IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewexb/1906.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogene Rationierung in Ausschreibungen für erneuerbare Energien: Verdrängung von Angebot statt Schaffung von Wettbewerb

Author

Listed:
  • Ehrhart, Karl-Martin
  • Hanke, Ann-Katrin
  • Ott, Marion

Abstract

In verschiedenen Ländern wie z.B. Deutschland und Frankreich wurde in den jüngsten Ausschreibungsrunden für den Bau neuer Windenergieanlagen an Land die Ausschreibungsmenge von der Angebotsmenge nicht oder nur knapp überschritten. Diese Entwicklung in Verbindung mit geplanten Sonderausschreibungen erhöht die Risiken zukünftiger Unterzeichnungen und hoher Preise. Zur Lösung dieses Problems in Deutschland wird von verschiedenen Stellen wie der Bundesregierung vorgeschlagen, Instrumente der endogenen Rationierung in das Auktionsdesign zu implementieren. Konkret schlägt § 11 Absatz 2 InnAusV der "Verordnung zu den Innovationsausschreibungen und zur Änderung weiterer energiewirtschaftlicher Verordnungen" vom 16. Oktober 2019 (Bundesregierung, 2019a) eine Auktion mit sogenannter endogener Rationierung vor. Die Instrumente der endogenen Rationierung sollen im Fall eines zu geringen oder zu teuren Angebots das Ausschreibungsergebnis anpassen, indem das Zuschlagsvolumen in Abhängigkeit vom Angebotsvolumen bzw. von den Gebotspreisen reduziert wird. Dadurch sollen Wettbewerb in den Ausschreibungsrunden und niedrigere Preise gesichert werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Hanke, Ann-Katrin & Ott, Marion, 2019. "Endogene Rationierung in Ausschreibungen für erneuerbare Energien: Verdrängung von Angebot statt Schaffung von Wettbewerb," ZEW Expert Briefs 19-06, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewexb:1906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/271613/1/zew-exp201906.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Chen & Robert Gazzale, 2004. "When Does Learning in Games Generate Convergence to Nash Equilibria? The Role of Supermodularity in an Experimental Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1505-1535, December.
    2. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Yuya Wakabayashi & Ryosuke Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2022. "A Characterization of the Minimum Price Walrasian Rule with Reserve Prices for an Arbitrary Number of Agents and Objects," ISER Discussion Paper 1161, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. Nicolas Gruyer, 2009. "Optimal Auctions When A Seller Is Bound To Sell To Collusive Bidders," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 835-850, December.
    4. Laurent Lamy, 2013. "“Upping the ante”: how to design efficient auctions with entry?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 194-214, June.
    5. Yeon-Koo Che & Ian Gale, 1994. "Auctions with budget-constrained buyers: a nonequivalence result," Working Papers (Old Series) 9402, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    6. Scott Fay & Robert Zeithammer, 2017. "Bidding for Bidders? How the Format for Soliciting Supplier Participation in NYOP Auctions Impacts Channel Profit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4324-4344, December.
    7. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2014. "Toward an efficiency rationale for the public provision of private goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 375-408, June.
    8. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 1994. "Auctions vs. Negotiations," NBER Working Papers 4608, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    11. Koessler, Frédéric & Skreta, Vasiliki, 2016. "Informed seller with taste heterogeneity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 456-471.
    12. Siao-Leu Phouratsamay & Safia Kedad-Sidhoum & Fanny Pascual, 2021. "Coordination of a two-level supply chain with contracts," 4OR, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 235-264, June.
    13. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    14. Paulo Monteiro, 2009. "Abstract types and distributions in independent private value auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 497-507, September.
    15. Stefano Galavotti, 2014. "Reducing Inefficiency in Public Good Provision Through Linking," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 427-466, June.
    16. Leandro Arozamena & Estelle Cantillon, 2004. "Investment Incentives in Procurement Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(1), pages 1-18.
    17. Yiding Feng & Jason Hartline & Yingkai Li, 2020. "Simple Mechanisms for Agents with Non-linear Utilities," Papers 2003.00545, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    18. Strausz, Roland, 2006. "Deterministic versus stochastic mechanisms in principal-agent models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 306-314, May.
    19. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    20. Kos, Nenad & Messner, Matthias, 2013. "Extremal incentive compatible transfers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 134-164.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:zewexb:1906. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    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.