Skip to main content

Addressing multiple externalities from electricity generation: a case for EU renewable energy policy beyond 2020?

Abstract

Subsidies to electricity generation from renewable energy sources (RES-E) implemented next to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) are frequently criticised for producing no additional benefit in terms of mitigating climate change and increasing the costs of emissions abatement. We re-assess the performance of this policy mix in a setting in which electricity generation produces multiple externalities (beyond climate change) and in which these externalities cannot be addressed by first-best policies. Using an analytical partial equilibrium model, we show that the optimal composition of the policy mix depends on the market interactions between the multiple externalities. We complement this analysis by a quantitative policy assessment, combining a top-down, global macro-economic model and a bottom-up, global electricity sector model. The quantitative analysis suggests that RES-E subsidies may be effective in partly reducing externalities from fossil fuel combustion (by crowding out gas- and oil-fired generation) and in mitigating radiation hazards (by crowding out nuclear generation). However, RES-E subsidies are not necessarily suited to address externalities related to the extraction and transportation of fossil fuels or risks of sudden supply interruptions for imported fuels. With respect to these latter externalities, tightening the ETS cap may be a more effective, but politically less feasible approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. For discussions, how different designs of RES-E support schemes affect cost-effectiveness, see Madlener and Stagl (2005) and Finon and Perez (2007).

  2. This concept is different from the idea of “correlated externalities”, as introduced by (Caplan and Silva 2005). In this case, multiple pollutants are jointly produced by a single source or production process, e.g. CO2 and SOX emissions from fossil fuel combustion, i.e. externalities are technically linked.

  3. A more explicit approach to include the levy in our model would be computing it as l = sz/Q, which would represent the condition for cost-neutrality of the RES-E subsidy. However, the multiplicative functional relationship would make the following comparative-static analysis significantly more complex and produce analytically results that are not readily interpretable anymore. Therefore, we choose the simpler and more general functional form of Eq. (6).

  4. This assumption is plausible if the RES-E levy can be specified as \(l = sz/Q\) (see Footnote 3). In this case, \(L_{s} = z/Q < 1\).

  5. Certainly, such assumption has to be treated with due care since emissions of air pollutants are a function of the characteristics of the specific fuels used, the combustion process as well as the means of pollution control employed. Moreover, the damages produced by air pollution are location-specific and therefore crucially dependent on the spatial patterns of substitution between coal-fired and gas-fired generation.

  6. In reality, however, allocation is more complicated as the electricity sector in ten Eastern European countries is allowed to receive a (declining) share of its EUAs for free while some industries—not regarded to be exposed to the risk of carbon leakage—have to buy a (growing) share of their EUAs at an auction. For specific details on EUA allocation issues, see the website of DG CLIMA (European Commission 2013a).

  7. Besides the baseline scenario, the PRIMES 2009 projections also cover a so-called ‘reference scenario’ which includes additional policies adopted between April 2009 and December 2009. This reference scenario assumes that the two binding EU targets for 2020 will be met (i.e. the 20% renewable energy target and the 20% GHG reduction target). The results for the reference scenario turn out that only half of the third, non-binding target will be achieved (i.e. 9.5% rather than the target of 20% energy savings by 2020). For more details on the PRIMES 2009 baseline and reference scenario projections, see European Commission (2010a).

  8. These price patterns conform largely to the PRIMES projection of the so-called ‘EU Reference Scenario 2013’, which gives an ETS carbon price of 5, 10 and 35 €/tCO2 in 2015, 2020 and 2030, respectively (European Commission 2013a).

  9. The major reason why the EU ETS carbon price in 2015 and 2020 is higher in the ETS scenario (and the other policy scenarios) than in the BASE scenario—while the EU ETS cap in these years is similar in all scenarios—is that the assumed policy changes up to 2030, and the resulting ETS carbon prices up to 2030, lead to different EUA banking patterns over the years 2015–2020 and, therefore, to other CO2 price patterns over these years.

  10. Note that, in modelling terms, this RES-E policy is exactly similar to setting an EU-wide RES-E quota (of 40% by 2030) with an EU-single green certificate trading system in which the certificate price is similar to the uniform feed-in subsidy level.

References

  • Amundsen ES, Mortensen JB (2001) The Danish green certificate market: some simple analytical results. Energy Econ 23:489–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aune R, Dalen HM, Hagem C (2012) Implementing the EU renewable target through green certificate markets. Energy Econ 34:992–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Bosetti V, Hamdi-Cherif M, Kitous A, McCollum DL, Méjean A, Rao S, Turton H, Paroussos L, Ashina S, Calvin K, Wada K, Van Vuuren D (2015) CO2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: dynamic and international aspects of climate policies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard A, Vielle M (2009) Assessment of European Union transition scenarios with a special focus on the issue of carbon leakage. Energy Econ 31:S274–S284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeters S, Koornneef J (2011) Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy. Energy Econ 33:1024–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohi DR, Toman MA (1996) Economics of energy security. Kluwer, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rosendahl KE (2010) Green promotes the dirtiest: on the interaction between black and green quotas in energy markets. J Regul Econ 37:316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rosendahl KE (2011) Greening electricity more than necessary: on the cost implications of overlapping regulation in EU climate policy. Schmollers Jahrbuch 131:469–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Löschel A, Moslener U, Rutherford TF (2009a) EU climate policy up to 2020: an economic impact assessment. Energy Econ 31:S295–S305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rutherford TF, Tol RSJ (2009b) The EU 20/20/2020 targets: an overview of the EMF22 assessment. Energy Econ 31:268–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Lange A, Rutherford TF (2014) Optimal emission pricing in the presence of international spillovers: decomposing leakage and terms-of-trade motives. J Public Econ 110:101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Keller A, Bortolamedi M, Rahmeier Seyffarth A (2016) Good things do not always come in threes: on the excess cost of overlapping regulation in EU climate policy. Energy Policy 94:502–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein S (2012) The private and public economics of renewable electricity generation. J Econ Perspect 26:67–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti V, Gerlagh R, Schleicher S (2009) Modelling sustainable development: transitions to a sustainable future. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge Econometrics (2014) E3ME Technical Manual, Version 6.0. Cambridge Econometrics, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan AJ, Silva ECD (2005) An efficient mechanism to control correlated externalities: redistributive transfers and the coexistence of regional and global pollution permit markets. J Environ Econ Manag 49:68–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capros P, Mantzos L, Parousos L, Tasios N, Klaassen G, van Ierland T (2011) Analysis of the EU policy package on climate change and renewables. Energy Policy 39:1476–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jonghe C, Delarue E, Belmans R, D’haeseleer W (2009) Interactions between measures for the support of electricity from renewable energy sources and CO2 mitigation. Energy Policy 37:4743–4752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • del Rio P, Labandeira X (2009) Barriers to the introduction of market-based instruments in climate policies: an integrated theoretical framework. Environ Econ Policy Stud 10:41–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O, Hirth L, Knopf B, Pahle M, Schlömer S, Schmid E, Ueckerdt F (2013a) On the economics of renewable energy sources. Energy Econ 40:S12–S23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Luderer G (2013b) Reaping the benefits of renewables in a nonoptimal world. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11666–11667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein PR, Buonocore JJ, Eckerle K, Hendryx M, Stout BMI, Heinberg R, Clapp RW, May B, Reinhart NL, Ahern MM, Doshi SK, Glustrom L (2011) Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1219:73–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC, amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010a) Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage, COM(2010) 265 final. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010b) EU energy trends to 2030—update 2009. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Energy Roadmap 2050. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) The 2012 Ageing Report—Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010–2060). European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013a) EU energy, transport and GHG emissions—trends to 2050—reference scenario 2013. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013b) Green Paper: a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014a) Commission Staff Working Document: impact assessment accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 up to 2030”. European Commission, Brussels

  • European Commission (2014b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions: a policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. COM(2014) 15 final. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council (2014) European Council (23 and 24 October 2014)—conclusions. EUCO 169/14. European Council, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fankhauser S, Hepburn C, Park J (2010) Combining multiple climate policy instruments: how not to do it. Clim Change Econ 1:209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finon D, Perez Y (2007) The social efficiency of instruments of promotion of renewable energies: a transaction-cost perspective. Ecol Econ 62:77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischedick M, Schaeffer R, Adedoyin A, Akai M, Bruckner T, Clarke L, Krey V, Savolainen I, Teske S, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Wright R (2011) Mitigation potential and costs. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C, Newell RG (2008) Environmental and technology policies for climate change mitigation. J Environ Econ Manag 55:142–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C, Preonas L (2010) Combining policies for renewable energy: is the whole less than the sum of its parts? Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 4:51–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flues F, Löschel A, Lutz BJ, Schenker O (2014) Designing an EU energy and climate policy portfolio for 2030: implications of overlapping regulation under different levels of electricity demand. Energy Policy 75:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxon T (2011) A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecol Econ 80:2258–2267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesenbichler KS (2016) Policy interaction and the integration of volatile renewable energy. Environ Econ Policy Stud 18:193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E, Strunz S, Lehmann P (2014) A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU—how do the emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? Energ Policy 64:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E, Lehmann P, Purkus A, Söderholm P, Witte K (2017) Rationales for technology-specific RES support and their relevance for German policy. Energy Policy 102:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham K, Sweeney JL (2010) Market failure and the structure of externalities. In: Moselle B, Schmalensee R, Padilla AJ (eds) Harnessing renewable energy in electric power systems: theory, practice, policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel T (1999) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyes A, Heyes C (2000) An empirical analysis of the nuclear liability act (1970) in Canada. Resour Energy Econ 22:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindsberger M, Nybroe MH, Ravn HF, Schmidt R (2003) Co-existence of electricity, TEP, and TGC markets in the Baltic Sea Region. Energy Policy 31:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirth L, Ueckerdt F, Edenhofer O (2015) Integration costs revisited—an economic framework of wind and solar variability. Renew Energy 74:925–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2012) World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jägemann C, Fürsch M, Hagspiel S, Nagl S (2013) Decarbonizing Europe’s power sector by 2050—analyzing the economic implications of alternative decarbonization pathways. Energy Econ 40:622–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen H, Klaassen G (2000) Economic impacts of the 1997 EU energy tax: simulations with three EU-wide models. Environ Resour Econ 15:179–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen SG, Skytte K (2003) Simultaneous attainment of energy goals by means of green certificates and emission permits. Energy Policy 31:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson TB, Nakicenovic N, Patwardhan A, Gomez-Echeverri L (2012) Global energy assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2012) Learning or lock-in: optimal technology policies to support mitigation. Resour Energy Econ 34:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2013) Renewable energy subsidies: second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resour Energy Econ 35:217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr RA (2010) Do we have the energy for the next transition? Science 329:780–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopf B, Chen Y-HH, De Cian E, Förster H, Kanudia A, Karkatsouli I, Keppo I, Koljonen T, Schumacher K, van Vuuren D (2013) Beyond 2020—strategies and costs for transforming the European energy system. Clim Change Econ 4:1340001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopf B, Nahmmacher P, Schmid E (2015) The European renewable energy target for 2030—an impact assessment of the electricity sector. Energy Policy 85:50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer B, Narita D, Peterson S (2009) The economic effects of the EU biofuel target. Energy Econ 31:S285–S294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kverndokk S, Rosendahl KE (2007) Climate policies and learning by doing: impacts and timing of technology subsidies. Resour Energy Econ 29:58–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecuyer O, Quirion P (2013) Can uncertainty justify overlapping policy instruments to mitigate emissions? Ecol Econ 93:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P (2013) Supplementing an emissions tax by a feed-in tariff for renewable electricity to address learning spillovers. Energy Policy 61:635–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Gawel E (2013) Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme? Energ Policy 52:597–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Söderholm P (2018) Can technology-spcific deployment policies be cost-effective? The case of renewable energy support schemes. Environ Resour Econ 71:475–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Creutzig F, Ehlers M-H, Friedrichsen N, Heuson C, Hirth L, Pietzcker R (2012) Carbon lock-out: advancing renewable energy policy in Europe. Energies 5:323–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linares P, Santos FJ, Ventosa M (2008) Coordination of carbon reduction and renewable energy support policies. Clim Policy 8:377–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey RG, Lancaster K (1956) The general theory of the second best. Rev Econ Stud 24:11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madlener R, Stagl S (2005) Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation. Ecol Econ 53:147–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattmann M, Logar I, Brouwer R (2016) Wind power externalities: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 127:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K (2011) An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat Clim Change 1:428–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meran G, Wittmann N (2012) Green, brown, and now white certificates: are three one too many? A micro-model of market interaction. Environ Resour Econ 53:507–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercure J-F, Salas P (2012) An assessment of global energy resource economic potentials. Energy 46:322–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercure J-F, Salas P (2013) On the global economic potentials and marginal costs of non-renewable resources and the price of energy commodities. Energy Policy 63:469–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercure JF, Pollitt H, Edwards NR, Holden PB, Chewpreecha U, Salas P, Lam A, Knobloch F, Vinuales J (2017) Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE. Atmos Ocean Phys. arXiv:1707.04870

  • Messner S, Strubegger M (1995) User’s guide for MESSAGE III, working paper. International Institute of Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Möst D, Fichtner W (2010) Renewable energy sources in European energy supply and interactions with emission trading. Energy Policy 38:2998–3910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer K, Burtraw D (2005) Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies. Energy Econ 27:873–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Morris JF (2009) The cost of climate policy in the United States, Report. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt H, Summerton P, Klaassen G (2015) A model-based assessment of first-mover advantage and climate policy. Environ Econ Policy Stud 17:299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren X, Fullerton D, Braden JB (2011) Optimal taxation of externalities interacting through markets: a theoretical general equilibrium analysis. Resour Energy Econ 33:496–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Requate T (2015) Green tradable certificates versus feed-in tariffs in the promotion of renewable energy shares. Environ Econ Policy Stud 17:211–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph S, Schneider F (2013) Political barriers of implementing carbon markets in Japan: a public choice analysis and the empirical evidence before and after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Environ Econ Policy Stud 15:211–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ščasný M, Massetti E, Melichar J, Carrara S (2015) Quantifying the ancillary benefits of the representative concentration pathways on air quality in Europe. Environ Resour Econ 62:383–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt R, Marschinski R (2009) A model of technological breakthrough in the renewable energy sector. Ecol Econ 69:435–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seebregts AJ, Goldstein GA, Smekens K (2001) Energy/environmental modeling with the MARKAL family of models. Oper Res Proc 2001(2002):75–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijm J, Lehmann P, Chewpreecha U, Gawel E, Mercure J-F, Pollitt H, Strunz S (2014) EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable? UFZ Discussion Paper. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Siler-Evans K, Azevedo IL, Morgan MG, Apt J (2013) Regional variations in the health, environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11768–11773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderholm P, Sundqvist T (2003) Pricing environmental externalities in the power sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice. Ecol Econ 46:333–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strunz S (2014) The German energy transition as a regime shift. Ecol Econ 100:150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulph A, Ulph D (2013) Optimal climate change policies when governments cannot commit. Environ Resour Econ 56:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28:817–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unteutsch M, Lindenberger D (2014) Promotion of electricity from renewable energy in Europe Post 2020—the economic benefits of cooperation. Z Energ 38:47–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki M, Takeda S (2017) A computable general equilibrium assessment of Japan’s nuclear energy policy and implications for renewable energy. Environ Econ Policy Stud 19:537–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerrahn A (2017) Wind power and externalities. Econ Ecol 141:245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous referees. Research for this paper was supported by the German Helmholtz Association (Grant number HA-303). Paul Lehmann additionally received funding from the German Ministry of Education and Research (Grant number 01UU1703).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Lehmann.

Appendix

Appendix

Totally differentiating Eqs. (1)–(6) and (8)–(10) yields:

$${\text{d}}E_{P} = \mu_{x} {\text{d}}x + \mu_{y} {\text{d}}y,$$
(19)
$${\text{d}}D = \delta_{x} {\text{d}}x + \delta_{y} {\text{d}}y,$$
(20)
$${\text{d}}Q = {\text{d}}x + {\text{d}}y + {\text{d}}z,$$
(21)
$${\text{d}}p = P^{'} {\text{d}}Q,$$
(22)
$${\text{d}}t = T_{{\bar{E}}} {\text{d}}\bar{E} + T_{{E_{P} }} {\text{d}}E_{P} ,$$
(23)
$${\text{d}}l = L_{s} {\text{d}}s + L_{z} {\text{d}}z + L_{Q} {\text{d}}Q,$$
(24)
$${\text{d}}x = ({\text{d}}p - \mu_{x} {\text{d}}t - {\text{d}}l)/C'',$$
(25)
$${\text{d}}y = \left( {{\text{d}}p - \mu_{y} {\text{d}}t - {\text{d}}l} \right)/G'',$$
(26)
$${\text{d}}z = ({\text{d}}p + {\text{d}}s - {\text{d}}l)/K''.$$
(27)

Substituting (21) into (22) and (24), we obtain:

$${\text{d}}p = P^{'} \left( {{\text{d}}x + {\text{d}}y + {\text{d}}z} \right),$$
(28)
$${\text{d}}l = L_{s} {\text{d}}s + L_{z} {\text{d}}z + L_{Q} \left( {{\text{d}}x + {\text{d}}y + {\text{d}}z} \right)$$
(29)

Substituting (19) into (23) gives:

$${\text{d}}t = T_{{\bar{E}}} {\text{d}}\bar{E} + T_{{E_{P} }} \left( {\mu_{x} {\text{d}}x + \mu_{y} {\text{d}}y} \right).$$
(30)

Substituting (28)–(30) into (25)–(27) yields:

$${\text{d}}x = \frac{{\left( {P^{'} - \mu_{x} \mu_{y} T_{{E_{P} }} - L_{Q} } \right){\text{d}}y + \left( {P^{'} - L_{z} - L_{Q} } \right){\text{d}}z - \mu_{x} T_{{\bar{E}}} {\text{d}}\bar{E} - L_{s} {\text{d}}s}}{{C^{''} - P^{'} + \mu_{x}^{2} T_{{E_{P} }} + L_{Q} }} ,$$
(31)
$${\text{d}}y = \frac{{\left( {P^{'} - \mu_{x} \mu_{y} T_{{E_{P} }} - L_{Q} } \right){\text{d}}x + \left( {P^{'} - L_{z} - L_{Q} } \right)dz - \mu_{y} T_{{\bar{E}}} {\text{d}}\bar{E} - L_{s} {\text{d}}s}}{{G^{''} - P^{'} + \mu_{y}^{2} T_{{E_{P} }} + L_{Q} }},$$
(32)
$${\text{d}}z = \frac{{\left( {P^{'} - L_{Q} } \right){\text{d}}x + \left( {P^{'} - L_{Q} } \right){\text{d}}y + \left( {1 - L_{s} } \right){\text{d}}s}}{{K^{''} - P^{'} + L_{z} + L_{Q} }}.$$
(33)

Solving the equations system (31)–(33) for \({\text{d}}x\), \({\text{d}}y\) and \(dz\) gives Eqs. (11)–(13). Substituting Eqs. (11)–(13) into (19)–(21) yields Eqs. (14), (16) and (18). Substituting (14) into (22) and (16) into (23) gives Eqs. (15) and (17).

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lehmann, P., Sijm, J., Gawel, E. et al. Addressing multiple externalities from electricity generation: a case for EU renewable energy policy beyond 2020?. Environ Econ Policy Stud 21, 255–283 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-0229-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-0229-6

Keywords

JEL Classification