The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Energy policy vs. "undistorted competition" The formulation of a proper energy policy is impeded by a mistaken sense of what competitiveness on a market is, especially on an energy market. Markets exist in a market environment. Which competitor thrives on a market and which doesn't is determined by how well they can adapt to a given environment. Thus, competitiveness is not an absolute, but a function of the market environment. One can't divorce market and market environment. And beyond the potential of technologies, resource (and capital) availability, and geography, this environment also includes regulations. From the above, it also follows that no change in regulation can be 'neutral', not even the removal of a general regulation: every change in regulation 'distorts' the market. In particular, on the electricity market, different types of power plants have different price structures -- fuel costs dominate for gas, upfront costs for wind or nuclear, etc. --, thus, for example, a general change in fuel taxes or long-term planning requirements can cause a modal shift. Thus, for a proper energy policy, policymakers first have to recognise that they are setting energy policy, whatever they do, and they should better do so consciously. Given the goals of sustainability and reduction of import dependence, the primary and explicit aim on the field of regulations should be the favouring of renewables. A mere statement of the aim doesn't suffice. It should also be avoided that Member States listen to the established industry players when setting up regulation. For example, in Hungary, the scope of a feed-in law for renewables was capped, because ostensibly the grid won't sustain a higher grid penetration. While the EU as policymaker could and should intervene in such cases by bringing in contrary experience from other Member States, it is even more important to recognise an underlying motivation: established producers stand to lose market share. Thus, there should be an explicit recognition that established producers are to lose market share (that is, unless they invest massively in renewables themselves). Decisionmakers should be conscious of the conflict potential, and should wage a conflict when making policy.
Markets exist in a market environment. Which competitor thrives on a market and which doesn't is determined by how well they can adapt to a given environment. Thus, competitiveness is not an absolute, but a function of the market environment. One can't divorce market and market environment. And beyond the potential of technologies, resource (and capital) availability, and geography, this environment also includes regulations.
From the above, it also follows that no change in regulation can be 'neutral', not even the removal of a general regulation: every change in regulation 'distorts' the market. In particular, on the electricity market, different types of power plants have different price structures -- fuel costs dominate for gas, upfront costs for wind or nuclear, etc. --, thus, for example, a general change in fuel taxes or long-term planning requirements can cause a modal shift.
Thus,
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 8 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 6 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 11 9 comments
by gmoke - Mar 7
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 2 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 5 2 comments
by gmoke - Feb 25
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 16
by Oui - Mar 164 comments
by Oui - Mar 15
by Oui - Mar 147 comments
by Oui - Mar 1312 comments
by Oui - Mar 12
by Oui - Mar 1113 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 119 comments
by Oui - Mar 1116 comments
by Oui - Mar 109 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 103 comments
by Oui - Mar 94 comments
by Oui - Mar 8
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 83 comments
by Oui - Mar 71 comment
by Oui - Mar 7
by Oui - Mar 66 comments