IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v35y2019i2p218-243..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should renewable energy policy be ‘renewable’?

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Gawel
  • Paul Lehmann

Abstract

Political flexibility brings about trade-offs for policy-makers aiming to support the deployment of renewable energy sources (RES). On the one hand, it allows incorporating new information on ex ante uncertain benefits and costs of RES policy. On the other hand, it may deter RES investments. This paper scrutinizes how these trade-offs play out economically and politically when RES policy-makers choose the degree of flexibility as well as the instruments to implement flexibility. The analysis builds on a theoretical framework distinguishing between flexibility by design and by adjustment. It is complemented by a discussion of three case studies: RES support schemes in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Theoretical as well as empirical results suggest that the politically chosen degree of flexibility by policy design may be sub-optimally low. In contrast, flexibility by policy adjustment is often excessively high.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann, 2019. "Should renewable energy policy be ‘renewable’?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 218-243.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:218-243.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grz002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Moshe Maor, 2020. "Policy over- and under-design: an information quality perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 395-411, September.

    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:oup:oxford:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:218-243.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    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.