Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Electricity Tracking and Disclosure in Modern Electricity Markets
2.1. The Role of Electricity Disclosure in the Modern Electricity Markets
2.2. Guarantees of Origin as the Instrument for Explicit Tracking in Building Reliable Electricity Disclosure
- along the physical flows in the electricity grid;
- along the trading arrangements (contracts) in the electricity market; or
- in a separate accounting mechanism which is independent from the physical flows and from electricity contracts.
- Renewable energy support systems (e.g., German feed-in tariff) which require a defined allocation of the attributes of supported generation to consumers for disclosure purposes, which cannot be implemented reasonably based on GOs. In this case a pro-rata allocation of the attributes to all consumers which are paying for the support system can be the adequate solution;
- Under certain conditions, the contracts concluded by market participants in the physical electricity market (also known as contract-based tracking). The conditions include the central collection and supervision of such tracking data by an appointed competent body.
- Support for renewable energy production
- Interaction with governmental renewable support schemes
- Supplier differentiation and consumer awareness
- Harmonized tracking system in the EU
- Enabling operation of labels
2.3. Residual Mix as the Instrument of Reliable Implicit Electricity Disclosure
- Data collection from each country:
- Net electricity production by tracking attribute including tracked externalities (CO2 emissions and produced radioactive waste);
- Total electricity consumption;
- Data on explicitly tracked production attributes (imports, exports and cancellations of GOs and RTSs);
- Net electricity import and export outside the EAM area. In the case of net import, the residual mix (if exists; otherwise production mix) of the outside EAM country from where the electricity was imported.
- Determination of the domestic residual mix and surplus/deficit of each country
- Determine available attributes by deducting exported and cancelled, and adding imported attributes to the generation mix (corrected with physical import or export to outside the EAM area). The mix of available attributes is the domestic residual mix;
- Determine untracked consumption by deducting cancelled attributes from total electricity consumption;
- Compare the volume of the available attributes with the volume of untracked consumption. If the amount of available attributes is greater/less than untracked consumption, the difference is surplus/deficit. The share of attributes in the surplus matches the domestic residual mix.
- Determination of the European Attribute Mix including tracked externalities
- Combine the surpluses from all countries with a surplus.
- Determination of the final residual mix of each country
- In case of surplus, the final residual mix of the country is equal to the domestic residual mix minus the surplus;
- Fill the domestic residual mix of deficit countries using the EAM until the volume of available attributes equals untracked consumption.
3. Analysis of Implicit Disclosure Problems before (2010) and after (2012) the RE-DISS Project
3.1. Implicit Disclosure Problems in Europe
- Uncorrected generation statistics used for implicit disclosure;
- Contract-based Tracking;
- Uncoordinated calculation within Europe;
- Overlapping Regions for Implicit Disclosure;
- Active GOs.
3.1.1. Uncorrected Generation Statistics Used for Implicit Disclosure
3.1.2. Contract-Based Tracking
3.1.3. Uncoordinated Calculation of Residual Mixes within Europe
3.1.4. Overlapping Regions for Implicit Disclosure
3.1.5. Active GOs
3.2. Presence of Implicit Disclosure Problems in Europe before (2010) and after (2012) the RE-DISS Project
4. Results
4.1. Effects from Corrections of Implicit Disclosure Problems during the RE-DISS Project
Country | Problem | Description | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Austria (1) | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | |||
No residual mix. | ||||||
ENTSO-e mix used for implicit disclosure. | ||||||
Austria (2) | (X) | X | Improvements: | |||
All renewables filtered out of the ENTSO-mix before used for implicit disclosure. | ||||||
Belgium (1) | (X) | Before RE-DISS: | ||||
No residual mix. | ||||||
Production mix from which all RES filtered out used for implicit disclosure. | ||||||
Belgium (2) | (X) | Improvements: | ||||
No improvements. | ||||||
Denmark (1) | X | (X) | --- | --- | Before RE-DISS: | |
No residual mix. | ||||||
CBT for nuclear and fossil. | ||||||
Denmark (2) | Improvements: | |||||
Reliable and coordinated residual mix calculation. | ||||||
CBT of nuclear and fossil supervised. | ||||||
Finland (1) | (X) | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||
Residual mix of Finland based on the Nordic region. | ||||||
No legal status for residual mix: given as a recommendation by the Association of Energy Industries. | ||||||
Contract based tracking allowed. | ||||||
Finland (2) | (X) | Improvements: | ||||
Reliable and coordinated residual mix calculation set by legislation. | ||||||
CBT only for nuclear and fossil. | ||||||
France (1) | X | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||
No residual mix. | ||||||
Mix of own production, contracts and ENTSO-e mix used for disclosure. | ||||||
France (2) | X | X | X | Improvements: | ||
No improvements. | ||||||
Germany (1) | X | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||
No residual mix. | ||||||
ENTSO-e mix as default value for disclosure. | ||||||
CBT, GOs, RECS and labels used for disclosure. | ||||||
Germany (2) | (X) | (X) | Improvements | |||
National production mix, from which all renewables filtered out, used for implicit disclosure. | ||||||
Ireland (1) | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||||
Disclosure based on contracts and residual mix (residual mix accounts for contracts). | ||||||
Residual mix is not coordinated with other countries. | ||||||
Ireland (2) | Improvements: | |||||
Coordinated residual mix calculated. | ||||||
Italy (1) | X | X | --- | --- | Before RE-DISS: | |
No residual mix. | ||||||
Disclosure based on fuel mixes. | ||||||
Italy (2) | X | X | X | (X) | Improvements: | |
Residual mix calculated but not coordinated (deficit disclosed with Eurostat mix). | ||||||
It is not clear whether residual mix accounts for Active GOs. | ||||||
Luxemburg (1) | --- | --- | --- | Before RE-DISS: | ||
No disclosure. | ||||||
Luxemburg (2) | (X) | X | X | Improvements: | ||
Disclosure system implemented. | ||||||
ENTSO-e mix from which all renewables filtered out used for implicit disclosure. | ||||||
Netherlands (1) | (X) | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||
Residual mix calculated, but all renewables filtered out. Does not consider contracts and is not coordinated. | ||||||
Netherland (2) | (X) | (X) | X | Improvements: | ||
Residual mix calculation considers contracts and is coordinated, but all renewables are filtered out. | ||||||
Norway (1) | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | |||
Residual mix calculated, but not coordinated. | ||||||
Deficit attributes disclosed as unknown. | ||||||
Norway (2) | Improvements: | |||||
Deficit attributes replaced with the European Attribute Mix. | ||||||
Residual mix only accounts for year X certificates. | ||||||
Portugal (1) | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | |||
No residual mix. | ||||||
Disclosure through contracts. | ||||||
Portugal (2) | X | X | Improvements: | |||
Approach to a kind of residual mix. | ||||||
Slovenia (1) | X | X | X | Before RE-DISS: | ||
No residual mix. | ||||||
Disclosure is based on contracts, GOs and ENTSO-e mix. | ||||||
Slovenia (2) | X | X | X | Improvements: | ||
No improvements. | ||||||
Spain (1) | X | (X) | Before RE-DISS: | |||
Residual mix is calculated, but not coordinated with other countries (domestic attributes expanded if needed). | ||||||
A problem with Active GOs might exist and GOs do not necessarily have to be cancelled in order to be used. | ||||||
Spain (2) | X | (X) | Improvements: | |||
No improvements. | ||||||
Sweden (1) | (X) | (X) | X | Before RE-DISS | ||
Residual mix based on the Nordic region. | ||||||
Contract based tracking allowed but accounted for. | ||||||
No legal status for residual mix: given as a recommendation by the Association of Energy Industries. | ||||||
Sweden (2) | X | Improvements: | ||||
Contract-based tracking not allowed (disclosure based on GOs or residual mix). | ||||||
Use of the residual mix obligated by law. | ||||||
Switzerland (1) | X | X | Before RE-DISS | |||
No residual mix. | ||||||
Contract-based tracking allowed. | ||||||
Switzerland (2) | --- | (X) | --- | Improvements: | ||
All electricity explicitly tracked with GOs (no residual mix needed). |
- Effect of possible other problems besides the five listed have been neglected, e.g., problems relating to explicit tracking;
- in case CBT is allowed in the country, this has been assumed to cover:
- ○
- 50% of untracked (not tracked with GOs or RTSs) domestic renewable production;
- ○
- 20% of untracked domestic nuclear and fossil production;
- ○
- for France (53% of RES and 56% of NUC and FOS) and Sweden (26% of RES, 17% NUC and 0% FOS), country specific estimates have been used.
- In case new legislation is currently being implemented and is scheduled to come into force in the near future, such progress has been taken into account for the after RE-DISS scenario. This is relevant for Germany, Sweden and Switzerland where the law or regulation is already ratified as well as for Finland and Italy where the ratification is in process.
4.2. Improvements to the Residual Mix Calculation Methodology by RE-DISS
- Transaction data being inconsistent between countries due to use of both PYBM and TBM;
- Active GOs from previous production years causing double counting.
5. Outlook and Discussion
Countries | Recommended Steps for Improving Implicit Disclosure |
---|---|
Austria | In Austria, explicit tracking of all electricity consumption will be required starting from 2013 electricity disclosure. Hence errors in implicit disclosure will be avoided in the future, but this was not covered by this analysis. |
Belgium | To increase the accuracy of implicit disclosure, it is recommended that Belgium implement the RE-DISS residual mix, although the current method does not cause double counting of renewable attributes. |
Denmark | Denmark has resolved the five problems related to implicit disclosure, presented in Section 3.1. |
Finland | It is recommended that Finland ban unmonitored contract-based tracking of nuclear and fossil attributes. |
Italy | It is recommended that Italy cooperate with other European countries in forming its residual mix to correctly account for international transfers of electricity and GOs in the residual mix and to prevent double counting of renewable attributes. Furthermore, it needs to be clarified whether the residual mix calculation accounts for previous production year GOs. |
Netherlands | It is recommended that The Netherlands cease to filter out the possibly remaining renewable share from the residual mix. This would make the disclosure more accurate although the current form of implicit disclosure does not cause double counting of renewable attributes. |
Sweden | It is recommended that Sweden use its domestic residual mix for implicit disclosure instead of the Nordic residual mix, unless Denmark, Finland and Norway also agree to use the Nordic residual mix. |
Switzerland | Implicit disclosure is not used as all consumption is explicitly tracked. Hence errors in implicit disclosure are avoided. |
Luxemburg | To obtain accurate implicit disclosure, it is recommended that Luxemburg implement the residual mix calculation according to the RE-DISS Best Practices, although the current method of Luxemburg does not cause double counting of renewable attributes. |
Norway | Norway resolved the issue of active GOs after the end of the project (but this was not considered in the analysis) and has thus solved the five problems related to implicit disclosure, presented in Section 3.1. |
Ireland | Ireland has resolved the five problems related to implicit disclosure, presented in Section 3.1. |
France | It is recommended that France implement a residual mix calculation according to the RE-DISS BPR to eliminate implicit double counting of renewable attributes and to achieve more accurate disclosure. |
Germany | To obtain accurate implicit disclosure, it is recommended that Germany implement the residual mix calculation according to the RE-DISS BPR, although the current method of Germany does not cause double counting of renewable attributes. |
Portugal | It is recommended that Portugal implement a residual mix calculation according to RE-DISS BPR to eliminate implicit double counting of renewable attributes and to achieve more accurate disclosure. |
Slovenia | It is recommended that Slovenia implement a residual mix calculation according to RE-DISS BPR to eliminate implicit double counting of renewable attributes and to achieve more accurate disclosure. |
Spain | It is recommended that Spain cooperate with other European countries in forming its residual mix to correctly account for international transfer of electricity and GOs in the residual mix and to prevent double counting of renewable attributes. Furthermore, it needs to be clarified whether GOs need to be cancelled before they are used and whether the residual mix calculation accounts for previous production year GOs. |
Acknowledgments
Appendix: Numerical Example of Simplified Residual Mix Calculation
Country A | Country B | Country C | Country D | SUM | Explanation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Data Collection | |||||||
1a. Production Mix | |||||||
RES | 5 | 10 | 80 | 40 | 135 | TWh | |
NUC | 30 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 70 | TWh | |
FOS | 40 | 60 | 10 | 20 | 130 | TWh | |
1b. Consumption | 100 | 40 | 140 | 55 | 335 | TWh | |
1c. Certificate Transactions (all RES) | |||||||
Imp. | 60 | 30 | 5 | 0 | 95 | TWh | |
Exp | 5 | 5 | 60 | 25 | 95 | TWh | |
Canc. | 50 | 15 | 20 | 10 | 95 | TWh | |
2. Domestic RM | |||||||
2a. Available Attributes | |||||||
RES | 10 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 40 | TWh | 1a.Prod+ 1c.Imp-1c.Exp-1c.Canc. |
NUC | 30 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 70 | TWh | 1a.Prod |
FOS | 40 | 60 | 10 | 20 | 130 | TWh | 1a.Prod |
SUM | 80 | 80 | 55 | 25 | 240 | TWh | |
2b. Untracked Consumption | 50 | 25 | 120 | 45 | 240 | TWh | 1b.Cons-1c.Canc. |
2c. Surplus/Deficit | |||||||
Surplus | 30 | 55 | 85 | TWh | IF 2a.SumAvailable Attributes >2b. Untracked Consumption—> Surplus = Sum 2a-2b | ||
Deficit | 65 | 20 | 85 | TWh | IF 2a.SumAvailable Attributes Deficit = 2b-sum 2a | ||
3. European Attribute Mix | |||||||
3a. Surplus to EAM | |||||||
RES | 3.75 | 13.75 | 0 | 0 | 17.5 | TWh | 2c.Surplus*2a.Share of RES in Available Attributes |
NUC | 11,25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.25 | TWh | 2c.Surplus*2a.Share of NUC in Available Attributes |
FOS | 15 | 41.25 | 0 | 0 | 56.25 | TWh | 2c.Surplus*2a.Share of FOS in Available Attributes |
SUM | 30 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 85 | TWh | |
4. Final Residual Mixes | |||||||
4a. RM of Surplus domain | |||||||
RES | 6.25 | 6.25 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att RES—3a.Surplus RES | |||
NUC | 18.75 | 0 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att NUC—3a.Surplus NUC | |||
FOS | 25 | 18.75 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att FOS—3a.Surplus FOS | |||
4b. RM of Deficit domain | |||||||
RES | 18.38 | 9.12 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att. RES + 2c.Deficit*3a.ShareofRESinEAM | |||
NUC | 48.60 | 2.65 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att. NUC + 2c.Deficit*3a.ShareofNUCinEAM | |||
FOS | 53.01 | 33.24 | TWh | 2a.Av. Att. FOS + 2c.Deficit*3a.ShareofFOSinEAM | |||
Final RM (%) | |||||||
RES | 13% | 25% | 15% | 20% | |||
NUC | 38% | 0% | 41% | 6% | |||
FOS | 50% | 75% | 44% | 74% | |||
Production Mix (comparison) | |||||||
RES | 7% | 14% | 62% | 67% | |||
NUC | 40% | 0% | 31% | 0% | |||
FOS | 53% | 86% | 8% | 33% |
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Trevino, L. Liberalization of the Electricity Market in Europe: An overview of the Electricity Technology and the Market Place. Chair Management of Network Industries—MIR; College of Management of Technology, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 2009/72/EC. Directive 2012/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:211:0055:0093:EN:PDF (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Timpe, C.; Seebach, D. Best Practice for the Tracking of Electricity. Recommendations from the E-Track II Project. Deliverable 10 of the IEE Project “A European Tracking System for Electricity—Phase II (E-TRACK II)”. Available online: http://www.e-track-project.org/docs/E-TRACK%20II_WP7_Recommendations.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Jansen, J.C.; Seebach, D. Requirements of Electricity End-Users on Tracking of Electricity Generation Attributes and Related Policies. D7 of WP 5 of the E-Track II Project (Final Report). A Report Prepared as Part of the EIE Project “A European Tracking System for Electricity—Phase II (E-Track II)”. Available online: http://www.e-track-project.org/docs/final/WP5_D7_Consumer%20requirements%20report_V2.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- The E-TRACK Project. Available online: http://www.e-track-project.org (accessed on 17 April 2015).
- Boardman, B.; Palmer, J. Electricity disclosure: The troubled birth of a new policy. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4947–4958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhite, H. An assessment of experiences in the U.S.A. with power and emission disclosure information for energy consumers. Available online: https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/32691 (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Markard, J.; Holt, E. Disclosure of electricity products—Lessons learnt from consumer research as guidance for energy policy. Energy Policy 2003, 31, 1459–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEER 2012. Draft Work Programme 2013 of the Council of European Energy Regulators. Available online: http://www.energy-regulators.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_CONSULT/CLOSED%20PUBLIC%20CONSULTATIONS/CROSSSECTORAL/2013%20Work%20Programme/CD/C12-WPDC-22–06_WP%202013-PC_18-Jun-12.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2012).
- Miller, R.D.; Ford, J.M. Shared Savings in the Residential Market: A Public/Private Partnership for Energy Conservation; Energy Task Force, Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Aasen, M.; Westskog, H.; Wilhite, H.; Lindberg, M. The EU electricity disclosure from business perspective—A study from Norway. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7921–7928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC 2013. Homepage of Citizens’ Energy Forum of the European Council. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/forum_citizen_energy_en.htm (accessed on 30 August 2012).
- Lise, W.; Timpe, C.; Jansen, J.C.; ten Donkelaar, M. Tracking electricity generation attributes in Europe. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 5855–5864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timpe, C. A European Standard for the Tracking of Electricity. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/e-track_summary_slides.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Klimscheffskij, M. Tracking of Electricity in the EU—From Directives to Practice. Master Thesis, School of Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=en (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- 2012/27/EC. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Repealing Directive 2003/54/EC. Available online: https://www.energy-community.org/pls/portal/docs/36275.PDF (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- AIB 2011. Annual Report 2010. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/NEWSEVENTS/Annual_reports (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- AIB 2013a. EECS Rules. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/EECS/EECS_Rules (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- AIB 2013b. The AIB Hub. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/FACTS/EECS%20Registries/AIB_Hub (accessed on 11 December 2012).
- AIB 2013c. AIB Members. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/FACTS/AIB%20Members/AIB%20Members (accessed on 1 August 2012).
- EEX 2015. Guarantees of Origin—EEX Power Derivatives. Available online: https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/derivatives-market/guarantees-of-origin#!/2015/03/19 (accessed on 24 March 2015).
- Raadal, H.; Dotzauer, E.; Hanssen, O.J.; Kildal, H.P. The interaction between electricity disclosure and tradable green certificates. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iisd 2012. Trends in investor claims over feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. News article of International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available online: http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/07/19/trends-in-investor-claims-over-feed-in-tariffs-for-renewable-energy/ (accessed on 1 December 2012).
- Ref 2011. Turkey implements feed-in tariff, Spain cuts. News article of Renewable Energy Focus. Available online: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/14994/turkey-implements-feed-in-tariff-spain-cuts/ (accessed on 13 October 2012).
- Reuters 2010. Czech government adopts a plan to rein in renewables. News article of Reuters. Available online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/25/us-czech-renewables-idUSTRE67O4DP20100825?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FUSgreenbusinessNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Green+Business%29&utm_content=Google+Reader (accessed on 20 September 2012).
- Italy cuts FiTs in an effort to balance renewables growth. News article of Renewable Energy Focus. Available online: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/25145/italy-cuts-fits-in-an-effort-to-balance-renewables-growth/ (accessed on 13 October 2012).
- Bird, L.; Wüstenhagen, R.; Aabakken, J. A review of international green power markets: Recent experience, trends, and market drivers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2002, 6, 513–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansla, A.; Gamble, A.; Juliusson, A.; Gärling, T. Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2007, 36, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics on switching customers in Austria 2013. Unpublished material.
- Sogge, C.V.; Øen, J. Klima for Redusert Strøm for Bruk? En Focus Gruppe Studie I Spenningsfeltet Mellom Forbruk Og Miljø, Kunnskap Og Verdier. Master Thesis, University of Life Science, Ås, Norway, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- AIB 2015. AIB statistics. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/FACTS/Market%20Information/Statistics (accessed on 20 April 2015).
- PWC 2009. Green Electricity Making a Difference: An International Survey of Renewable Electricity Labels. Available online: https://www.pwc.dk/da/publikationer/assets/green-electricity-making-a-difference.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2015).
- RE-DISS 2012a. Best Practice Recommendations for the implementation of Guarantees of Origin and other tracking systems for disclosure in the electricity sector in Europe. Available online: http://reliable-disclosure.org/ (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- RE-DISS 2012c. Country Profiles. Available online: http://www.reliable-disclosure.org/documents/ (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Klimscheffskij, M. Electricity Residual Mix Calculation According to the RE-DISS Project—Methodology of Residual Mix Calculation. Appendix to the RE-DISS Best Practice Recommendations. 2012. Available online: http://reliable-disclosure.org/ (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- Raadal, H.L.; Nyland, C.A.; Hanssen, O.J. Calculation of residual mixes when accounting for the EECS (European Electricity Certificate System)—The need for a harmonised system. Energies 2009, 2, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RE-DISS 2012b. European Residual Mixes 2011. Available online: http://www.reliable-disclosure.org/upload/147-RE-DISS_2011_Residual_Mix_Results_v1_1.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2015).
- RE-DISS 2012d. In Country-specific Qualitative Data Sheets; RE-DISS project; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 15 October 2012.
- ENTSO-e 2012. Detailed Monthly Production Data for All Countries for a Specific Range of Time. Excel-Spreadsheet. Available online: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/data-portal/production/ (accessed on 1 May 2012).
- AIB 2013d. EECS Market Statistics. Association of Issuing Bodies. Available online: http://www.aib-net.org/portal/page/portal/AIB_HOME/FACTS/Market%20Information/Statistics (accessed on 31 October 2012).
- EEX 2013. Guarantees of origin—Overview. Available online: http://www.eex.com/en/goo (accessed on 17 November 2012).
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Klimscheffskij, M.; Van Craenenbroeck, T.; Lehtovaara, M.; Lescot, D.; Tschernutter, A.; Raimundo, C.; Seebach, D.; Timpe, C. Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project. Energies 2015, 8, 4667-4696. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8064667
Klimscheffskij M, Van Craenenbroeck T, Lehtovaara M, Lescot D, Tschernutter A, Raimundo C, Seebach D, Timpe C. Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project. Energies. 2015; 8(6):4667-4696. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8064667
Chicago/Turabian StyleKlimscheffskij, Markus, Thierry Van Craenenbroeck, Marko Lehtovaara, Diane Lescot, Angela Tschernutter, Claudia Raimundo, Dominik Seebach, and Christof Timpe. 2015. "Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project" Energies 8, no. 6: 4667-4696. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8064667