IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v94y2021ics0140988320304333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vertical integration, recycling mechanism, and disadvantaged independent suppliers in the renewable obligation in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Shao, Jing
  • Li, Jinke
  • Liu, Guy

Abstract

Under the Renewable Obligation (RO) scheme implemented in the UK, electricity suppliers are required to present a certain number of RO certificates (ROCs) depending on the quantity of electricity they sold. Insufficient availability of ROCs, guaranteed by the amendment of headroom, helps boost investors' confidence about their values, but we observe that there was a large variation in compliance by suppliers. Using data from 17 reporting years from 2002–03 to 2018–19, our estimation results show that compliance of subsidiaries of the big six energy companies was 15.46% higher than that of independent suppliers. We trace the movement of ROCs from six generators to show that they prefer to sell ROCs to suppliers within the vertical integration. We develop scenarios and a theoretical model to show that, when the recycling mechanism is in place, integrated generators have the motivation to sell ROCs to integrated suppliers, rather than independent suppliers, while holding spare ROCs is the least favourite option. These predictions are consistent with observations that (i) integrated suppliers have better compliance than independent suppliers, and (ii) nearly all issued ROCs were presented. Therefore, we suggest that, when both vertical integration and the recycling mechanism exist, independent suppliers were disadvantaged in accessing ROCs given insufficient supply. Nonetheless, as a way of refunding unjustified penalties due to insufficient supply of ROCs, the recycling mechanism can promote competition among suppliers for ROCs, compared with a simple refunding method.

Suggested Citation

  • Shao, Jing & Li, Jinke & Liu, Guy, 2021. "Vertical integration, recycling mechanism, and disadvantaged independent suppliers in the renewable obligation in the UK," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:94:y:2021:i:c:s0140988320304333
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988320304333
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wood, Geoffrey & Dow, Stephen, 2011. "What lessons have been learned in reforming the Renewables Obligation? An analysis of internal and external failures in UK renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2228-2244, May.
    2. Foxon, T. J. & Gross, R. & Chase, A. & Howes, J. & Arnall, A. & Anderson, D., 2005. "UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2123-2137, November.
    3. Kent, Anthony & Mercer, David, 2006. "Australia's mandatory renewable energy target (MRET): an assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1046-1062, June.
    4. Valentine, Scott, 2010. "Braking wind in Australia: A critical evaluation of the renewable energy target," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3668-3675, July.
    5. Berry, Trent & Jaccard, Mark, 2001. "The renewable portfolio standard:: design considerations and an implementation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 263-277, March.
    6. Carley, Sanya, 2009. "State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3071-3081, August.
    7. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan, 2010. "Are tradable green certificates a cost-efficient policy driving technical change or a rent-generating machine? Lessons from Sweden 2003-2008," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1255-1271, March.
    8. Upton, Gregory B. & Snyder, Brian F., 2017. "Funding renewable energy: An analysis of renewable portfolio standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 205-216.
    9. Verbruggen, Aviel, 2009. "Performance evaluation of renewable energy support policies, applied on Flanders' tradable certificates system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1385-1394, April.
    10. Nelson, Tim & Nelson, James & Ariyaratnam, Jude & Camroux, Simon, 2013. "An analysis of Australia's large scale renewable energy target: Restoring market confidence," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 386-400.
    11. Woodman, B. & Mitchell, C., 2011. "Learning from experience? The development of the Renewables Obligation in England and Wales 2002-2010," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 3914-3921, July.
    12. Finjord, Fredrik & Hagspiel, Verena & Lavrutich, Maria & Tangen, Marius, 2018. "The impact of Norwegian-Swedish green certificate scheme on investment behavior: A wind energy case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 373-389.
    13. Li, Jinke & Liu, Guy & Shao, Jing, 2020. "Understanding the ROC transfer payment in the renewable obligation with the recycling mechanism in the United Kingdom," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Foxon, T.J. & Pearson, P.J.G., 2007. "Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1539-1550, March.
    15. Mitchell, C. & Bauknecht, D. & Connor, P.M., 2006. "Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 297-305, February.
    16. Bunn, Derek & Yusupov, Tim, 2015. "The progressive inefficiency of replacing renewable obligation certificates with contracts-for-differences in the UK electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 298-309.
    17. Jacobsson, Staffan & Bergek, Anna & Finon, Dominique & Lauber, Volkmar & Mitchell, Catherine & Toke, David & Verbruggen, Aviel, 2009. "EU renewable energy support policy: Faith or facts?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2143-2146, June.
    18. Zhou, Huizhong, 2012. "Impacts of renewables obligation with recycling of the buy-out fund," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 284-291.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shao, Jing & Chen, Huanhuan & Li, Jinke & Liu, Guy, 2022. "An evaluation of the consumer-funded renewable obligation scheme in the UK for wind power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Jinke & Liu, Guy & Shao, Jing, 2020. "Understanding the ROC transfer payment in the renewable obligation with the recycling mechanism in the United Kingdom," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Shao, Jing & Chen, Huanhuan & Li, Jinke & Liu, Guy, 2022. "An evaluation of the consumer-funded renewable obligation scheme in the UK for wind power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    3. del Río, Pablo & Bleda, Mercedes, 2012. "Comparing the innovation effects of support schemes for renewable electricity technologies: A function of innovation approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 272-282.
    4. Darmani, Anna & Rickne, Annika & Hidalgo, Antonio & Arvidsson, Niklas, 2016. "When outcomes are the reflection of the analysis criteria: A review of the tradable green certificate assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 372-381.
    5. Nicolini, Marcella & Tavoni, Massimo, 2017. "Are renewable energy subsidies effective? Evidence from Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 412-423.
    6. Verbruggen, Aviel & Lauber, Volkmar, 2012. "Assessing the performance of renewable electricity support instruments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 635-644.
    7. Connor, Peter & Bürger, Veit & Beurskens, Luuk & Ericsson, Karin & Egger, Christiane, 2013. "Devising renewable heat policy: Overview of support options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 3-16.
    8. del Río, Pablo & Tarancón, Miguel-Ángel, 2012. "Analysing the determinants of on-shore wind capacity additions in the EU: An econometric study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 12-21.
    9. Nelson, Tim & Dodd, Tracey, 2023. "Contracts-for-Difference: An assessment of social equity considerations in the renewable energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Mario Ragwitz & Simone Steinhilber, 2014. "Effectiveness and efficiency of support schemes for electricity from renewable energy sources," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 213-229, March.
    11. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian, 2014. "The impact of environmental policy instruments on innovation: A review of energy and automotive industry studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 112-123.
    12. Paul Lehmann & Felix Creutzig & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Nele Friedrichsen & Clemens Heuson & Lion Hirth & Robert Pietzcker, 2012. "Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, February.
    13. Youhyun Lee & Inseok Seo, 2019. "Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, May.
    14. Polzin, Friedemann & Egli, Florian & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1249-1268.
    15. Schallenberg-Rodriguez, Julieta, 2017. "Renewable electricity support systems: Are feed-in systems taking the lead?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1422-1439.
    16. Tim Nelson & Tahlia Nolan & Joel Gilmore, 2022. "What’s next for the Renewable Energy Target – resolving Australia’s integration of energy and climate change policy?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 136-163, January.
    17. Pérez de Arce, Miguel & Sauma, Enzo & Contreras, Javier, 2016. "Renewable energy policy performance in reducing CO2 emissions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 272-280.
    18. Polzin, Friedemann & Migendt, Michael & Täube, Florian A. & von Flotow, Paschen, 2015. "Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 98-111.
    19. Buckman, Greg & Sibley, Jon & Ward, Megan, 2019. "The large-scale feed-in tariff reverse auction scheme in the Australian Capital Territory 2012, to 2016," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 176-185.
    20. Polzin, Friedemann, 2017. "Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – A systematic review of barriers and solutions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 525-535.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vertical integration; Recycling mechanism; Compliance; Renewable obligation; Insufficient supply;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H32 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Firm
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:94:y:2021:i:c:s0140988320304333. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.