IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The social efficiency of instruments of promotion of renewable energies: A transaction-cost perspective

  • Finon, Dominique
  • Perez, Yannick

This paper compares the social efficiency of the regulatory instruments used to promote renewable energy sources in electricity generation, taking into consideration their role in promoting the preservation of collective goods. They are based on a purchase obligation and act either by price (feed-in tariffs) or by quantity (bidding for new RES-E capacities; RES-E quotas). From the Public Economics perspective, the two instruments are distinct in terms of cost-efficacy and market incentives in a world of imperfect information. Exchangeable quotas of green certificates are preferred because this instrument allows better control over consumer costs and whilst retaining market incentives. Transaction cost economics (TCE) contributes to the assessment of these instruments, by introducing RES-E investment safeguard as a major determinant of social efficiency, and the instruments' conformity to its institutional environment as a determinant of its viability. In light of this additional consideration, the arrangements between RES-E producers and obligated buyers inherent in each instrument are in fact quite similar-either long-term contracting or vertical integration. We compare and assess RES-E price- and quantity-instruments on several dimensions from both the public economics and TCE perspectives: control of the cost for consumers, safeguards of RES-E investments, adaptability of the instrument in order to preserve its stability in the long run, market incentive intensity, and conformity with the new market regime of electricity industry. It shows neither instruments offer an optimal solution in each of these dimensions. The government will thus select an instrument in accordance with the relative importance of its objectives. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 62 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
Pages: 77-92

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:62:y:2007:i:1:p:77-92
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Williamson, Oliver E, 1999. "Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 306-42, April.
  2. Lauber, Volkmar, 2004. "REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised Community framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 1405-1414, August.
  3. Dominique Finon & Philippe Menanteau, 2003. "The Static and Dynamic Efficiency of Instruments of Promotion of Renewables," Post-Print halshs-00001300, HAL.
  4. Lemming, Jacob, 2003. "Financial risks for green electricity investors and producers in a tradable green certificate market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 21-32, January.
  5. Delmas Magali & Marcus Alfred, 2004. "Firms' Choice of Regulatory Instruments to Reduce Pollution: A Transaction Cost Approach," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(3), pages 1-22, December.
  6. William J. Baumol & Alvin K. Klevorick, 1970. "Input Choices and Rate-of Return Regulation: An Overview of the Discussion," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 1(2), pages 162-190, Autumn.
  7. Butler, L. & Neuhoff, K., 2005. "Comparison of Feed in Tariff, Quota and Auction Mechanisms to Support Wind Power Development," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0503, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  8. Lorenzoni, Arturo, 2003. "The Italian Green Certificates market between uncertainty and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 33-42, January.
  9. Roberts, Marc J. & Spence, Michael, 1976. "Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 193-208.
  10. Patrick Bajari & Robert McMillan & Steven Tadelis, . "Auctions versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis," Working Papers 02007, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
  11. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
  12. Dinica, Valentina, 2006. "Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies--an investor perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 461-480, March.
  13. 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.
  14. Scott E. Masten & Stéphane Saussier, 2000. "Econometrics of Contracts : an Assessment of Developments in the Empirical Literature on Contracting," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 92(1), pages 215-236.
  15. Mitchell, Catherine & Connor, Peter, 2004. "Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(17), pages 1935-1947, November.
  16. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
  17. Moe, Terry M, 1990. "Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 213-53.
  18. Holttinen, H., 2005. "Optimal electricity market for wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2052-2063, November.
  19. Witold J. Henisz & Bennet A. Zelner, 2001. "The Institutional Environment for Telecommunications Investment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 123-147, 03.
  20. Mitchell, Catherine, 1995. "The renewables NFFO: A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(12), pages 1077-1091, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:62:y:2007:i:1:p:77-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.