiveness of such policy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据