IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v177y2023ics0301421523000678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can an energy-only market fully remunerate investment? Empirical evidence since 2005

Author

Listed:
  • Weale, Graham

Abstract

The challenges of relying upon the Energy-Only Market (EOM) to remunerate power plants have been widely discussed. However virtually no empirical information is available showing what percentage of fixed costs have been recovered from the wholesale market alone in the European Union (EU). This paper presents the results of a detailed investigation into the cost recovery for thermal, nuclear, and renewable plants in France and Germany (representing 37% of the EU market) between 2005 and 2019. It shows that only second-generation nuclear plants recovered their full costs; the average level of cost recovery was 40% for combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs), 55% for coal plants, 30% for wind plants and 60% for utility-scale solar plants. As an alternative means of profitability determination the internal rate of return (IRR) was estimated. It was negative for CCGTs and wind plants; coal plants recorded a level of 2–3%, nuclear plants 7–8% and PV plants 0–2%, and should be compared with a typical utility cost of capital of 7%. The results are important for future market design and show that without changes, investment relying on the wholesale market alone in both renewable plants and dispatchable plants needed to accompany them will be difficult.

Suggested Citation

  • Weale, Graham, 2023. "Can an energy-only market fully remunerate investment? Empirical evidence since 2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:177:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523000678
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523000678
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113482?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.

    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:enepol:v:177:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523000678. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/enpol .

    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.